LL-L "Syntax" 2004.11.09 (08) [D/E]

Wed Nov 10 00:56:57 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.NOV.2004 (08) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Roger Hondshoven 2 <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.11.08 (01) [D/E]

Hello Ingmar,

Thanks for your reaction, which was a bit bewildering to me. Sorry, but I
beg to differ with you when you state that there is less French influence in
vocabulary but rather more in grammar and syntax. It is certainly at odds
with my experience and observations. Even in Standard Dutch there are an
enormous number of words derived from French . Some have been altered
substantially in the course of the centuries, but many other loanwords have
only slightly adapted in form or pronunciation. That is even more so in
Flemish dialects. I could cite hundreds of examples. You are right, of
course, when you point out that  French used to be the preponderate language
in Belgium, in many towns even the official language. That was the situation
in the latter part of the 18th century, in the 19th century, up to about
1930. Since then things have changed drastically, although French influence
is still strong. As a reaction to the predominant situation of French some
tried to push back French words, replacing them, in a gush of purism,  by
words deemed to be better Dutch. To give but one example: 'bestuurder' (of a
school) was considered the correct word up to about fifty years ago;
nowadays everybody says 'directeur' . If I am not wrong, I might say that
the same phenomenon was active in Afrikaans.
Anyway, I cannot think of any cases of French influence in grammar and
syntax. Of course I can only be so assertive in connection with the dialects
of Brabant (and perhaps  Limburg). I have to admit that I am not steeped in
West-Flemish dialects. I am anxious to hear your arguments proving the
contrary. I hope you don't mind my having a different opinion on that
matter.
PS. By the way, the negative particle 'en' (with the so-called "doffe e")
was already used in Middle Dutch (as 'en, ne') and in Old Saxon (ni, ne).

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Roger Hondshoven

 From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
> Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.11.07 (02) [E]
>
> >>>>> Bedankt voor de reactie en uitleg, Roger.
> What I meant was not that the Melkwezer negation particle _en/ne_ are
loans
> from French,
> but that they might have been preserved longer in this dialect because
> French has _ne_ too,
> and French is a neighbouring language which has had, I you said, a lot of
> influence on the
> Melkwezer dialect, AND French has been the official language in Belgium
and
> before
> that in Brabant for ages. Even in the official Dutch of Flanders/Belgium,
we
> still can recognize
> a lot of French influence, especially in the grammar and syntax too; less
so
> in the vocabulary
> because of the purist policy of keeping out French loan words as much as
> possible.
> But those loans words are much easier to recognize than loan grammatical
> constructions etc.
> So, if the official, heavily controlled standard language already shows
> these French influences,
> an archaic dialect certainly will too...
> But maybe I'm wrong, it's just one of my theories made up by a Dutchman
with
> a Flemish mother
>
> Vriendelijk gegroet, Ingmar Roerdinkholder
>
> > From: Roger Hondshoven 2 <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
> > Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.10.24 (03) [D/E]
> >
> > Hi Ingmar,
> >
> > Thanks for your reflexion on my posting about a double negative.
> > Though Melkwezer is situated pretty close to the language border I don't
> > think the use of 'en' as a negation can be attributed to French
influence.
> > French influence has indeed  been strong in that dialect as in all other
> > dialects in Brabant (Belgium), but the inluence can only be ascertained
in
> > the field of vocabulary, never - as far as I can judge now - in
> grammatical
> > aspects.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > > From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
> > > Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.10.18 (02) [E]
> > >
> > > >>>>> Hey Roger
> > >
> > > Sounds interesting! Would it be possible that in parts of Flemish
> speaking
> > > Belgium this _en/ne_ negative particle
> > > was preserved so much longer because of French influence;like  _ne_ in
> Je
> > > ne sais pas? I mean Melkwezer must
> > > be not too far from the Dutch/French (or Flemish/Walloon) language
> border,
> > > and standard French has been the
> > > official languages of the area so long, and the Brabant capital is
> > primarily
> > > French-speaking Brussels...
> > >
> > > The Geteland example you gave  _ich zeg oech da ich da ni en wil_  =
St.
> > > Dutch ik zeg u dat ik dat niet wil
> > > looks quite Limburgish to me with all its  ch's. Is this part of
Brabant
> > > already Limburgophone maybe? (Ingmar)
> > >
> > > > From: Roger Hondshoven 2 <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
> > > > Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.09.05 (03) [E]
> > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > In connection with 'en/ne' I would like to add that in Brabant 'en'
is
> > > used
> > > > as a negative particle together with another negative word. From the
> > > dialect
> > > > that I researched, the dialect of Melkwezer, a "Getelands" dialect
in
> > > > East-Brabant, I may quote a couple of examples: as der ni en
> > zwecht..'als
> > > je
> > > > niet zwijgt..', ich zeg oech da ich da ni en wil 'ik zeg je dat ik
dat
> > > niet
> > > > wil' . The 'en' is used only sporadically today and then by older
> > people.
> > > It
> > > > is my impression that  the word is only used before monosyllabic
> verbal
> > > > forms. In an article in Taal en Tongval (1950) J.L. Pauwels arrived
at
> a
> > > > similar conclusion for the dialect of Aarschot
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > From: Roger Hondshoven 2 <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
> > Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.10.24 (03) [D/E]
> >
> > Hi Ingmar again,
> >
> > I forgot to react to your last paragraph where you noted " The Geteland
> > example you gave  ich zeg oech da ich da ni en wil  = St. Dutch ik zeg u
> dat
> > ik dat niet wil looks quite Limburgish to me with all its  ch's. Is this
> > part of Brabant already Limburgophone maybe?"
> > Melkwezer is indeed quite close to the Brabant-Limburg border and
Limburg
> > influence is undeniable. In the book I published last year "Woordenboek
> van
> > het Melkwezers Een Getelands dialect" I enumerated the cases of eastern
> > (German) influence. I found as many as 16, far fewer than for instance
in
> > the dialect of Tongeren (not so far from the Dutch-Limburg border), but
> > considerably more than in the dialect of Tienen (about 10 km west of
> > Melkwezer), which also belongs to the Getelands. By the way, Getelands
has
> > always been the battleground where eastern and western language features
> > have been vying with one another for supremacy.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Roger

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================