LL-L "Idiomatica" 2008.06.06 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 06 June 2008 - Volume 07
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong <Dutchmatters at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Idiomatica" 2008.06.06 (05) [A/E]

1.      Dutch: Wat voor hond is dat?
Low Saxon: Wat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund is dat? (Wat för een (~ 'n) Hund is dat?)
German: Was für ein Hund ist das?

2.      Dutch: Wat is dat voor een hond?
Low Saxon: Wat is dat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund? (Wat is dat för een (~ 'n) Hund?)
German: Was ist das für ein Hund?

3.      Dutch: Wat is *dat *voor een hond?
Low Saxon: Wat is *dat *vör eyn (~ 'n) hund? (Wat is *dat *för een (~ 'n)
Hund?)
German: Was ist *das *für ein Hund?

These can also use the cognate of "then" to emphasize wonderment:

1.      Dutch: Wat voor hond is dat?
Low Saxon: Wat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund is den dat? (Wat för een (~ 'n) Hund is
denn dat?)
German: Was für ein Hund ist denn das?

2.      Dutch: Wat voor hond is dat?
Low Saxon: Wat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund is *dat *den? (Wat för een (~ 'n) Hund is
*dat *denn?)
German: Was für ein Hund ist *das *denn?

3.      Dutch: Wat is dat voor een hond?
Low Saxon: Wat is den dat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund? (Wat is denn dat för een (~
'n) Hund?)
German: Was ist denn das für ein Hund?

4.      Dutch: Wat is *dat *voor een hond?
Low Saxon: Wat is *dat *den vör eyn (~ 'n) hund? (Wat is dat denn för een (~
'n) Hund?)
German: Was ist *das *denn für ein Hund?

Interesting thought there, Luc!

And I am rather suspecting something related to expressions such as "She
used an old shirt for a rag," or "They have a gander for a watchdog." So if
you say, "What for a dog is that?" (if you could say it in English) it would
mean something like "What kind of lame excuse for a dog is that?!"

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

Hallo Ron en Luc. Since we are all going to the dogs I might as well add
some more fuel to the fire:

1st Ron says:

These can also use the cognate of "then" to emphasize wonderment:

   1. Dutch: Wat voor hond is dat?
   Low Saxon: Wat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund is den dat? (Wat för een (~ 'n) Hund
   is denn dat?)
   German: Was für ein Hund ist denn das?
   2. Dutch: Wat voor hond is dat?
   Low Saxon: Wat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund is *dat *den? (Wat för een (~ 'n) Hund
   is *dat *denn?)
   German: Was für ein Hund ist *das *denn?
   3. Dutch: Wat is dat voor een hond?
   Low Saxon: Wat is den dat vör eyn (~ 'n) hund? (Wat is denn dat för een
   (~ 'n) Hund?)
   German: Was ist denn das für ein Hund?
   4. Dutch: Wat is *dat *voor een hond?
   Low Saxon: Wat is *dat *den vör eyn (~ 'n) hund? (Wat is dat denn för een
   (~ 'n) Hund?)
   German: Was ist *das *denn für ein Hund?

Indeed Dutch does this too, but if I say "Wat is dat dan voor een hond?" I
am not only wondering, I am also excluding this particular animal from the
rest of the pack. F.i. if there is one Labradoodle in a kennel full of
Poodles. Am I right in assuming that the same mechanism holds for Low Saxon
and even German for that matter?

2nd, Luc, you say:

The only difference with continental Germanic seems to be that Dutch and
German also use the phrase in a question or a suggestion like "Wat voor een
hond is dat?".

Could this be the result of continental Germanic having a less strict word
order than English? Or would it rather be typical of older/archaic language?
I have no clue, but I do know that in my native dialect anyway, word order
is much more loosely defined than in standard Dutch. Probably because
dialect is mainly spoken, and speech is more subject to rhythm than written
language.

I think that you are right when you say that Dutch has a less strict word
order than English, but I am not so sure about German. However, I do agree
with your notion that speech is more subject to shifts in emphasis and
rhythm which give it a more subtle flavor. It is in this respect that
dialects can shine as do "street languages" of all kinds.  It is in the
process of writing that we stultify the language through lack of these
mechanisms. A lot of written Dutch is horribly contorted, especially the
language of officiaIdom. I do not know about you, but I am certainly more
eloquent when speaking than when writing. Of course this difficulty is
partially alleviated by the use of idiomatic expression to give the language
more color, still I always admire the discipline of those writers that
manage to get their ideas across without becoming too colloquial. It is
horribly difficult to use one's hands to write the language instead of
speaking with them.

In that respect it must be interesting to be bilingual, like you probably
are, in two languages; one of which depends on grammar and the other which
depends on idioms to vary color and emotion. But that is a horse of an
entirely different color.

Heb een plezierig weekend. Jacqueline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080606/49baa785/attachment.htm>