LL-L 'Grammar' 2007.02.09 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L - 09 February 2007 - Volume 08

=========================================================================

From: Lee Goldberg <leybl_goldberg at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L 'Grammar'

Yiddish actually does have a structure with "do", but its use is
stylistically marked as typical of old books of prayers and meditations for
women (known as "tkhines"): "ikh tu got betn", etc.

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

Paul,

"Do" as an auxiliary is definitely very strong and widespread in West
Germanic and apparently has been for a long time.  It isn't that obvious
because it is avoided and usually totally absent in standard languages.  It
is used a lot in Low Saxon.  It is not confined to the Lowlands in that it
is also quite common to many non-standard German varieties, though I suspect
it's stronger in the northern ones, may thus be due to Saxon influence.
(Yiddish doesn't have it, or at least doesn't use it to that extent, which
may indicate that it spread in German fairly late.)

----------

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

Thanks a lot, Lee.

I'm familiar with that construction.  Admittedly, though, I've always
thought of it as טאָן ton 'to do' being the main verb and גאָט בעטן got
betn("implore/pray (to) God") as a sort of noun meaning "(act of)
praying" or
"prayer" ("God-imploring"), thus something like 'to do/perform (a)
prayer(s)," more specifically 'to do תּחינות tkhines (< tħinoth)", "I do the
Yiddish prayers" -- as opposed to בעטן גאָט betn got 'to pray'.  To me it
"feels" similar to the difference between תּפֿילה טאָן tfile ton ("to
do/perform prayers") and דאַוונען davnen 'to pray'.  But then again I may be
wrong.

And then there are perhaps related constructions such as איך טו אַ שרײַב ikh
tu a shrayb ("I do a write") 'I('ll) write it down', 'I'm making a note of
it',* as opposed to plain איך שרײַב ikh shrayb 'I('ll) write', 'I'm
writing'.

* Alternatively: איך גיב אַ שרײַב *ikh gib a shrayb* ("I give a write")

Isn't this something like using English "take" as in "I'll take a stroll" (=
"I'll stroll"), "He's taking a nap" (= "He's napping"), "She won't take a
turn" (= "She won't turn"), or "Go on! Take a lick!" (= "Go on! Lick!")?

Thanks for the food for thought, and גוט שבת Gut Shabes!

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: John Duckworth <johncduckworth at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Lowlands-List. Grammar

Dear Ron and fellow Lowlanders,

Given the very powerful advance of Standard High German in Germany I am sure
even many of the dialects have surrendered certain of their own
idiosyncratic features, and I have a suspicion that one of the domains in
which the influence of the Standard Language might have exerted itself is in
choosing what gender to assign to each specific noun.

It is well-known, for instance, that the genders of nouns in some dialects
are different from those accepted in the Standard Language; a good example
is Standard German die Butter, contrasting with Bavarian der Butter (or der
Buddaa).

I have two questions about the use of genders in Low Saxon.

Firstly: Are there cases in which Low Saxon genders differ from those
accepted in Standard (High) German?

Secondly: It seems generally accepted that Low Saxon still retains three
genders. Given the fact that the grammatical differences (for example in the
definite article and in adjectival endings) seem to be in a state of
constant erosion, are there dialects of Low Saxon in which it would be true
to say only two genders remain?

John Duckworth
Manchester, UK

----------

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

Hi, John!

This is an interesting question that might eventually be extended
non-standard varieties of other Lowlands languages.

As a kick-off, let me just mention that not only are there numerous words
that in Low Saxon have different genders than there cognates in Standard
German, but there are gender assignment differences even among the Low Saxon
dialects.  I can't give you a slew of examples right now, would need to look
through lists of nouns first.

