LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.27 (02) [E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Sun Feb 27 23:30:01 UTC 2005
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2005 (02) * 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: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica" 2005.02.26 (01) [E]
Having just covered part of this for a teaching CDROM, I am intrigued by the
difference between Dutch and German
German uses nicht dürfen = mustn't, can't , to not be allowed to do
something
and nicht müssen = don't have to do something
What happened to 'dürfen' in Dutch / Lowlands generally?
Which other Lowland languages have the construction literally to have
to = must ?
re the synonyms:
Practically all modals verbs have two meanings in English = one of which
usually ends in 'to'
können = can, am able to, know how to
dürfen = may, am allowed to
müssen = must , to have to
wollen = wish, want to
sollen = should , ought to, am to
mögen = like, like to
English verbs are surely reknowned for their unlikely use of alternative
auxiliaries e.g. alternative Imperfect tense with 'would' : Whenever I was
in town, I would visit my Grannie
Unlikely present tense : I have been living here for 13 years
As a Modern Languages teacher I can tell you we have HUGE difficulties in
getting English speakers to look beyond the 'look' of the words at the
function of any verb. They see 'would' and immediately think 'Aha
Conditional' or 'have been' = "Aha Perfect!"
Heather
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar
Hi, Heather!
You've raised interesting points, as usual.
When you say "German," I assume you mean *Standard* German. There are
dialectical differences, especially in the dialects of the North, derived
from Missingsch German (M) dialects that come with Low Saxon (LS, Low
German) substrates.
> können = can, am able to, know how to
(Cognates: Eng. can, D. kunnen)
LS: könen, M: könn(en) = can, am able to, know how to
> dürfen = may, am allowed to
LS: dörven ~ dröffen, M: döäfm = may, be allowed to
> müssen = must , to have to
(Cognates: Eng. must, D. moeten)
LS: möten, M: müssn = must , have to
> wollen = wish, want to
(Cognates: Eng. will, D. willen)
LS: willen, M: wolln = wish, want to, intend to
> sollen = should , ought to, am to
(Cognates: Eng. shall, D. zullen)
LS: schölen ~ sölen, M: solln (present) = must, shall, will
LS: schull(st/en) ~ sull(st/en), M: sollde(st)/solldn (preterite) = should
have, ought to
> mögen = like, like to
(Cognates: Eng. may, D. mogen)
LS: mögen, M: mögen = like, like to, may (possibly), likely to (= Eng. may)
> German uses nicht dürfen = mustn't, can't , to not be allowed to do
> something
>
> and nicht müssen = don't have to do something
Very true. However, in LS and M it isn't quite as clear-cut as all that,
being somewhere in between, or a bridge:
(1)
LS: nich dörven ~ nich dröffen, M: nich dürfm = mustn't, can't, not
permitted to
LS: Dat dröfst (du) nich an-roygen/an-vaten.
M: Das daafsu nich amfassn.
You're not allowed to touch it/that.
(2)
LS: nich möten, M: nich müssn = (1) don't have to, (2) mustn't, can't, not
permitted to
(* * = emphasis, main stress)
LS: Dat *mutst* du nich an-roygen/an-vaten.
M: Das *muss(t)* du nich amfassn.
You don't have to touch it/that.
LS: Dat muts(t) du nich *an-roygen/an-vaten*.
M: Das mussu du nich *amfassn*.
You musn't touch it/that.
Note:
LS: nich bruken, M: nich brauchen = need (to), don't have to
(Cognates: G. nicht brauchen "need/require not")
LS: Dat bruukst du nich an-roygen/an-vaten.
M: Das brauchsu nich amfassn.
You don't have to touch it/that.
But also:
LS: Dat bruukst du nich (partuu) an-roygen/an-vaten.
M: Das brauchsu nich (umbedink) amfassn.
You don't (absolutely) need/have to touch it/that.
Also:
LS: nödig hebben, M: nödig haben = 'need to (as a requirement)'
(Cognates: D. nodig hebben, G. nötig haben = benötigen 'need', 'require')
LS: Du hest dat nich nödig dat du dat an-vaten dayst. ~
LS: Du hest dat nich nödig dat an tou vaten.
M: Du hassas nich nödig, dassu das amfassn tust. ~
M: Du hassas nich nödig, das anssufassn.
You don't (absolutely) need/have to touch it/that.
Your life doesn't depend on you touching it/that.
Note again:
> mögen = like, like to
(Cognates: Eng. may, D. mogen)
LS: mögen, M: mögen = like, like to, may (possibly), likely to (= Eng. may)
LS: Dat magst du nich an-roygen/an-vaten.
M: Das machsu nich amfassn.
(1) You may/must not touch it/that.
(2) You may/might not touch it/that.
(3) You don't like/intend to touch it/that.
Confusing?
Here's another one:
German _mögen_ ('may') has the Yiddish (Y) cognate מעגן _megn_, which means
'may', 'be permitted to', as does German _dürfen_. The Yiddish auxiliary
verb for 'must' is מוזן _muzn_, cognate of German _müssen_ and LS _möten_.
However, in my experience מוזן _muzn_ isn't used as much as דאַרפֿן _darfn_,
whose German cognate is _dürfen_, LS _dörven_ ~ _dröffen_, and LS _mögen_;
e.g.,
G: Du darfst essen.
Y: Du megst esn.
LS: Du magst/dröfst eten.
You may (= are permitted to) eat.
G: Du musst essen.
Y: Du muzst esn.
LS: Du mutst eten.
You may eat.
G: Du musst essen.
Y: Du darfst esn.
LS: Du mutst eten.
You must eat.
> As a Modern Languages teacher I can tell you we have HUGE difficulties
> in getting English speakers to look beyond the 'look' of the words at the
> function of any verb. They see 'would' and immediately think 'Aha
> Conditional' or 'have been' = "Aha Perfect!"
You're absolutely right again. I remember it very well from my school days.
Here's another one:
"I had the picture framed."
To speakers of German and related languages it sounds like "I had framed the
picture," as in G. _Ich hatte das Bild eingerahmt_, M. _Ich hadde das Bild
eingerahmt_, L.S. _Ik har dat bild in-raamd_.
You would use _lassen_ and _laten_ 'to let' > 'to cause to' > 'to make' to
render "I had the picture framed": G. _Ich hatte das Bild einrahmen
lassen_, M. _Ich hadde das Bild einrahm gelassn_, L.S. _Ik har dat bild
in-ramen laten_.
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.
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list