LL-L "Grammar" 2005.06.04 (04) [D/E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Sat Jun 4 19:59:35 UTC 2005
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.JUN.2005 (04) * 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: Theo Homan <theohoman at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.06.04 (02) [E]
> From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
> Subject: Etymology
[...]
>Another fine Dutch verb is sometimes used here:
_muiken_
> (also _meuken_ and
> _muken_), denoting the softening of fruit (hence _ne
> meuk_ is a vault where
> such fruit is stored). The word has interesting
> family: meek (E)
> ("deemoedig", "ootmoedig" in Dutch), Old Norse
> _mjukr_ ("weak"), Old Irish
> _mocht_ ("soft") and Gothic _mukamodei_
> ("meekness").
>
> Meekness...aaaaah...key-value in the East...scoring
> high in the West during
> the Middle Ages...but now: gone forever?
>
> Kind greetings,
>
> Luc Hellinckx
Hallo Luc,
Eindelijk zie ik het woord 'meuken' weer eens terug.
In het nederlands zag ik het voor het eerst in een 17e
eeuws kookboek, dat in een recept vertelde dat je de
groente eerst moest meuken. Ik begreep dat het 'zacht
maken' moest zijn, en ik distilleerde eruit dat dat
moest gebeuren door de groente wat te koken.
Leuk dat ook jullie nog een beetje 17e eeuws praten.
vr.gr.
Theo Homan
----------
From: ÞjóðrÃkr Þjóðreksson <didimasure at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.06.04 (02) [E]
Oi!
Gabrielle wrote:
But then, Dutch (and
>French), for
>example, does not make this distinction.
>
>wie = who
>wiens, van wie = whose
>aan wie, naar wie = whom
>wie = whom
>
>So, how "natural" do Dutch speakers feel about using who vs. whom?
Well, to me it feels natural, but to most it doesn't. I jsut have a strong
grammatical feeling because I had 5 hours of Latin every week during 4,5
years... After a while even my Dutch writings began to have very
over-burdened grammatical and complex sentences ;)
But what I in fact wanted to add was that when Dutch still had a
case-system, whom was equal to wien, to whom aan wien. (I think it was in
'34 with the spelling Marchand that it was abandonned, but I'm not sure
about the date).
THOUGH: today I spent 5 hours at a professor's who lives here and speaks the
local dialect. Apparently, Zandvliets sometimes still has wien for wie
(getting lesser and lesser used every generation). This occurs for any case
though, in many a southern dialect the accusative takes the role of every
case, like the male article den. Den is usual in most dialects here, but
most have wie.
P.S. also interesting though not about "who": although most dialects
abandonned this too, Zandvliets dialect also has a "dative" for proper
names, used after prepositions. For Jos = Veur Josse (jos+e); of Anne = van
Annes. (+e when ending in consonant, +s when ending in vowel)
Regards,
Diederik Masure
----------
From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.06.04 (02) [E]
Het Nederlands heeft behalve <wie> en <wiens>, ook nog de vrouwelijke en
meervoudsvorm <wier>. Deze wordt echter alleen in de schrijftaal gebruikt.
Dus:
De man wiens schoenen kapot zijn
maar
De vrouw wier schoenen kapot zijn
en
De kinderen wier schoenen kapot zijn
In de spreektaal:
De man wie zijn schoenen/van wie de schoenen kapot zijn
De vrouw van wie haar schoenen/van wie de schoenen kapot zijn
De kinderen wie hun schoenen/van wie de schoenen kapot zijn
Iets anders interessants uit de NL spreektaal, is de invoeging van
<die>, <dat> na het onderwerp in de derde persoon:
Jan die zegt dat z'n schoenen kapot zijn
Maria die heeft nieuwe schoenen gekocht
Het kind dat heeft nieuwe schoenen nodig
Die mensen die hebben geen geld voor fatsoenlijke schoenen
Ik neem aan dat dit zowel voor Nederland als Vlaanderen geldt...
Ingmar
----------
From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.06.04 (03) [E]
Same in Carthangyz:
sen you (singular, informal)
senin (sën) your, yours
sanga for/to you
seni you
sendä in/on/near you
sendän out of/from you
versus
siz you (plural + polite/formal singular)
sizin (sin) your, yours
sizyä for/to you
sizi you
sizdä in/on/near you
sizdän out of/from you
Ingmar
Micheal Mogran:
>Excuse me?! What Altaic languages are you talking about? The "siz"/"sen"
>distinction is alive and well in Republican Turkish (for example, pulling
>from my shelf the first volume of "Hızlı Gazeteci" -- a left-leaning comic
>strip that helped me learn Turkish when it occurred in the pages of
>Cumhuriyet -- that comes to hand -- it happens to be "Bacı" -- frame 3
has a
>girl (okay, she looks vaguely Kurdish to me ... maybe it's just me, but
that
>would be another motivation for the use of "politer" forms, in addition to
>age and sex) asking a soldier (without a doubt NOT Kurdish, and a
>represenative of "authority", another motivator of "polite" forms) for
>directions, and he uses "sen" (actually the dative "sana") and she uses
>"siz" (actually the possessive suffix "-iniz"). There is no one else in
the
>frame or any subsequent frames in the scene, so the girl is obviously
>talking to ONE person ... using the "polite" form. The distinction is
found
>in all "pronominal" forms (including verb endings). These "polite" forms
>are similar to French "vous" and German "Sie" in that they are non-
singular,
>though in Turkic they originate as collectives (not plurals per se)
>in -(i)z, and can take an additonal plural affix -lAr (e.g. sizler).
