LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.28 (02) [E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Mon Feb 28 19:50:06 UTC 2005
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.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: davidab at telefonica.net.pe <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.27 (02) [E]
> 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_.
Both "I had the picture framed" and "I had framed the picture" can produce
the
same question: "Where is the picture I had framed?" difference being in
how 'had' is stressed.
David Barrow
----------
From: Jo Thys <Jo.Thijs1 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.27 (02) [E]
> From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
> What happened to 'dürfen' in Dutch / Lowlands generally?
>
> Which other Lowland languages have the construction literally to have
> to = must ?
Hei Heather,
Dürfen survived in Dutch as the word durven (to dare), but the (more)
original meaning as in Highgerman. 'dürfen', Middeldutch.'dorven' (to need
(to), behoeven) got lost lost because it had the same past tense as
'dorren' (durven, to dare, Limb. dorre), dorste, and took the meaning of the
latter. (van Dale).
Dutch litterally has the same ' to have to' construction in expressions as
'jij hebt te zwijgen', more compelling than 'jij moet zwijgen'.
There's also a negiation, used in the same way, unlike in English, 'jij
hebt dat niet te doen', 'meaning something like 'you have to do (not that)'.
'Te hebben te' is stronger than 'moeten' but the strongest obligation is
'zullen' e.g. 'Hij moet niet voetballen, hij zal voetballen!'.
Groeten
Jo Thys
----------
From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.27 (05) [E]
Reinhard, You wrote:
> LS: Dat magst du nich an-roygen/an-vaten.
> M [= Missingsch]: 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.
and:
> LS (D):
> Dat magst nich (doun)!
> (magst < magst du "mayest (thou)" -- 2nd sg. often used impersonally, like
> English "you" -- omission of the pronoun, as in Dutch, not being an option
> as far as I know)
>
> You can also render it this way:
> Dat dörvst/dröfst nich.
> Dat is nich verloyvd.
"Dat magst nich (doun)!" in the sense of "You may/must not do this!" is no
longer used in our local LS; it would always mean: ["One doesn't like/dare
to do it!"], specially "I do not dare to do it!".
"To be allowed or not..." we only use the second way: " Dat dörvst/dröfst
nich." or " Dat is nich verloyvd."
I really never heard people using it the first way; maybe it's somewhat
different in the special Hamburg-area (influenced by Missingsch??).
Greutens/sincerely
Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm
----------
From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.27 (02) [E]
Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>G: Du darfst essen.
Y: Du megst esn.
LS: Du magst/dröfst eten.
You may (= are permitted to) eat.<
mag / mochte : Is this where the English meaning of may / might
stems from?
Any idea what caused LS to choose / move towards mgen here rather than
drfen?
Does Frisian do it too?
I hadn't thought of 'to have something done' as another example of looking
beyond mere words.
I shall use that.
One could do a whole day's lecture on the uses of the verb 'have ' in
European languages!
Heather
----------
From: Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong <Dutchmatters at comcast.net>
Subject: Grammar
Hey Ron, you said about::
> Van wie mag dat niet? Dat mag niet van Moeder! (Who says I am not
> allowed to do this? Mother does!)
Hmm ... the second sentence is puzzling to me. How does it work? ("That
may not of mother") Does it mean "It (= the prohibition) doesn't apply to
mother"?
In LS (D) I might say:
Wou so (~ warüm) mag 'n dat nich? Mouder mag dat (wul)!
("How so (~ why) may one that not? Mother may that (well = too)!")
I think I have not explained myself well enough.
Verbal expressions like mogen van.... ( to be allowed by…. ) en moeten van……
( to be obliged to do something by…… )
always require me to mention the person who allows me to do something (in
this case Mother), or who forces me to do something (like the teacher in the
next sentence.) Ik wou zo graag buitenspelen, maar ik moet mijn huiswerk
eerst afmaken van de leraar.
( I would like to play outside, but the teacher told me to finish my
homework first.
I would translate your sentence “Wou so mag’n dat nich? Mouder mag dat
(wul)! as: “Waarom mag dat niet? Moeder mag het wel! ( This could be said
of a 14 year old boy who is not allowed to smoke while his Mother is a
smoker )
Re the difference between
De hond mag hier vrij rondlopen and
De hond kan hier vrij rondlopen
I would feel that in the first sentence somebody allows the dog to run free
in the second sentence it is possible for the dog to
run free ( Say there is no danger )
If I were to be precise, I would translate the sentence “I may go out at
night” as “Het is mogelijk dat ik vanavond uitga”
I thought your statements on the possibility of translating “Ik mag hem wel”
with both I rather like him and I rather love him very interesting. It has
always felt to me that a man can say “Ik mag hem wel” of another man without
a lot of ears giving it extra attention. If you say Ik houd van hem. That
means I love him. The verbal form Ik houd van… can be used with, cheese,
cats, swimming, children, husbands and a new pair of shoes ( in that
order ).
By the way I enjoy reading the Saxon that you and others bring forth. It
takes me waaaaayyyy back.
So here is a saying which I picked up in my youth. I can no longer say it in
Twents.
“Ieder sien meug sie de boer en kuste het varken onder de staart.
Tot de volgende keer.
Jacqueline
----------
From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.02.27 (02) [E]
Dear Heather & Ron,
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica"
> 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?
I cant help with the Dutch, but here's the Afrikaans - see below.
> 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'
German Afrikaans English
können kan can
kennen ken recognise (N English 'ken')
dürfen durf dare, may, am allowed to
müssen moet must , to have to
wollen wil will, wish, want to
sollen sal shall, should , ought to, am to
mögen mag might, may, like, like to
haften hoef need, cling to, (OE behoftian, 'stand in need
of')
Jy kan dit doen = you can do it
Ek durf dit nie doen nie - I dare not do it
Hy moet dit doen = he must do it
Wil jy dit doen? = will you do it?
