LL-L: "Verbs" [E/S/LS] LOWLANDS-L, 11.JUN.1999 (05)

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ==========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 11.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: "Sandy Fleming" <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Verbs

John wrate:

> I feel that, in the absence of an accepted standard, these variant verb
> forms - both weak/strong variants and convergent preterites and past
> participles - cause a certain amount of difficulty in Scots
> writing. Native
> speakers, of course, can choose between using whatever they say themselves
> and other, more traditional forms; but some writers, perhaps especially
> those who don't themselves speak Scots, appear to dither between
> forms like
> wan/wun for the pt. of win, etc; or choose, apparently arbitrarily, to use
> traditional past tenses for some verbs but not for others. This
> can lead to
> a sort of mixed register which gives the impression of being neither
> literary nor colloquial, but a sort of half-way house between the
> two. When
> I commented on this to one writer, he simply said that all the people who
> gave him advice contradicted each other and you couldn't please everybody
> all the time, which is no doubt true. I still find convergent
> tenses odd in
> a piece of classical translation, though.
>
Ay, this is ae guid raeson for wantin a weel-thocht-oot stanart: that
colloquial forms isna juist localised, but complicate an aa. Oo hae tae wale
simple forms wi guid leiterary precedents an learn them tae bairns an
oorsels. The efterwale can be left tae advanced writers that's aareddy
maistert the simple stanart forms, for antrin linggistic efforts, informal
writin an representation o colloquial spaek in the dialects o characters in
feiction &c.

For example, nouadays A aye uize forms like we, me, gae, gaein, gaed, wha,
twa in nairative, an conseider ma ain dialect variants o thame tae be the
efterwale: oo, iz, gaun, gaun, went, whae, twae. It seems tae me _claer_
that the "nairative" forms A'v waled is faur better in terms o simplicity an
generality. Wantin a education in the langgage, it taks time an a lot o
readin an writin in Scots tae start tae see an uize the maist stanart forms.
Tae uize the efterwale in formal writin an "authorial" nairitive seems tae
me a sign o no hivin haed eneuch practice an education in Scots, or o haein
gien up ower aerly on the idea o cannin sort aa this oot.

Education's the main prablem the nou, tho - maist o mines wis gotten aff o
fowk on Lowlands-L, aften bi threipin at them aboot ma prablems wi writin
till the answers startit comin back!

The'r still a lot tae learn - A dinna finnd it aesy tae see whan A'm uizin
convergent verbs in Scots, tho it's nae bather in Inglish. Juist shaws ye
the kin o effect a stanart an a education in the langgage can hae. But ye
_can_ sort it oot wi practice an readin.

Mind you, A dinna conseider Lowlands-L tae be formal, sae ma Scots here is
uizually a mixtur o dialect an stanart, but A hae control ower it.

> Sandy wrote elsewhere:
>
> "If A dinna translate throu English A can juist see it as meanin (like A
> says) "somebody that's haed their heid brak." =:(  Or mibbie somebody that
> gaes aboot brekkin fowk's heids? It's no gittin ony better!"
>
> Is this ye uisin 'brak' for a pp. whaur I wad uise 'broken'?

No, it's a mistake - I think I "bade" up too late last night writing those
mailies! Don't anybody tell me my Latin was wrong when I said "Ergo sum" =
"I am", I spotted it as soon as I got the mail back this evening! Obviously
it should have been "Ego sum" (which is Scots for "He's going swimming") and
not "Ergo sum" (which means "She's going swimming"  :)

Sandy Fleiman
http:\\www.fleimin.demon.co.uk

----------

From: "J.H. van de Pol" <poljut at a1.nl>
Subject: Verbs

Dear Lowlanders, Beste Leeglaanders,

<LS, Twents> Oaver "an het (..) wean", doar wol ik luk commentaar biej doon.
En de verleen tied van wearkweure in het Nederlands en het Twents beschrieven.
<E> I would like to add some comment, about "to be at the (..)". And describe
the past tense of verbs in Dutch and Twents.

