LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.14 (10) [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 10
=======================================================================

From: Justin Renquist <justinrenquist at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.14 (10) [E]


Interesting, but I disagree on the reason/root cause here.

I think there is confusion here between voice and unvoiced being in meaning 
when to me it is more related to speed of speech and what is following 
(particular consontants or vowels).

Example:

I have an apple (clearly here voiced v sound, f sound not possible in 
careful or sloppy speech)

I have to go (voiced v in careful speech, unvoiced f in "sloppy" speech due 
to "t" afterward)

Does anyone else agree that this is both related to syle of speech but 
perhaps even more importantly related to v-t combination? ph-t is 
easier/faster to pronouce than vv-t
>
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.

----------

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

Folks,

As you've been able to tell (probably much to your relief), I've been at the 
side lines in this thread.  So, from this somewhat safer position I posit 
the question (naive though it may be) if the case of the Scots auxiliary 
verb _hiv_ versus the full verb _hae_ (both apparently sharing a single 
source and to be translated as "have" in English) may shed any light on this 
problem.

Could it be that in some dialects at least English "have" has begun to move 
in the direction of independence, perhaps eventually ending up as *_ev_ [@v] 
and thus becoming a homophone of "of" (American English [@v])?  Apparently, 
this has happened already in some dialects.  What hampers its development in 
writing appears to be the usual orthography-related problems (opposition to 
orthographic changes).

Let's not forget either that "off" and "of" go back to the same source: 
"off" (< Old English _æf_) with the original meaning "away from," later also 
"from," then "belonging to" (similar to Dutch _van_, LS _vun_ ~ _von_ ~ 
_van_, German _von_, Scandinavian _af_ ~ _av_, etc.).  Clearly, this is 
another case of semantic shift leading to splits and different different 
functions.

Just thinking, and hoping to be too far away for any flung garbage to hit 
me.

Steven, I think that, if I understand him correctly, Justin makes a valid 
point above.  The examples in which you show "have" to have an [f] happen to 
precede "to," thus cannot have [v].  Use other examples in which "have" is 
an auxiliary, such as "You've done that," "Have you seen her?", or "I've 
never been there," and you'll see that auxiliary "have," too, has default 
[v], and the full verb "have," too, has the allophone [f] when it precedes a 
voiceless consonant; e.g., "I have six children," "Have some tea," "We have 
pride in ourselves."  Wrong?

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