LL-L 'Morphology' 2006.07.04 (03) [E]

Tue Jul 4 17:30:48 UTC 2006

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L * 04 July 2006 * Volume 03
======================================================================

From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at telenet.be>
Subject: LL-L 'Morphology' 2006.07.03 (08) [E]

Hi Ron,
Here in West-Flanders we have also quiet a variety of possibilities:

man -> man ! / mann' / mans / mannevolk
-tweÃª man sterk (with the strength of two men)
-vuuf mann' t'oÃ´pe (E: five men together)
Here we prefer "vint/vint'n" (D: vent/venten) Pejorative in Dutch but
not in Flemish.
-mansdikte (E: the size/thickness of a man) - manshoÃ´gde (E: the
hight of a man) - manslangde
and:
mannemins (D: mannenmens) <-> vroemins (D: vrouwmens)
...lui/...lieden is used in Dutch but not in Flemish.

"kinders" is used frequently.
Dim.: kindjes/kindertjes/kinnekes/manneke
In Lille in France they have a french song called "Le petit quinquin"
which means the little child (due to the immigrants of the 19th
century ?)
Manneke became mannequin in French.

Groetjes
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Morphology
>
> Folks,
>
> In a rare quiet minute in which I was able to indulge in thinking
> up linguistic
> trivia it occurred to me that in West Germanic languages the
> simple word "man"
> and its respective equivalents comes with almost the full range of
> possibilities
> of plural derivation:
>
> -en
> Dutch: man -> mannen
>
> -e
> Afrikaans: man -> manne
>
> -er
> German: Mann -> MÃƒÂ¤nner
>
> -s
> Low Saxon: man -> mans (Mann -> Manns)
>
> Umlauting only
> Modern English: man -> men
>
> Plural + "people," "folk," etc.
> Modern English: man -> menfolk
> Low Saxon: man -> mansluyd' (Mann -> MannslÃƒÂ¼ÃƒÂ¼d')
>
> Notes:
>
> (1)
> Missing is the option of singular and plural forms being
> identical. However,
> this is not really an option given that it is reserved for certain
> animals
> considered food; e.g., fish -> fish, sheep -> sheep, deer -> deer,
> shrimp ->
> shrimp (but prawn -> prawns, crab -> crabs). By and large, this is
> the system in
> Low Saxon as well. Is it a Saxon thing?
>
> (2)
> In this instance, you may argue that _-en_ and _-e_ are the same,
> since
> Afrikaans, like many or most Dutch dialects, has change _-en_ to _-
> e_ (though
> Dutch still spells it ).
>
> (3)
> Plural formation by umlauting only is often encountered in North
> Germanic
> varieties (e.g., Danish _man_ -> _mÃƒÂ¦nd_), and I wonder if "men"
> and "women" are
> Scandinavian-induced.
>
> (4)
> Many Low Saxon dialects don't limit the addition of _-luyde_ ~ _-
> luyd'_ ~ _-luye_
> ~ _-luy_ ('people', 'folk') to _man_. (This applies also to _vrou_
> ~ _vru_
> 'woman', which may become either _vrouens_ ~ _vruens_ or
> _vrouensluyd'_ ~
> _vruensluyd'_.) In many compound nouns in which the last component
> is _-man_,
> this _-man_ changes to _-luyd'_ (etc.) in the plural form; e.g.,
>
> koupman -> koupluyd' (merchant(s))
> amt(s)man -> amt(s)luyd' (official(s))
> timmerman -> timmerluyd' (carpenter(s))
> varensman -> varensluyd' (seafarer(s), sailor(s))
> muerman -> muerluyd' (bricklayer(s))
>
> These are or tend to be names of professionals, artisans, etc. The
> plural forms
> often connote the profession as a whole, in the olden days also for
> the
> respective guilds. Note that for instance _buman_ 'bogeyman' does
> not change to
> *_buluyd'_ but to _bumans_.
>
> Furthermore, it occurred to me that English "children" seems to
> represent another
> case of double plural. In Middle English the plural form _childer_
> was common,
> thus the _-er_ choice still common in German and Low Saxon for
> instance (_Kind_
> -> _Kinder_, _Kind_ -> _Kinner_), as well as the default pluralizer in
> Scandinavian. It seems to me that later on the now defunct _-en_
> morpheme was
> added, hence *_child+er+en_ = "children," exactly as in Dutch:
> _kind_ ->
> _kinderen_. In some Lowe Saxon dialect double plural occurs with _-
> s_ in this
> case: _kind_ -> _kinder_ ~ _kinders_ ( -> ~
> ). Doesn't
> this occur in Flemish as well? And in Afrikaans?
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Henry Pijffers <henry at saxnot.com>
Subject: LL-L 'Morphology' 2006.07.03 (08) [E]

Ron wrote:
>
> (1)
> Missing is the option of singular and plural forms being identical.
>
"Er zijn twee man nodig om die kist te dragen"
(Two men are needed to carry that crate)

Does that example count?

