LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.03 (03) [E]

Fri Jun 3 15:30:58 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.JUN.2005 (03) * 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 (ZeÃªuws)
=======================================================================

From: embryomystic at cogeco.ca <embryomystic at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.24 (06) [E/LS/Patentplatt]

Tom Carty wrote:
> Prospects of Gaelic and Maoiri are indeed bleak:
> modernisation is needed for them to get anywhere.

What is this modernisation that you refer to, and what does it require? I
don't know about Scottish Gaelic, but Irish is, I think, plenty modern.

Isaac M. Davis

----------

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (10) [E]

At 02:33 PM 06/02/05 -0700, you wrote:

>>   For example, "Thee have sinned most gravely, Brother"
>>(instead of correct "Thou hast sinned most gravely, Brother," if not
>>contemporary "You have sinned most gravely, Brother"),

There are still communities of Quakers in Pennsylvania and Ohio that use
"plain speech", i.e. the pronouns thee and thou.  I cannot tell you whether
they are "correct" or not, but they would say, "Thee has" (polite form) and
"Thou hast," (familiar form) and always "thee" in the objective case.  I
believe I may have told this story many years ago here, but there is a very
old legend among the Quakers about the Quaker farmer who was walking his
mule to town.  The mule balked and would go no further.  After trying
various forms of "Friendly Persuasion", the Quaker then said to the beast,
"Thou knows(t) that I would neither strike thee nor curse thee, but damn it
if thou dos(t) not move, I will sell thee to a Presbyterian, and he'll beat
the crap out of thee."  When Quakerism arose, the centre of the movement
was more central north, where people were known to use this form, and have
an aversion to the "you" form.  The Quakers were the only group, however,
to make a religion of the thee and thou forms, calling it "plain", noting
that all Biblical languages have some allowance for "familiar" and "polite"
forms.  Is this true, Ron?  I am now studying Hebrew more intensely under a
local Rabbi, and this does not appear to be true of this language.

Ed Alexander, Canada (and former Quaker)

----------

From: embryomystic at cogeco.ca <embryomystic at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (01) [E]

Heather wrote:

> If the irish want to move their language into the 21st
> century, they will ............... but I bet it's
> happening without the aid of focussed discussion - out on
> the streets and in the homes, which is where all
> language really lives and develops!

Well-put. And that's exactly it. None of these modest proposals, but ease of
use and a language that makes sense to its speakers.

Isaac M. Davis

----------

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <godsquad at cox.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (01) [E]

A sprachbund with English...

ChriostÃ³ir, that is how the languages of East and Southeast Asia are, at
least Chinese, Vietnamese and that sort. Chinese has the characters, which
screw people up royally. Once you get past the characters, you in lake wash
hair. It is very easy. After characters and tones, take off.
Ben

----------

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <godsquad at cox.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (10) [E]

"thou and thee had given way to your..."

Ron and all, when did English start to throw away its early modern ways and
to go to you you you? It seems so sudden to me. I hear the KJV bible and
Shakespeare in thees and thous, and I hear anything thereafter without them.
Why have we thrown away such roots? Also, how did we go from rolled r's in
ME to the half tap and the retroflex r in modern English?
Ben J. Bloomgren

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (05) [E]

Heather / CriostÃ³ir wrote:
> "If the Irish want to move their language into the 21st century, they
> will... but I bet it's happening without the aid of focused discussion -
out
> on the streets and in the homes, which is where all language really lives
> and develops!"
>
> Exactly. There is no need for nonsensical language academies enforcing new
> ways of speaking on Gaeilgeori. They will not work.

Now, this is exactly the point I was recently trying to make about Lower
Saxon and some other languages. Preservation only works if it comes from
within.