Ian James Parsley 08.JUN.1999 (01) wrote:
> Sandy,
> Yes, you make a very valid point concerning "he wus at tha ploo" vs.
> "he was ploughing" - namely that Scots prefers noun phrases to simple
> verbs more often than not. This is a point particularly well
> established in Robinson's Ulster-Scots Grammar (1997), and an obvious
> giveaway when somebody tries to speak Scots without really knowing
> the intricacies of the language.
> Similarly: "He taen/tuk a danner" vs. "he dannert" "He's at his darg"  >
(..) "Scho's awa fur a swim" <snip>

<LS> Miej duch dat de Schotse constructie oavereenkump met het Hollaandse en
Nedersaksische zeggen: "aan het" resp. "an 't" dat Kevin Browne in april an
hef bracht um op ne kloke wieze de zoere vervoging van de stearke werkweur oet
de weg te blieven.
Het oonderschel zal wean dat wiej aait de infinitief van 'n wearkwoord
gebroekt, met het lidwoord "het" of "'t" dat doarbiej heurt. Zodo"anig:
"hee is an het bouwen (plogen)" en nich: "*hee is an de ploog" etc. Woar at
het beare meuglijkheden gif, zind ok de betekenissen nich netzo"lfde. At ze
zejt: "zee is an het dreenken" is dat nich zo slim, mer biej: "zee is an de
draank" is e nen alcoholist.
<E> It seems to me that the Scotch noun phrase agrees with the Dutch and Low
Saxon way of saying: "aan het", "an het ('t)", resp., which Kevin Browne
introduced in April in order to circumvent, in a smart way, the difficult
conjugation of the strong verbs.
The difference will be that we, Dutchmen and Low Saxons, always use the
infinitive of the verb, in combination with the neutral definite particle
"het" or "'t". Thus it is: "hee is an het bouwen (plogen)" and not: "*hee is
an de ploog" etc. If both possibilities exist then their meanings are also
different. If one says: "zee is an het dreenken", that is all but serious, but
in case of: "zee is an de draank" she is an alcoholic.

Ian 08.JUN.1999 (01) also introduced the Subject: Strong verbs:
> Sandy also made a point about the past of "slide" being "slade" in
> the piece referred to, by analogy with "bide"/"bade". As I mentioned
> before, this was of particular interest to me, as I've recently
> completed a dissertation on the subject (with particular reference to
> German), and may, funding permitting, be able to continue this with
> reference to all West Germanic languages.
>
> 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 dental suffix marker proved remarkably productive (i.e. it
> became the regular and common way of forming the past), and
> historically the shift has been almost entirely strong verbs becoming
> weak rather than the other way around. This process is still ongoing
> - the German "bellen" has only recently become weak and verbs such as
> "backen" seem in the process of becoming so (tho' this is more
> noticeable in the south, in fact).
>
<LS, Twents>
Net as de aandere Germaansche sproaken hebt het Hollaands en het Twents
stearke wearkweur, met kleenkerwesseling in de verleen tied, het imperfectum,
en slokke wearkweur. Doar kump in het Hollaands in de verleen tied een van
beare suffixen "de(n)" of "te(n)" biej, in het Twents gif het ne "n" in de
imperfectum. Dizze leste wearkweur hebt de enigste productieve vorming van de
verleen tied, dat hebt ze.
Um het imperfectum en het verleen deelwoord in het Hollaands te leren, heb
wiej as bemorrieho"lp, (D:)ezelsbruggetje, het woord "kofschip", dat met de
"t" van het lidwoord met de stemloze metkleenkers in zik hef (het is slechter
te ontholen as "fokschoap" van J.B. van der Velde in ziene Twentse Grammatica
(1994) en het Hollaandse "fokschaap"; der is ja kwelleke nen Nederlander den
oe zeggen kan dat "kof" 'n schip is; ik kenden ok nich het sprekwoord: "koffen
en smakken zijn waterbakken" oet de GvD). As de infinitief van 'n slok
wearkwoord as suffix nen stemlozen metkleenker+"en" hef dan krig de verleden
tied "ten" en het verleen deelwoord ne "t", en aanders "den" en ne "d".

Achtet derop dat het resultaat mangs luk paradoxaal is, biejveurbeeld, D: en
LS: leven en leaven ; leefde en leafn of leavn ; heeft geleefd en hef leafd.
Van de Velde gif de vervoging: "leavn", en miej duch dat dat ampats het beste
biej de oetspraak anslo"t. Mer hee is ok gin orthograaf.

