LL-L: "Verbs" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 08.JUN.1999 (05)

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ==========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 08.JUN.1999 (05) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 ==========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has 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>.
 ==========================================================================

From: R. F. Hahn
Subject: Verbs

Re: Ian Parsley's contribution about verb forms

Dear Ian,

Thanks for your intro to what might be called "weakening vs strengthening of
verbs."  I found it very thought-provoking, and I hope you will be able to
continue your research while branching out to other West Germanic languages.  I
would be happy to help should you want to include Low Saxon (Low German) data,
and also Hamburg Missingsch ones if this is of any use. It so happens that I was
beginning to compile a list of North Saxon verbs.  I would not be surprised if
other Lowlanders were willing to help you include data from other less well
documented Lowlands varieties.

You wrote:

> To explain: originally all Germanic verbs were strong - that is to
> say they did NOT form their past tense by addition of a dental suffix
> (i.e. 't' or 'd'), thus usually forming their past forms by mutation
> of the root vowel (thus /slaid/ - /slid/). Nobody quite knows why the
> dental suffix became used as a past-tense marker; the most likely
> explanation is that it is in fact a shortened form of "to do" (thus
> the /d/ typical in English also common in Dutch, yet the /t/ in
> German).

This may seem ... well, a bit out there, but let me just mention that dentals
very often mark the past tense and/or past participles, even outside
Indo-European, such as in Uralic (e.g., Finnish sg. -nyt~-nut, pl. -neet, which
probably grew from morpheme fusions, Hungarian -t+person) and Altaic (e.g.,
-d+person ~ -t+person in Turkic languages).  (The construction type -t+person
marks personalized deverbal nouns, even though most textbooks don't say so;
e.g., Turkish /bit-t+m/ = finish-t+1st.sg.poss -> _bittim_ "my having finished"
= 'I finished'.)  Of course, all of this may be totally coincidental.  However,
you do not have to be a full-flown Nostraticist to notice striking similarities
(despite striking superficial differences, such as agglutination) between the
Ural, Altaic and Indo-European languages, especially in the area of pronouns and
verb morphology.  What I am suggesting is that what you described seems unique
to Germanic within the Indo-European family but could in fact be very ancient
indeed and could just happen to be preserved in Germanic amongst the
Indo-European languages.  I am not claiming this as truth, just as a possibility
not to be discounted.  In my estimation, it does not seem more "out there" than
imagining the dental to be derived from another verb in Germanic, such as 'do'.

> Very occasionally verbs "strengthen" apparently by their own accord -
> consider "dig-digged" of the King James Bible - but this is very
> rare. It is interesting, however, to note Sandy's example of
> "slide-slid" apparently shifting to "slide-slade" (altho' I don't
> know the history of the verb - perhaps the shift was the other way).
> I would be most interested to hear examples of weak verbs becoming
> strong or strong verbs "changing class" from all Lowlands languages,
> particularly the lesser-used ones.

I was struck by the difference between American and non-American English
regarding the verb 'sneak':

American:  sneak  -  snuck  -  snuck
Non-American:  sneak  -  sneaked  -  sneaked

Are the American forms innovations or more ancient?  By the way, many Americans
find it very odd, in fact ungrammatical, when I say 'sneaked'.  I, on the other
hand, am having a hard time making myself say _snuck_, because it sounds so
"wrong" ...  It is interesting, though, that some American dictionaries do not
give 'snuck' but give 'sneaked' with 'sneak'.  If it is an innovation, as I
assume, then I wonder how long it has been existing in unwritten English
varieties until it came to be written and to be at least de facto accepted in
American.

Thanks for giving us the benefit of your expertise.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END=======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions 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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 ========================================================================