LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.15 (02) [E]

Thu Dec 15 16:56:31 UTC 2005

======================================================================
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)
=======================================================================

15 December 2005 * Volume 02
=======================================================================

From:  "Steven Hanson" <hanayatori at sbcglobal.net>
Subject:  LL-L "Grammar"

Justin Renquist said:
"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)"

Believe me, I thought the devoicing was due at first to the following 
unvoiced consonant.  That's why I came up with an example like "I have tons 
to do."  The "have" is still voiced, in spite of the following unvoiced 
sound.    Now, mind you, I can speak only for the language as it comes out 
of my mouth.  Even in slow, deliberate speech, I would never voice the sound 
in something like "I have to go."  Rather I would lengthen the vowel - I 
hae:f to go.

Ron said:
"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?"

Quite a valid point indeed.  However, I do voice "have" in these last three 
examples.

----------

From:  heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.14 (10) [E]

Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>
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<

Yes !
Very definitely

Heather

----------

From:  Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.14 (10) [E]

> 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.
>
[v] deletion in scots is normal and often both forms of many words are
found, for example "silver" and "siller", "hervest" and "hairst". so
"hae" and "hiv" could be said to be different pronunciations of the same
word. theyre both used in my dialect and idiolect and are
interchangeable although sometimes one form seems more usual in a
certain position than the other.

as an auxiliary the [h] is deleted in both forms, and the vowel changes:

[he:] > [V]
[hIv] > [Vv]

since these always occur in unstressed positions in speech the [V]
usually sounds more like a schwa though still coloured with a slight /V/.

Thus we have:

wad a ['wIdV]
wadna a ['wIdnI,V]

wad'v   ['wIdVv]
wadna'v ['wIdnI,Vv]

as you see, theres a definite difficulty with the spelling <wadna'v>. it
would be more clearly written <wadna uv>. so perhaps this is better:

wad uv
wadna uv

we cant use "of" as this is "o" in scots.

i should say that the "would of" problem tends not to arise in scots as
scots writers normally just write the "hae" forms and leave
pronunciation to the reader. but yes, there does seem to be a scots
equivalent of "would of" and unlike in english, a clear spelling of it
doesnt involve a homonym but makes the "of" a word in itself.

> 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?

"hif" [hIf] in scots is only used in the phrase "hif tae", meaning
"must", and then only in the positive. as always there are two forms:

"We'll hae tae wait"
"We'll hif tae wait"

but:

"We'v no tae dae that." (but more usually, i think, "We'r no tae dae that").

in scots, at least, theres no [v] > [f] before voiceless consonants:

"We hiv pies an we hiv sassiges" or "We'v pies an we'v sassiges"

sandy fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From:  Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.14 (10) [E]

interesting article on the uk governments new requirements for teaching
children to read, as was mentioned in a recent posting (by heather, i
think):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4493260.stm

sandy fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

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

Steven (above):

> Quite a valid point indeed.  However, I do voice "have" in these last 
> three examples.

Interesting ... And so do I, come to think of it.  Oops!

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