LL-L "Morphology" 2004.09.29 (01) [E]

Wed Sep 29 18:13:28 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.SEP.2004 (01) * 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 "Morphology" 2004.09.28 (13) [E]

Sam (or Sid?) wrote:
> Hi LLs:  Will some of you linguists discuss 'contractions' in the other
> Lowland languages?  From my limited knowledge of Yiddish and German, I
> don't recall such a form.  (But what do I know?)  Sometimes I ponder why
> 'ain't' has always been so dissonant to some ears; it's a very practical
> form nevertheless.  Regards Sam/Sid

German is full of contractions, but they're not so easy to spot because most
of them lack an apostrophe. Some examples:

im = in dem
zum = zu dem
beim = bei dem
vom = von dem
etc.

and, more colloquially and mostly in the spoken language:

vorm = vor dem
hinterm = hinter dem
überm = über dem
unterm = unter dem;
also: vors, hinters, übers, unters; vor'n, hinter'n, über'n, unter'n, auf'm,
auf'n, aufs

and many more like that - practically any preposition followed by a male or
neutral article; in some cases, even a female article (in dialects or slang
only: "Ich steige auffe (auf die) Leiter."

There are similar contractions in Lower Saxon as well: vöör'n, tau'n, etc.

Gabriele Kahn

----------

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

Thanks, Gabriele.

> There are similar contractions in Lower Saxon as well: vöör'n, tau'n, etc.

These and others like them are rather interesting in that they can be
ambigious both in the spoke and written language.

_Vör'n_, _to'n_ (_tau'n_) and _in'n_ can mean 'in front of the', 'to the'
and 'in(to) the' respectively.  These are contractions of _vör den_, _to
den_ (_tau den_) and _in den_, thus 'in front of the', 'to the' and 'in(to)
the', all masculine gender definite articles.

_Vör'n_, _to'n_ (_tau'n_) and _in'n_ can also mean 'in front of a', 'to a'
and 'in(to) a' respectively, thus containing indefinite articles (of all
three genders in most dialects).  These are contractions of _vör eyn_, _tou
eyn_ (_tau eyn_) and _in eyn_.

The versions with underlyingly definite articles seem to involve this
process: the vowel in _den_ is reduced/deleted to _d'n_, then the /d/
assimilates to the n, a regular process in most dialects (e.g., kind [kI.nt]
'child' -> kinner(s) ['kIn3`(s)] 'children', warden -> warn [va:n] 'to
become', gaarden -> gaarn [gQ:3`n] 'garden', vinden -> vinnen [vI.n(:)] 'to
find', vründ [frY.n(t)] 'friend' -> vründen -> vrünnen [frY.n(:)]
'friends').

In ANS spelling I spell _kinner_, _warden_, _gaarden_, _vinden_ and
_vründen_, because the assimilation rule applies regularly; i.e., the /d/ is
underlying.  Furthermore, I distinguish the two genders:

indefinite: vör 'n, tou 'n, in 'n *
definite: vör d'n, tou d'n, in d'n

* I write a space in all cases.  Note that indefinite _'n_ can appear
anywhere, i.e. its contraction is not dependent on a preceding word; e.g.,
_Ik hev 'n kind_ 'I have a child', _Daar vligt 'n vagel_ 'A bird is flying
there', _Hey geyv' Lina 'n appel_ 'He gave Lina an apple'.

Kumpelmenten,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Morphology

Sam asked about contractions in Lowlands languages other than English.

My first thought is that the peculiarities of this phenomenon in English are
that the contracted and uncontracted forms exist side by side and that the
"contracted" form is usually _not_ a contraction of the normal full form,
which may account for the persistence of the double forms.

The examples of contractions which spring to mind in other languages are
either perceived as dialect variants (eg reduction and loss of unstressed
"e" => schwa => zero in German) or progressively become standard, as with
loss of intervocalic "d" in Dutch: weder => weer, etc. Loss of final "n" in
Dutch is still in progress. Just outside the Lowlands area we have (had) MLS
beliben (ModHG bleiben) => bliva => ModSwed bli. These things are all
contractions even if we don't usually call them that.

John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Morphology

Since a second opinion is always valuable (especially when it's free) I
passed on the following comment by Sandy to a translator friend whom I met
in London but who has spent the last 20 years back in Fife:

>For the record, "am I no?" /@m V no:/ is normal in Scots for "am I not?",
and in many dialects there's also the perhaps less emphatic form "amn't I?"
/'@m=n? V/. "Aren't I?" and "ain't I?" are never used.<

Her answer is about Scottish English and therefore perhaps not what Sandy
meant but she says:

>I've always said "aren't I?" and thought that "amn't I?" sounded affected,
though it may possibly be normal usage in certain geographical areas. If I
was teaching I'd definitely go for "aren't I?".  "Am I no?" is very common
in Scotland, with differing stresses depending on the context and emphasis.
It wouldn't be used by someone
speaking "standard" English but would be heard throughout the spectrum from
Scots English to Lallans and probably the regional dialects as well (though
I'm no expert). The Scots also have a habit of using Scots
expressions to make fun of themselves and others. It's not unusual for
someone who speaks standard English to use this type of expression in an
exaggerated tone to poke fun at themselves or someone else. This is
almost the only context where I can imagine "am I not?" being used, though a
schoolteacher might use it
for emphasis. The humour may be very mild, but it's always there, as far as
I can see. I do think your correspondent is wrong to say "aren't I?" is
never used. I'd say "ain't I?" is consciously American.  Then of
course there's "innit?", which I think is ubiquitous among the young.<

BTW, when people used to go 'round inviting God to stap their vitals didn't
"ain't" belong to a posh register of English? Prinny, the Beaux and that
lot. Or is that something else the movie industry got wrong?

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

If time travel is possible it's already happened.

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