Ek sal dit doen = I shall do it
Sy mag dit doen = she might do it (or may)
Julle behoef dit nie te gedoen het nie = You(all) aughtn't t have done it.
Yrs,
Mark
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar
Jonny, you wrote above:
> "Dat magst nich (doun)!" in the sense of "You may/must not do this!" is no
> longer used in our local LS; it would always mean: ["One doesn't like/dare
> to do it!"], specially "I do not dare to do it!".
Now that you mention it, this is how I, too, would understand it unless
another type of context would lead me to do otherwise. _Mögen_ as an
auxiliary verb (unlike the pretty clear full verb _mögen_ 'to like') is
still somewhat vague across dialects.
> I really never heard people using it the first way; maybe it's somewhat
> different in the special Hamburg-area (influenced by Missingsch??).
I don't think so. In fact, I seem to remember that more or less like in
your dialect there, but there are so many Hamburg dialects, even more than
one Missingsch ... Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, nobody in my extended
family spoke Hamburg Low Saxon; they had imported their various dialects,
and my father solidified his proficiency in the countryside. I would only
hear Hamburg LS outside my immediate circle, and you had to go out of your
way to hear it -- and even then many speakers had moved there from
elsewhere. This may have been more so in my part of town because it was
industrial and had long absorbed lots of immigrants, not only from
relatively far away but also from various parts of Northern Germany.
_Mögen_ as an auxiliary signalling permission *is* still used in various
dialects. I hear and read it used like that and wouldn't stumble over it in
the right context. I just checked a couple of dictionary, and they list
_dürfen_ as a gloss under _mögen_ . I have a feeling it's a bit of an
archaism, so to speak. Intuitively I would also use _mögen_ to mean 'like
to' or 'dare to', and _dröffen_ to mean 'may'.
Thanks for helping me focus, Jonny!
Heather (above):
> Any idea what caused LS to choose / move towards mgen here rather than
> drfen?
Please see my answer to Jonny above. Well, you may be right in assuming
that there was that shift, but it seems to be pretty old, considering also
Yiddish מעגן _megn_ 'may', 'allowed to' (and Yiddish descended from Rhenish
German).
In Old (High) German, 'may' and 'must' are both _muogan_, _muozan_ and
_skulan_, thus cognates of Modern German _mögen_ 'may', _müssen_ 'must' and
_sollen_ 'shall' respectively. Weird, huh? You can use _gilimpfan_ or
_girîsan_ specifically for 'must'. In Old Saxon, 'must' is _skulan_ (MG
_sollen_, LS _s(ch)ölen_, D _zullen_), and 'may' is _(bi)thurvan_ (= MG
_dürfen_, LS_dörven_ ~ _dröffen_ 'may') and also _môtan_ (MG _müssen_, LS
_möten_ 'must')! Old Frisian has _dura_, _thurva_ and _môta_ for 'may' and
_bihêra_ and _môta_ for 'must'. Gothic _(ga)motan_ is 'may' (be permitted
to) and _skulan_ is 'must' ... Old English _motan_ (> past "must") tends to
mean 'must', but it can also imply 'may!', as in _Swo mote hit wurðe!_ 'May
it be thus!', also Modern English dialectical "So mote it be!" for "Amen!"
But Old English _motan_ may also denote ability or possibility, as in very
late Old English or very early Middle English _He was so strang in his
selfe, þat he mott withstond any temptacion of þe devull_ 'He had such inner
strength that he was able to withstand any temptation of the devil'. I
suppose the shift here is 'must' > 'bound to' > 'able to'.
Maybe confusion goes way back to our ancestors. It sure seems so. I wonder
if all those semantic shifts are due to things like euphemistic substitutes,
such as Modern English advisory or cautionary "you don't want to ..." for
ordinary "don't (you) ...!", as in "You don't want to do that" for "Don't
(you) do that!" I suppose the "euphemism" implies something like "... if
you want to avoid trouble" or "... if you know what's good for you."
> mag / mochte : Is this where the English meaning of may / might
> stems from?
I believe so, from _magan_, usually used subjunctively. E.g., _Ne mæg ic her
leng wesan_ 'I may not be here long', 'May I not be here long!' (?), _Ne þe
deofel mey nefre cumen inne him_ 'May the devil not enter him!'
Jacqueline (above):
> By the way I enjoy reading the Saxon that you and others bring forth.
> It takes me waaaaayyyy back.
Well, I'm sure you added a few too many "a"s and "y"s there. ;-) It can't
be thaaat long. At any rate, it's my pleasure to help you down memory lane.
> “Ieder sien meug sie de boer en kuste het varken onder de staart.
:-D Nice! For the "benefit" of others, here's a translation.
"'To each his own,' said the farmer and kissed the pig under its tail."
We have plenty of this kind of saying farther east also, in fact all the way
east to the Polish border and beyond. I call them "humoristically extended
proverbs" ... But that's another thread.
But you mentioned _meug_ for 'likes', 'preference', 'choice'. This is a
nominal derivative (< _mage_) of _mag_ 'may'. We used it farther east too
(and I spell it _moeg'_, derived from _moege_, feminine, elsewhere _Möög(')_
and _Möge_) -- similar pronunciation to that of _meug_ I believe: [mø:.j] ~
[mø:C] ~ [mœ:.j] ~ [mœ:C].
And thanks for the Afrikaans info, Mark!
One of my personal favorites is imperative (moet nie >) _moenie ... nie!_.
Kumpelmenten,
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