> (4)
> Many Low Saxon dialects don't limit the addition of _-luyde_ ~ _-luyd'_ ~ _-luye_
> ~ _-luy_ ('people', 'folk') to _man_. (This applies also to _vrou_ ~ _vru_
> 'woman', which may become either _vrouens_ ~ _vruens_ or _vrouensluyd'_ ~
> _vruensluyd'_.) In many compound nouns in which the last component is _-man_,
> this _-man_ changes to _-luyd'_ (etc.) in the plural form; e.g.,
>
We add "-volk": manvolk, vrouwvolk. We do add -luy for professions though.

regards,
Henry

----------

From: Henry Pijffers <henry at saxnot.com>
Subject: LL-L 'Morphology' 2006.07.03 (08) [E]

Ron wrote:
>
> (1)
> Missing is the option of singular and plural forms being identical.
>
"Er zijn twee man nodig om die kist te dragen"
(Two men are needed to carry that crate)

Does that example count?

> (4)
> Many Low Saxon dialects don't limit the addition of _-luyde_ ~ _-luyd'_ ~ _-luye_
> ~ _-luy_ ('people', 'folk') to _man_. (This applies also to _vrou_ ~ _vru_
> 'woman', which may become either _vrouens_ ~ _vruens_ or _vrouensluyd'_ ~
> _vruensluyd'_.) In many compound nouns in which the last component is _-man_,
> this _-man_ changes to _-luyd'_ (etc.) in the plural form; e.g.,
>
We add "-volk": manvolk, vrouwvolk. We do add -luy for professions though.

regards,
Henry

----------

From: 'Marcel Bas' <roepstem at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L 'Morphology' 2006.07.03 (08) [E]

Dag Reinhard,

You wrote:

>(3)
>Plural formation by umlauting only is often encountered in North Germanic
>varieties (e.g., Danish _man_ -> _mÃƒÂ¦nd_), and I wonder if "men" and "women" are
>Scandinavian-induced.

Maybe, but from what I know is that man ~ men derives from an i-umlaut in Anglo
Saxon. man ~ manniz > man ~ menniz > man ~ men. Just like foot ~ fotiz > foot ~
fetiz > foot ~ feet, and others.
To me it seems a normal West Germanic development. Interestingly, the _d_ you
mentioned in the Danish equivalent, is the result of a word _manr_ which lead to
epenthesis and added the _d_. Cf. Old Icelandic singular madhr < mandr < manr, 
"man". The same happened in Carinthian when the plural had epenthesis of 'd',
combined with umlaut: mÃ¥n ~mandr.

>Furthermore, it occurred to me that English "children" seems to represent another
>case of double plural. In Middle English the plural form _childer_ was common,
>thus the _-er_ choice still common in German and Low Saxon for instance (_Kind_
>-> _Kinder_, _Kind_ -> _Kinner_), as well as the default pluralizer in
>Scandinavian. It seems to me that later on the now defunct _-en_ morpheme was
>added, hence *_child+er+en_ = "children," exactly as in Dutch: _kind_ ->
>_kinderen_. In some Lowe Saxon dialect double plural occurs with _-s_ in this
>case: _kind_ -> _kinder_ ~ _kinders_ (<Kind> -> <Kinner> ~ <Kinners>). Doesn't
>this occur in Flemish as well? And in Afrikaans?

In Standard Dutch we sometimes jokingly say: "Ik moet _de kinders_  ophalen",
instead of "_de kinderen_". It indicates a kind of playfulness. In Caxton's Kent
people in Kent still said _ey ~ eyren_  for _ egg ~eggs_.  So there you have the
double plural again, because one could also just have said _ey ~ eyr/eyer_.
Again, this must be very old in the West Germanic languages, if it can be found
both in the Netherlands and in England.

Best regards,

Marcel.

----------

From: 'jonny' <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L 'Morphology' 2006.07.03 (08) [E]

Leyve Ron,

Du schreevst:
> -s
> Low Saxon: man -> mans (Mann -> Manns)

Inter'santen Kroom! Dat hebb 'ck al me Leev ne hoyrt ellers leest- mit Uutnoom
van dennen Nomen 'Mansfeld' (woll van sassischen Oorsprong, 10. Jh.), de uut dat
Anhaltiin'sche koomt. Obers- dat kunn joo ouk Genitiv ween: 'man(n) siin feld',
juest sou as 'hey is ne Manns nough'. Is dat jichenseyn heyl oule Form, as ouk de
vandog man selten bruukte Plural 'Mannen' foer 'Kampfgenossen'?

Greutens

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

BTW: Mit de UTF-8 stimmt juemmer noch wat ne.

----------

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

Thanks for your responses, man(s/nen)!

In fact, simply _man_ is also used as a plural with numbers, the way described
above, also in German (e.g., _drei Mann_).

Jonny, _mans_ *is* used, though less these days, being rare or absent in many
areas.  *I* have certainly heard and read it, and I have found it in all
dictionaries just now when I double-checked.  But this time I won't go to the
effort to collect and serve examples, since that was fruitless last time.

I believe that _mansluyd'_ does not go with numbers (e.g., *_drey mansluyd_?). 
Is that right?  Unmarked _man_ belongs to special phrases, I believe.  So what
about other cases?  I think people that don't use _mans_ (and those that doubt
that others do) would simply avoid it and use alternatives, such as _keyrls_. 
What do people think?

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