LL-L "Idiomatica" 2005.02.26 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.FEB.2005 (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
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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica" 2005.02.25 (05) [E]

In addition to my message about Dutch hoeven te, moeten, etc.

'Hoeven te' in combination with 'niet/geen' is used as negation of 'moeten'

'Moeten' itself can combine with 'niet' too, but than it has a different
meaning, should not:

je moet aardig zijn tegen hen          - you have to be nice to them
je hoeft niet aardig te zijn tegen hen - you don't have to be nice to them
but:
je moet niet aardig zijn tegen hen     - you shouldn't be nice to them

je moet nieuwe schoenen kopen          - you have to buy new shoes
je hoeft geen nieuwe schoenen te kopen - you don't have to buy new shoes
but:
je moet geen nieuwe schoenen kopen     - don't buy new shoes!

and with 'mogen'

je mag niet aardig zijn tegen hen      - you can't be nice to them
je mag geen nieuwe schoenen kopen      - you're not allowed to buy nw shoes

So, 'moeten' has a negative counterpart 'niet hoeven te'; and 'niet
moeten' has its own meaning. But in Dutch speaking Belgium, i e "Flanders"
many people use 'niet moeten' in stead of 'niet hoeven te' as negative
of 'moeten'. There the following sentence has both meanings:

je moet geen nieuwe schoenen kopen - you don't have to buy new shoes, and
 "   "   "     "        "      "   - you shouldn't buy new shoes.

I don't know if in normal Flemish Standard Dutch the hoeven te-construction
is used too, that a question for our Belgium Lowlanders...

Ingmar

I wrote:
>But what is kind of special in Dutch, is that there is a special negative
>verb 'hoeven te' for 'not needing to do something', and it can only be
>used together with 'niet/geen' =not/no:
>
>ik moet dat doen            - I have to do that
>ik hoef dat niet te doen    - I don't have to do that
>
>je moet nieuwe kleren kopen - you need to buy some new clothes
>je hoeft geen nieuwe kleren te kopen - you don't need to buy ...
>
>wij moeten boos zijn op haar- we have to be angry with her
>wij hoeven niet boos te zijn op haar - we don't have to be angry with her
>
>btw, now I realize 'hoeven te' can be used with 'maar' only/just too:
>
>hij hoeft het maar te vragen en ik help hem - he just has to ask and I'll
>help him
>
>but, it is NOT possible to say, e.g:
>
>*ik hoef te gaan slapen     - I have to go to sleep
>*hij hoeft harder te werken - he should work harder
>
>as we can see, 'hoeven te' is translated many a time with 'have to', and
>the two look quite alike too. But 'have' in Dutch is 'hebben', and the
>construction 'hebben te' appears too:
>
>Je hebt naar mij te luisteren! you have to listen to me! (order)
>Dat heeft ie maar te doen.     he simply must do that! (obligation)
>
>Ingmar Roerdinkholder

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica" 2005.02.25 (08) [E]


Ben Bloomgren wrote:
"Hello, all, I was wondering about the English concept of needing to do
something. Do the other Lowlands languages have such a concept, or do they
relegate themselves to things like "Must and ought?""

I do not know about other Lowlandic languages, but within English there is a
strong shift along the lines of the following:

May > can e.g., Can I have a cup of tea? for May I have a cup of tea?
Will > might e.g., I might go out tonight for I will go out tonight.
Ought > should e.g. I should for I ought to.

This process is especially advanced in Australia in my experience,
particularly in the case of the shift of will > might.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

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