In de leste officie"le schriefwieze van de Kreenk vuur de Twentse Sproak hebt
ze "leafden" opnommen, um het geschreven Twents veur Nederlanders zo
begriepelijk meugelijk te maken. Biej leenweure was dat a zoo, biejveurbeeld:
surfen ; hee surften ; hee hef surft.
De Twentse sproake is ne sprektaal, zoas vo"l sproaken, en dan is het normaal
dat der letters oet de schrieftaal votloaten wordt: het stearke wearkwoord
"bersten" ken wiej as "besn" (and, as remarked by a young American scientist,
the universities of Leie and Haved appear to be named those of Leiden and
Harvard).
De stearke wearkweur hebt as verleen deelwoord meestied de oetgaank "en", en
mangs "t" of "d", wat wier ofhaank van het kofschip, veurbeelden:
(E: to prove; D:) blijken ; bleek ; gebleken
(E: to search; D:) doorzoeken ; doorzocht ; doorzocht

Mer 'n slok wearkwoord as (E: to burst; D:) barsten ; barstten ; hef:
gebarsten, dus ok met "en". Dat kump umdat het in de 17e eeuw steark was:
bersten ; borst ; gebersten, net zowat as now nog in het Twents: bersten ;
bo"rst ; bo"rsten.
Zo wordt der meer wearkweur in de gaank van de tied van slok steark. Het
proces is biej (D:) wassen (eertieds: wasschen) ; waste of wies(ch) ; gewassen
a zo wied dat watleu "wies" nog wal kent, mer nich meer gebroekt. An de
aandere kaant zind "woei" en "waaide" (van waaien, E: to blow) zowat net zo
gebroekelijk. In het Twents zind beare werkweur slok:
wasken (of: wasschen) ; waskn ; wasket en weaien ; weaiden ; weaid.

<E, short version>
It is true that the 't' or 'd' is (part of) the suffix used to form the past
tense (imperfectum, and also past participle) of weak verbs in Dutch and that
these verbs are the only productive ones. We apply memory-aids in order to
learn which one of both suffixes should be used.
If the infinitive of a weak verb has a voiceless consonant+"en" as a suffix
then the past tense gets "ten" en the past participle a "t", else it gets
"den" and a "d".
Note that the result is sometimes paradoxical in that a voiceless consonant is
followed by "de(n)". In the last official spelling of the "Kreenk vuur de
Twentse Sproak" the written language has been made as understandable to
Dutchmen as possible. For weak verbs the Dutch suffix "de" (or "te") was added
to the Twents suffix "n", so that "den" is the suffix, of which "de" is not
pronounced (except by speakers unaware of the language difference).
>>From the shift from strong verbs becoming weak ones two extreme examples are
given. In one case the process has proceeded so far that the strong form of
the past tense is still known but not used anymore and in the other case the
weak and strong forms are about as frequent.

R. F. Hahn 10.JUN.1999 (01) wrote:
<snip>
> Getting back to Ian's original point about strong vs weak competetion, it
seems
> to me - and I may be wrong -  that this is particularly striking in English
> compared with other Germanic languages.  Yes, there are cases such as German
> _backen_ - _buk_ ~ _backte_ and _fragen_ - _frug_ ~ _fragte_, but I can't
think
> of a whole bunch of other such instances.  By the way, _bak-_ (_backen_) is
a
> weak verb in Low Saxon (Low German).  Low Saxon _fraag-_ 'to ask' is one of
the
> very few instances of preterite competition:
> 'ask'
> fraag - froyg ~ fraag - fraagd
> (fraag - fröög/freug/fräug ~ fraag - fraagt)
><E>
I do not know how vehemently the strong and weak verbs compete in English, but
in Dutch and Nethersaxon it is certainly not the main source of language
change. Even the verb "vragen"/"vroagen" is not 'im Frage'. The verbs below
are also strong in the Netherlands, but the sounds differ.