By the way, I think that part of the upcoming LL pop quiz should be spelling
CriostÃ³ir's name right without cutting an pasting... :-)

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (05) [E]

Are ye sure? I always thought <ye> was nominative, like Dutch <jij> LS
<ji>, and <you> obj., like D <jou> LS <ju>.
Remember that I noticed that in one of the Middle English Wrens of Rhyme
and corrected it that way.
But the way you put it now, it seems to be reversed...
Ingmar

Ronhard:
>...and used objective  "objective "ye" in place of >nominative "you"?
>For example "Oh, ye fickle people of Chestertown, what have ye done now?"
>instead of "Oh, you fickle people of Chestertown, what have you done now?"

----------

From: Glenn Simpson <westwylam at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties [e]

CriostÃ³ir,

Can't use IPA I'm afraid - just an amateur, will have to learn (or
'lorn'(pronounced 'lawn') as we say) I suppose. I try to keep things simple.

Ron - thanks for the detail on the words 'hoy(in)' and 'stot' - amazing
really, obviously words of great antiquity.

Keep ahaad,
Glenn

----------

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

My, my!  Aren't you guys just the little talkers today!

Ed (above):

> that all Biblical languages have some allowance for "familiar" and
> "polite"
> forms.  Is this true, Ron?

I'm not so sure, Ed.  I have a hunch that such distinctions on a lexical and
morphological come are pretty late in the development.  The Semitic and
Altaic languages, for example, have basically no such structural
distinctions (and Altaic does not have gender distinction either).  However,
you do not necessarily have to have lexical and morphological means of
expressing deference or its opposite.  You can express such distinctions by
means of tone and idiom, for example.

In their "purer" forms, many Low Saxon dialects in Germany have no such
distinctions either, just a range between casual and very casual.  Middle
Saxon (Middle Low German), however, does have a full range, and up until
about the mid-19th century you used plural _Jy_ as a polite pronoun, plus
honorifics such as _de heer_ ("the gentleman") and pejoratives like _hey_
("he") and _sey_ ("she") for 'you (of a lower class)'.  I assume that the
loss of distinction is due to the language having come to be confined to the
familiar sphere of home, farm, village and friends where such distinctions
are not made.  In more recent times, Germanization introduced into most
varieties a German-style pronoun series with its distinction, including _Se_
as the polite pronoun, in many varieties with the objective form _Se_ (<
German nominative _Sie_, accusative _Sie_), which, grammatically speaking,
ought to be _Jem_ or _JÃ¼m_.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (01) [E]

Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>This is pretty much it, except that you can use "to" to change the
structure:

The mother gave  the boy to her husband.
(The mother gave to her husband the boy. Iffy)<

What we have in English here is the adopting of BOTH parent grammars -
which is why English is so different/difficult in having more than one way
of saying the same thing.

I give the book to a boy     reflects exactly French grammar

Je donne le livre Ã  un garÃ§on

whereas the
 I gave a boy the book     reflects exactly German grammar (without endings
of course!)
Ich gebe dem Jungen das Buch

What is fascinating is that both French and German change their word order
when pronouns are used

Fr : Je le lui donne
Gm : Ich gebe es ihm

And English?

English with already two alternative structures says" Who wants any more?
Let's just substitute!"

I give it to him
I give him it

both of which mirror the structure of the original sentence using nouns.

----------

From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.02 (05) [E]

Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>I suppose the writer must have been over 40, <

Under 40, surely?   Bbecause when people who haven't learnt properly try to
apply grammar, they tend to over generalise - and make both of the errors
in your examples.

I have given up countingt he number of times I have heard  " Between you
and I"  on radio 4 - even Oliver in "The Archers" was heard to say
it!!!!!!!

People half remember having been taught never to say ' you and me' or ' me
and you' but always ' you and I' - so only half understanding grammar and
not at all understanding the difference  between a subject and a
prepositional phrase, over-generalise and say both   " You and I know what
we are talking about"  but unfortunately also " Between you and I I think
it's the school's fault"
Only of course they wouldn't have known whether or not to use an apostrophe
in the last sentence, so would ahve missed it out all together!

Cynical or what ?

Heather

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