LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.22 (01) [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)
=======================================================================

22 December 2005 * Volume 01
=======================================================================

From: Jan Strunk <strunkjan at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (12) [E]

Hello Lowlanders,

Justin wrote:
> I do however agree that colloquially "haff to," hafta" are possible for
> "have to" but that "have 2" for "I have 2 of them" can never be unvoiced,
> even colloquially. I believe this is due to "two," and its vowel sound not
> being able to be shortened to a schwa sound as is possible with "to,"
> which in turn, contributes to the stress and intonation pattern of "have
> to" being shortened to "hafta" or haff to.

I believe Justin might be on to something here. I think it might be the
reduction
of "to" which "cliticizes" onto the preceding word that causes the unvoicing
of
"v". One factor that is always underestimated is simple cooccurence
frequency.
If words occur together very often they develop idiosyncratic "bonding"
behavior.
Even if their stressed forms are pronounced and written the same.

Consider the pronoun "ihr" in Ruhr German (a German dialect on a heavy Low
Saxon substratum).
It can either be 3rd person feminine singular dative or 2nd person plural
nominative as in:

1. Ich gib ihr                         morng        dat Auto.   (dative)
    I    give 3.SG.F.DAT        tomorrow    the car
    "I'll give her the car tomorrow."

2. Ihr                 seid do bekloppt. (nominative)
    2.PL.NOM   are   ...  crazy
    "You are really crazy!"

The interesting fact is that although the stressed forms are exactly alike,
only the nominative plural
pronoun can be cliticized onto the verb in the form of "a" (centralized). (=
is used to indicate a clitic rather than an affix)

3. Habta                        noch n bisken Zeit?
    Have=2.PL.NOM    still    a  little    time?
    "Do you still have a little time?"

This does not work with "ihr" as a dative singular pronoun.

4. * Ihr                   habta                                    nix
geschickt.
       2.PL.NOM     have=3.SG.FEM.DAT         nothing   sent
       "You have sent her nothing."

My main hypothesis is that the combination "verb + feminine singular dative
pronoun" is simply much less frequent
than the combination "verb + subject pronoun" and therefore cliticization is
not possible (yet).
Effects like this one have also been suggested for cliticization of articles
in Swiss German e.g. by Damaris Nübling.

Note by the way that cliticization is possible with the feminine singular
accusative pronoun "sie" or "se".

5. Ihr habt=se                            nich gesehen, odda?
    You have=3.SG.FEM.ACC  not   seen, or?
    "You have not seen her, have you?"

As "have" in the sense of "must" always cooccurs with a "to" and is
frequently used. It is quite likely that a bond
between the two will form also phonologically and it is also likely that
this form becomes separated from
"have" as a full verb expressing possession and so on.

Gued gaon!

Jan Strunk
strunk at linguistics.rub.de

----------

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (12) [E]


  From: Justin Renquist
  Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (08) [D/E]

  I disagree vehemently here. In my mind, it is optional and always a
  slang/colloquial speech pattern to say "haff to," hafta" or similar
  combinations with unvoiced "f" sound when meaning "have to."

  In correct spoken English, the above is *always* incorrect and 
sub-standard.
  The only correct combination is "have to" pronounced with a voiced "v" 
sound
  in all senses including must, have 2 etc.

  I do however agree that colloquially "haff to," hafta" are possible for
  "have to" but that "have 2" for "I have 2 of them" can never be unvoiced,
  even colloquially. I believe this is due to "two," and its vowel sound not
  being able to be shortened to a schwa sound as is possible with "to," 
which
  in turn, contributes to the stress and intonation pattern of "have to" 
being
  shortened to "hafta" or haff to.

  I hope no one is suggesting that "haff" is anything other than
  colloquial/slang English!

  Justin

  Justin,
  I accept that these uses are incorrect Standard English, but I dispute 
that they are therefore "sub-standard"; "non-standard" is the better term. 
And they don't effect understanding, which was my point earlier regarding 
the "th" sound.  I'm sure, despite my best efforts, that my German is 
heavily accented (though not, apparently obviously English - I was onced 
asked where in Switzerland I come from!), but they understand me.  When they 
don't, I just try harder and speak more clearly till I get to something they 
do understand.  Most English speakers know what "hafta" means, and for that 
matter, most Standard speakers actually say it when speaking quickly, even 
if they'd never admit it.

