<div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">===========================================<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 08 June 2009 - Volume 04<br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)</span><br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">
<span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Language Codes: <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/codes.php">lowlands-l.net/codes.php</a></span><br>===========================================<br></div><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI"><span class="gD" style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">Marcus Buck</span> <span class="go"><<a href="mailto:list@marcusbuck.org">list@marcusbuck.org</a>></span></span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI">LL-L "Grammar" 2009.06.06 (04) [EN]<br><br></span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: Marcus Buck <</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:list@marcusbuck.org" target="_blank">list@marcusbuck.org</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> <mailto:</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:list@marcusbuck.org" target="_blank">list@marcusbuck.org</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">>></span><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But in this case it is not necessary to blame German influence. Some
dialects have lengthened the vowel to 'komen' (and subsequently
'kamen'), but many others have kept the older unlengthened form
'kommen'. I think, there's a Wenker map for that, but the DIWA website
is inaccessible at the moment. So 'kömming' could just as well be
"real" Low Saxon.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
There's no Wenker map for 'kamen' directly, but for the PPP (<</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="http://diwa.info/diwa/ECW.asp?ID1=312" target="_blank">http://diwa.info/diwa/ECW.asp?ID1=312</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">>),
which should basically be the same as the infinitive. And it seems I
was wrong. I guess, I confused it with the rather diverse lengthening
distribution patterns of 'könnt'/'köönt' (or will 'kaamt' show similar
diverse patterns?). At least the PPP is lengthened to 'kamen' in all of
Mecklenburg. The only areas with non-lengthened forms are some few
places with aberrant forms in Mecklenburg and Vorpommern (and my own
dialect of "Stoder Geestplatt" which has 'kommen' too). But I'm not
sure, to which degree these findings apply to imperative and present
tense forms.</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" color="#888888">
<br>
Marcus Buck</font><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">----------</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI"><span class="gD" style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">Marcus Buck</span> <span class="go"><<a href="mailto:list@marcusbuck.org">list@marcusbuck.org</a>></span></span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
Subject: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="gI">LL-L "Grammar" 2009.06.06 (04) [EN]<br><br></span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: Marcus Buck <</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:list@marcusbuck.org" target="_blank">list@marcusbuck.org</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> <mailto:</span><a style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:list@marcusbuck.org" target="_blank">list@marcusbuck.org</a><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">>></span><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Is it a general rule, that the imperative derives from the root? I've
seen many examples of forms both derived from the root and from the
2nd/3rd person form from all regions and many different times. Until
now I wasn't able to find any system. Sadly none of the Wenker maps
contains an imperative that helps in this question. I suspect that it
could be a matter of dialect (although German influence plays a big
role too. But perhaps not the only role).<br>
</blockquote></div><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
The Wenker atlas has four maps about imperative forms: 'geh', 'tu',
'sag' and 'bleib'. 'sag' doesn't help us at all, cause the first and
second person forms have the same stem in both German and Low Saxon
('ich sag' - 'du sagst' in German, 'ik segg' - 'du seggst' in Low
Saxon). 'geh', 'tu' and 'bleib' are a bit more useful. Although they
have the same stem in German ('ich gehe' - 'du gehst', 'ich tue' - 'du
tust', 'ich bleibe' - 'du bleibst'), they differ in Low Saxon ('ik gah'
- 'du geihst', 'ik do' - 'du deist', 'ik bliev' - 'du bliffst'). This
difference is present in all Low Saxon dialects, so we can draw some
conclusions from that. _All_ dialects show the imperative forms 'do',
'gah' and 'bliev' (or the respective dialectal variants of it) and none
show imperative forms like 'dei', 'geih' or 'bliff'. So my question
above "Is it a general rule, that the imperative derives from the
root?" can be answered: Yes, without German interference the imperative
