LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (09) [E]

Sun Oct 3 22:00:36 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.OCT.2004 (09) * 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: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (04) [E]

Ron wrote:
> As you said, the use of "shall" is very restrictive in American English.
> But what sounds truly foreign, very archaic in North America is "I
shan't."
> I haven't said and written that since my teen years.

Right... same here. I had even completely forgotten about that form,
although it was mandatory for me in school as well. Actually, I have heard
it used in American English, but only in the expression "I shan't be long".

So, what about our native speakers? Can anyone tell me if, when, and perhaps
why, "we shall" and "I shan't" got lost along the way?

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Tom Maguire <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (04) [E]

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>

>Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.02 (06) [E]
>
>Now hwere's something I have been wondering about for a long time. When I
>first started learning English in school, in the 1960s, we learned the
>following forms:
>
>I shall
>you, he, she, it will
>we shall
>you, they will
>
>My question: what about British English (with all its dialects and
flavours)
>today? Does everybody say "I will" now, or is "I/we shall" still
>appropriate?
>
>Gabriele Kahn
>
Though it usually sounds a bit out of date and conjures up biblical
injunctions such as "Thou shalt not kill!" I think it is still possible
to hear "shall"  in use today.
Take the example of the child who refuses to eat his food:
The mother says "Eat it!" the child refuses.
The mother then ups the stakes by saying "You will eat it." The child
refuses.
Before she takes more drastic action she says, "You shall eat it!"

The theoretical explanation of the differences between "will" and
"shall" is that they are two different modal verbs: "will" means
something like "want" and "shall" is the equivalent of "must". I think
that this model fits in with how people tend to use the two verbs.

Regards,

Tom

--
Carpe Diem.
-Visit Nlp in Education  http://www.xtec.es/~jmaguire
-Join Nlp-Education  mailto:nlp-education-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Grammar" [E]

> From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.02 (06) [E]
>
> Now hwere's something I have been wondering about for a long time. When I
> first started learning English in school, in the 1960s, we learned the
> following forms:
>
> I shall
> you, he, she, it will
> we shall
> you, they will

I remember asking my High School English teacher (in Scotland) about when to
use "shall" and when to use "will". Her explanation was rather complicated
and I just ignored it in the end - not that I ever lost any marks for what I
do, which is use "will" in all cases.

My opinion is that the usage varies widely between dialects of British
English, but I myself never use the word "shall" except for humorous effect.

One thing I'm sure about is that it's not really a matter of conjugation,
more a matter of what people speaking different dialects use the words to
mean. In some dialects I think one word is used to express intent, the other
to express a simple future. But for all I know the meanings might also vary
between dialects.

Certainly the distinction is not important for being able to express oneself
in either written or spoken English.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar

I wrote:

> In Lowlands Saxon (Low German), at least in the North Saxon dialects, the
> future tense is usually not distinguished from the present tense, unless
it
> needs to be distinguished.  The original way of expressing future tense is
> by use of _schölen_ ->
>
> 1st sing.: ik schal ~ sal (<schall> ~ <sall> [Sa.l] ~ [za.l])
> 2nd sing.: du schalst ~ salst (<scha(ll)s(t)> ~ <sa(ll)s(t)> [Sa.(l)s(t)]
~
>    [za.(l)s(t)])
> 3rd sing.: hey/sey/it~dat schal ~ sal (<schall> ~ <sall> [Sa.l] ~ [za.l])
> plural.: wy/jy/sey schöölt/schölen ~ söölt/sölen (<schöölt/schölen>
>    ~ <söölt/sölen>  [Sø.lt] ~ [zø.lt])
>
> So it is very similar to the traditional English system, also because
> _schölen_ can mean 'must', 'be obligated/expected to'.
>
> There are dialects in which this continues, but, supposedly under German
> influence, (G. _werden_ >) _warden_ (<warrn>) has been taking over from
> _schölen_.  _Warden_ means 'to become' in other contexts.
>
> 1st sing.: ik ward' (<warr> ~ <ward> [va:(d)])
> 2nd sing.: du wardst (<warrs(t)> ~ <wards(t)> [va:(t)s(t)])
> 3rd sing.: hey/sey/it~dat wardt (<warrt> ~ <ward> [va:t])
> plural.: wy/jy/sey wardt/warden (<warrt> ~ <ward> ~ <warrn>
>    [va:t] ~ [va:n])

I wonder if this has been was pricipitated by the fact that _schölen_
connotes 'must', 'be obligated/expected to', etc., more strongly than does
English "shall" (which seems to have lost its infinitive form), and that
there is more of a likelihood of ambiguitiy in its use than in the use of
_warden_; e.g.;

Ik schall wedderkamen.
(1) I'll come back.
(2) I've been told/ordered to come back. I'm supposed to come back.

Ik ward' wedderkamen.
(1) I'll come back.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================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.
======================================================================