>
>And it is not just "European" Turkic that is this way. For example (taking
>almost as distant an example as possible): Uzbek has the expression
>"Ñизлаб" Ñўзлашмоқ /sizlab sözlaÅŸmoq/ "to be on formal terms
>with" (lit. "to speak with "siz" (Sie/vous))
>
>> I have a hunch that such distinctions on a lexical and
>> morphological come are pretty late in the development.
>
>This, MAY in fact be true. Republican Turkish has had considerable
Euroepean
>influence (from languages with the "vos"/"tu") distinction) and most of
the
>Central Asian Turkic languages have had from Russian 8which has the same
>distinction).
>
>In fact, none of thre grammars of the "older" Turkic languages I have to
>hand (von Gabain's Eskı Türkçenın Grameri, Hacıeminoğlu's Karahanlı
Türkçesı
>Grameri, Karamanlıoğlu's Kıpçak Türkçesi Grameri, and Tekın's Orhon
Türkçesi
>Grameri) seem to have anything to say on the subject; HOWEVER, the Soviet
>Academy of Sciences' ДревнетюркÑкий Ñловарь (Old Turkic
>Dictionary - 1969) entry for siz quite clearly states that it is used for
>polite reference to a single individual (with a reference to MK I 339, MK
>being Maxmud Kashgar's dictionaryof Turkic dialects from the 11th century
>... not exactly recent.)
---------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar
I wrote:
> What I had in mind was *inherent* traits. Deferential/polite pronouns
> (and
> some verb forms) have been introduced into the "main" Turkic languages or
> standard varieties under non-Turkic influence, beginning with urban
> varieties that had contacts with Iranic and other language varieties.
> (Incidentally, by the same way gender distinction in nouns wanted to creep
> in, largely unsuccessfully so.) When we talk about Altaic, though, and do
> not count Japanese and Korean as full members, we have a preponderance of
> non-distinguishing varieties, not only in Mongolic but especially in
> Tungusic (which distinguish pretty much everything but gender and social
> status, though Manchu is a bit of an exception) as well as in many "minor"
> Turkic languages that have not been urbanized, especially those whose
> speakers have not been Islamicized, such as those of Siberia and Mongolia.
> Turkish, followed by Azeri and Uzbek, is about as far removed from
> original,
> basic Turkic structure as you can go, not surprisingly so, considering its
> history and the influences and substrates it has ample evidence of.
> Despite
> the number of its speakers, it should never be taken as representative of
> Turkic, definitely not of Altaic.
I ought to have added Modern Uyghur (Uighur) here, which, although rather
conservative in other regards, has at the eastern end of the Silk Road
developed a rather complex pronominal hierarchy, adding plural onto plural
and eventually creating ههر Ù‚Ø§ï»³ïº´ï¯©ï» ï¯©Ø±Ù‰ һәр қайÑилири _härqaisiliri_ (<- här
qa+y+sı+lar+ı "every which ones'") for the highest level of "you" (both
singular and plural).
As I alluded to earlier, domination of Islamicized and Iranicized urban
Turkic varieties along the Silk Road have created a skewed picture of Turkic
(and Altaic) as a whole, which started off without hierarchy: _sän_ 'thou'
(singular) vs _siz_ 'you' (plural). (Even though few books say so
explicitly, this is a given in Turcology, and Annemarie von Gabain told me
so a number of times not long before she passed away. This is consistent
with _-r2_ > _-z_ as an archaic plural marker, thus singular _si+n_ and
plural _si+z_ in Ancient Turkic.) With the introduction of hierarchies,
originally plural _siz_ came to be used as a polite singular form, and this
required plural marking (_sizlär_) to created a plural polite form. In
Uyghur, this called for the creation of a plural familiar form as well:
(sän+lär >) ïº³ï¯©ï» ï»ªïº Ñиләр _silär_. And it snowballed from there …
Generalizing and returning to the Lowlands, I would say that the absence of
pronominal hierarchies tends to go hand in hand with more or less
egalitarian community structures (nomads, hunters, gatherers, early-stage
agriculturalists), while at the other extreme urban varieties (via feudal
societies) tend to develop pronominal hierarchies in keeping with their more
complex social hierarchies. Oftentimes this is enhanced by foreign
influences. In the case of Low Saxon of Germany, earlier hierarchical
complexity disappeared as in the wake of Germanization the language
retreated to the egalitarian private sphere (using only singular _du_ and
plural _jy_), and continuing Germanization in conjunction with attempts to
bring Low Saxon back into the mainstream have resulted in the introduction
of the German pronominal hierarchy (which creates morphological problems).
I try as much as possible to stick to the old, plain _du_ and _jy_, use
polite _Sey_ (objective _Jüm_) only if I get a sense that this would offend,
namely where I sense that a speaker or writer is married to the traditional
German social and pronomical hierarchies.
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