LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.14 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 14 December 2005 * Volume 04
=======================================================================

From: "Steven Hanson" <hanayatori at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Language varieties


I think I have something to add to the discussion between Sandy and 
Jacqueline, I think, regarding the use of constructions such as "would of", 
something that in fact supports Sandy's usage of "of" as a variant of 
"have".  Pardon my not having the original texts at hand.

In my daily speech, I use two words written "have".  One is actually 
pronounced with a /v/ sound, while the other is pronounced with an /f/ 
sound.  The voiced version is used for possession: "I have tons to do 
today", or "I haven't got a clue."  The unvoiced version is used in examples 
such as:  "You just have to see this movie!  It's great!", or "You don't 
have to be such a party pooper!"

This difference strikes me as being similar to the different between the 
Dutch words hebben and hoeven, with the exception that my "haff" can be used 
in positive statements as opposed to hoeven, which can only be used in 
negative statements, if I'm not mistaken.  For example: Vandaag moet ik naar 
school.  Nee, dat hoef je niet te doen.

So, it seems very possible that with something like "would of/ov", we're 
dealing with an alternate form of "to have" used as a type of auxiliary 
verb. 

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