always takes the forms from the infinitive. The problem is now, that
Wenker does not tell us, wht happens _with_ German interference. Are
there any dialects, that generally follow the German rule, if the
German forms differ? Or does German interference only occur
spontaneously (but at a high rate)?</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" color="#888888">
<br>
Marcus Buck</font><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">---------</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>> <br>
Subject: Grammar<br><br>Hi, Marcus!<br><br>Congratulations and thanks for that splendid piece of research at short notice!<br><br>I am pretty sure that there <i>are</i> dialects out there in which the straightforward imperative system has been disrupted by German interference. I suspect that they exist not only at the periphery, near the boundary with Central German, but also in the vicinity of large cities. In fact, I think that this particular type of interference is relatively old, going back at least to the 19th century. Not only do you get <i>kumm!</i> (for <i>kaam!</i>) in the song <i>Dat du mien Leevsten büst</i> but also in the works of Klaus Groth (1819–1899), a native of Dithmarschen, an area close to Hamburg.<br>
<br>Now that we seem to have established what the original imperative system is I need to add a piece of information that sort of "mildly contradicts" my own initial, <i>simplified</i> description.<br><br>"The (familiar) second person singular imperative is identical with the verb root" is accurate in dialects that have lost final <i>-e</i> or the "drawl tone" (<i>Sleeptoon</i>), also known as "superlength" (<i>Œverlängd</i>). (As some Lowlanders may remember, in some varieties "deleted" final <i>-e</i> causes the preceding long vowel or diphthong to receive additional length and a final voiced stop or fricative does not undergo final devoicing; e.g. <i>Huus</i> [huːs] 'house', <i>H</i><i>ü</i><i>se > </i><i>H</i><i>ü</i><i>üs'</i> [hyːˑz] 'houses', <i>Bruud</i> [bruːt] 'bride', <i>Br</i><i>ü</i><i>de > </i><i>Br</i><i>ü</i><i>üd'</i> [bryːˑ(d)] 'brides'.)<br>
<br>Where phonological conditions are right, this plays a role in the (familiar) second person singular imperative in varieties with <i>-e</i> or drawl tone. In other words, in one form or another these varieties preserve the old imperative <i>-e</i>. In yet other words, the (familiar) second person singular imperative consists of the verb root plus <i>-e</i>, but the <i>-e</i> is dropped where the root ends with a vowel (e.g. <i>ga!</i> 'go!') and the drawl tone does not apply either if there is no voiced final consonant (as in <i>laat!</i> 'let!'). (This system is similar to the base German system; e.g. <i>geh<u>e</u>!</i> 'go!', <i>sitz<u>e</u>!</i> 'sit!'. I suspect the Dutch system went through a similar process of <i>-e</i> loss in the imperative.)<br>
<br> For instance, in one of Groth's works (<i>Min Modersprak</i>) you find the phrase <i>Nu be!</i> 'Now pray!' <i>Be!</i> comes from <i>bede!</i> which became <i>beed'</i> (with drawl tone) and, as in some other varieties, the <i>-d</i> comes to be deleted in drawl tone situations (as also in Dutch, e.g. <i>lui</i> 'people', cf. Low Saxon <i>L</i><i>ü</i><i>de > </i><i>L</i><i>ü</i><i>üd'</i> [lyːˑd] ~ <i>L</i><i>ü</i><i> </i>[lyː]).<br>
<br>So, while the initially described imperative system still stands in numerous dialects, the original system, preserved in some dialects, has a final <i>-e</i>. (I don't want to call it "schwa" because none of the varieties I am familiar with pronounces it as a schwa.)<br>
<br>What you can say in the way of a rule in these varieties is that the familiar imperative is the same as the first person present tense form, since it, too, has a <i>-e</i> or drawl tone; e.g. <i>ik bede ~ </i><i>ok beed' ~ ik be</i> 'I pray' (as in German; e.g. <i>ich bet</i><i><u>e</u></i><i>, ich geh</i><i><u>e</u></i><i>, ich sitz</i><i><u>e</u></i>).</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>This old <i>-e</i> is preserved medially everywhere in second and third person present tense verbs whose roots end with a vowel; e.g.<br><br>Root: ga- 'go'<br>
du ga-e-st > gaist (written <i>geihst</i>)<br>he ga-e-t > gait (written <i>geiht</i>)<br><br>This system seems to reveal a fossilized vowel alternation:<br><br>Root: dou- 'do' (Old Saxon <i>dô</i>)<br>
du *dô-e-st > *da-e-st > gaist (written <i>deist</i>)<br>
he *dô-e-t > *da-e-t > dait (written <i>deit</i>)<br><br>Theoretically, we should have forms like *<i>doist</i> and *<i>doit</i> here.<br><br>Regards,<br>Reinhard/Ron<br>Seattle, USA<br></span>
<p>
==============================END===================================
<p>
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org.
<p>
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
<p>
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
<p>
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
<p>
are to be sent to listserv@listserv.linguistlist.org or at
<p>
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
<p>
*********************************************************************