  Paul
----------

From: Roger Hondshoven <roger.hondshoven at telenet.be>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (03) [E]

Justin Renquist wrote:

----- Original Message ----- >
>" Ingmar was indeed incorrect on this account. One would *never* pronounce
in
> standard native English "it isss terrible", only "it iz terrible" is
> possible. However as noted, if you shorten to "it's" then the s sound
always
> remains "ss" regardless of what follows. The word "is" (he is, she is, it
> is) in English can *never* be pronounced "iss."
>
> This voiced/unvoiced s sound (knowing which one to use) is a common
mistake
> made by non-native speakers of English, but I have found it especially
> prevalent amongst Dutch speakers of English - and I think this is because
> the "s" sound in Dutch is somewhat blurrier than in English (Dutch
unvoiced
> s sounds sometimes a bit like approaching English "sh" to my ear, and
> sometimes even a bit voiced like zsh).
>
> This is no cruel criticism of Dutch speakers of English, only a liguistic
> observation. I wish I could speak Dutch even half as well as most Dutch
> people speak English! :"

After reading this message I feel reassured. Some postings from other
contributors to the controversy had made me feel pretty insecure as to the
way I, as a Flemish speaker of English, have spoken English most of my life.
What Justin states corresponds exactly to what I learned and what I taught
my students.

Best regards,

Roger Hondshoven

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (08) [E]

> From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (03) [E]
>
> Otherwise education is all about learning the accepted standard of
> written
> language.
>
And here's me thinking I went to school to learn maths, history,
chemistry, biology and many other exciting things!

>
> And that includes all those people whose attitude to life is " Why should
> anyone tell me what to do" ........................

Why does it? I'm not your pupil, you can't just make a statement and
leave it at that - you have to explain your thinking.

There does of course come a point where if you don't stay within certain
boundaries, your meaning becomes unclear. However, using "sumfink"
"nuffink" etc doesn't make your meaning unclear, while it's quite
possible to be not imprecisely the diametrical opposite of a paragon of
lucid prose whilst declining to trespass beyond the circumscribed
parameters of Fowler's English usage.

Someone said to me a while ago that "it's a lot easier to be eccentric
if you're rich". And as I was saying recently, sticking to
Fowler-approved language is mainly a commercial proposition. If you're
an HR person receiving a letter from a job applicant full of "sumfinks"
and "nuffinks" you might well decide not to offer them an interview (and
you might still be making the wrong decision!), but I bet if you were a
fundraiser receiving a letter from a known millionaire philanthropist,
you'd soon decide that you'd rather receive "sumfink" than "nuffink",
whatever her writing style!

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (12) [E]

> From: Justin Renquist <justinrenquist at hotmail.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (08) [D/E]
>
> In correct spoken English, the above is *always* incorrect and
> sub-standard. The only correct combination is "have to" pronounced
> with a voiced "v" sound in all senses including must, have 2 etc.
>
> [...]
>
> I hope no one is suggesting that "haff" is anything other than
> colloquial/slang English!

I really think you have to define your terms - there's not much meaning
in what you've said here! What is "correct spoken English" to you? What
exactly makes a thing "slang" or "colloquial"? By "colloquial" I'd
understand "as spoken rather than written", so how can colloquial mean
"not correct spoken English"?

Notice the from of your argument: "In correct spoken English, the above
is *always* incorrect and sub-standard." How can it be incorrect if it's
in correct English? Explain what you mean!

Why is it that the proponents of "correct" and "accepted" English find
it so difficult to put their points forward clearly? Why do they have to
resort to imprecations such as "sub-standard" and "like spitting in the
street"? I would sooner have someone arguing lucidly with "would of"s,
"hafta's" and "summinks" than simply get slagged off in lieu of a
discussion.

In most other fields the idea that "this is the way we do it and
everything else is wrong" would immediately arouse suspicion. But here
some people seem to think no explanation is required.

This isn't a "let's uphold language standards" list, it's a "let's talk
about languages" list. Everyone's entitled to voice their opinion but
don't think you don't have to explain yourself just because it's
"accepted wisdom" or "written in Fowler's". You do.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

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