Personally I am not aware of any Low Saxon dialect whose number of genders
has shrunken to two.  Even though most dialects has two morphological marker
forms, the gender remains underlying and is revealed at least by the
corresponding personal pronoun; e.g., (~ = dialectical variation):

Masculine ('the X', 'a(n) X', 'one X'  = 'he'):
de Mann, 'n Mann, een Mann (man) = he (he)
de Vagel, 'n Vagel, een Vagel (bird) = he (he)
de Disch, 'n Disch, een Disch (table) = he (he)
de Boom, 'n Boom, een Boom (tree) = he (he)
de Steen, 'n Steen, een Steen (stone, rock) = he (he)
de Foot, 'n Foot, een Foot (foot) = he (he)
de Duum, 'n Duum, een Duum (thumb) = he (he)
de Häven, 'n Häven, een Häven (sky) = he (he)
de Maan(d), 'n Maan(d), een Maan(d) (moon) = he (he)
de Ries, 'n Ries, een Ries (rice) = he (he)
de Hoff, 'n Hoff, een Hoff (court, farm) = he (he)
de Snack, 'n Snack, een Snack (talk, saying) = he (he)

Feminine ('the X', 'a(n) X', 'one X'  = 'she'):
de Fro ~ Fru, 'n(e) Fro ~ Fru, een(e) Fro ~ Fru (woman) = se (she)
de Katt, 'n(e) Katt, een(e) Katt (cat) = se (she)
de Dœr, 'n(e) Dœr, een(e) Dœr (door) = se (she)
de Bloom, 'n(e) Bloom, een(e) Bloom (flower) = se (she)
de Düün, 'n(e) Düün, een(e) Düün (dune) = se (she)
de Bodder, 'n(e) Bodder, een(e) Bodder (butter) = se (she)
de Plant, 'n(e) Plant, een(e) Plant (butter) = se (she)
de Wulk, 'n(e) Wulk, een(e) Wulk (cloud) = se (she)
de Sünn, 'n(e) Sünn, een(e) Sünn (sun) = se (she)
de Melk, 'n(e) Melk, een(e) Melk (milk) = se (she)
de Saak, 'n(e) Saak, een(e) Saak (thing, matter) = se (she)
de Snackeree, 'n(e) Snackeree, een(e) Snackeree (talking, gossip) = se (she)

Neuter ('the X', 'a(n) X', 'one X'  = 'it'):
dat ~ it ~ et Kind, 'n Kind, een Kind (child) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Peerd, 'n Peerd, een Peerd (horse) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Dack, 'n Dack, een  Dack (roof) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Book, 'n Book, een Book (book) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Brood, 'n Brood, een Brood (bread) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Kruud, 'n Kruud , een Kruud (herb) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Water, 'n Water, een Water (water) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Hult, 'n  Hult, een  Hult (wood) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Been, 'n Been, een Been (leg) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Haar, 'n Haar, een Haar (hair) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Been, 'n Been, een Been (leg) = it ~ et ~ dat (it)
dat ~ it ~ et Snacken, 'n Snacken, een Snacken (talking) = it ~ et ~ dat
(it)

There is a small number of cases in which within the same variety different
genders have semantic significance; e.g.:

Masculine:
de Minsch ~ Mensch, 'n Minsch ~ Mensch, een Minsch ~ Mensch (human being) ->
he (he)

Neuter:
dat ~ it ~ et Minsch ~ Mensch, 'n Minsch ~ Mensch, een Minsch ~
Mensch(unpleasant woman) -> it
~ et ~ dat (it)

Pronunciation:

Been = beyn [bɛˑɪn]
Bloom = bloum [blɔˑʊm]
Book = bouk [bɔˑʊk]
Boom = boum [bɔˑʊm]
Dœr = doer [døːɝ]
Foot = fout [fɔˑʊt]
Fro ~ Fru = vrou ~ vru [frɔˑʊ] ~ [fruː]
Haar = haar [hɒːɝ] ~ [hoːɝ]
Häven = heven [hɛːvm] ~ [heːvm] ~ [hɛːbm] ~ [heːbm]
Maan(d) = maan(d) [mɒːn(t)] ~ [moːn(t)]
Mann = man [maˑn]
Peerd = peyrd [pɛɪɝt] ~ [piːɝt]
Ries = rys [riːs]
Saak = saak [zɒːk]
Snacken = snakken ['snakŋ]
Snackeree = snakkerey [snake'rɛˑɪ]
Steen = steyn [stɛˑɪn]
Vagel = vagel [fɒːgl] ~ [foːgl]
Water = water ['vɒːtɝ] ~ ['voːtɝ]

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070209/051c21bd/attachment.htm>