> Otherwise, differences are mostly dialectal in Low Saxon, and this involves
> mostly front vs back in vowels, apart from mere orthographic alternatives
(in
> parentheses, separated by slashes/obliques); e.g.,
> /fleig-/ 'fly'
> fleig - floug ~ floyg - flagen
> (fleeg/fleig - floog/flaug ~ flöög/fleug/fläug - flagen/flogen)
> /soyk-/ 'seek'
> soyk - soech - soechd ~ sochd
> (söök/seuk/säuk - söch - söcht ~ socht)
> But occasionally there is true vowel alternation, e.g.,
> /stoyv-/ 'dust', 'rise up (of dust)'
> stoyv - stouv - stoyven ~ staven
> (stööv/stööb/stäuv/stäub - stoof/stauf - stöven/stöben/stäuven/stäuben ~
> staven/staben/stoven/stoben)
>
> What is more difficult for the learner of Low Saxon, for instance for a
speaker
> of English or German, is that many verbs have irregular forms for the second
and
> third persons singular in the present tense.  In most instances this is a
case
> of vowel shortening or alternation between a diphthong and a short vowel in
the
> 2nd and 3rd person forms.  In fact, this type of alternation is almost a
rule;
> e.g.,
>
> Regular:
> /fal-/ 'fall'
> 1. fal, 2. falst, 3. falt  (1. fall, 2. fallst, 3. fallt)
> /graav-/ 'dig'
> 1. graav, 2. graavst, 3. graavt  (1. graav/groov, 2. graafst/groofst, 3.
> graaft/grooft)
> Irregular:
> /biit-/ 'bite'
> 1. biit, 2. bitst, 3. bit  (1. biet, 2. bittst, 3. bitt)
> /fleig-/ 'fly'
> 1. fleig, 2. fluegst, 3. fluegt  (1. fleeg/fleig, 2. flüggst, 3. flüggt)
> /slaap-/ 'sleep'
> 1. slaap, 2. sloepst, 3. sloept  (1. slaap, 2. slöppst, 3. slöppt)
> /weig-/ 'weigh', 'rock (a cradle)'
> 1. weig, 2. weigst ~ wigst, 3. weigt ~ wigt  (1. weeg/weig, 2. weegst/weigst
~
> wiggst, 3. weegt/weigt ~ wiggt)
This is also true for Twente and probably de Achterhoek, but not for all
Nethersaxon regions, I think. Except for rocking a cradle: "wegen" (D:
wiegen); these are weak verbs. But we have another word for (rocking) a
cradle: heijan, of which I do not know the conjugation.

> Interesting!  Consider the Low Saxon cognate:
> snaaksche snaak
> Literally it's "snakish snake."  It comes across more like "weird snake" or
even
> "funny snake."  I think _snaaksch_ "snakish" originally referred to 'sneaky'
and
> 'threatening', i.e., 'out of the ordinary,' hence the extension 'strange'.
> After all, 'strange' and 'threatening' tend to be perceived as linked.
> Afrikaans and Dutch _snaaks_ also have the meaning of 'weird' and 'funny,'
> though apparently the don't use *_snaak_ for 'snake' but _slang_, which is
also
> an alternative word in Low Saxon (cf. German _Schlange_).

In Dutch "snaaks" from snaak (m.) is indeed weird and/or funny. As far as I
know the word does not occur in Twents. Snaak (m.) is translated by: scho"tter
(m.).
But in Flemish snaak (v.) is, or was known (I did not check the year) with the
meaning of slang (E: snake). A number of flowers and a bird are named after
it.

Remark "Schlange": In early times High German was felt as a threat to the
Dutch language, so that High German words were kept out. Possibly "slang" was
accepted
in view of the two occurrences of "snaak".
Remark Apple: my previous messages show that an o-Umlaut from my Mac is
converted to an "s" and an e-"umlaut" to an apostrophe; hence I returned to
o".

Regards, Groeten, Goodgoan! Jan van de Pol, Enschede.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at geocities.com>
Subject: Verbs

Leve Leeglanners / Dear Lowlanders,

Jan schreef/wrote:

> > /weig-/ 'weigh', 'rock (a cradle)'
> > 1. weig, 2. weigst ~ wigst, 3. weigt ~ wigt  (1. weeg/weig, 2. weegst/weigst

> ~
> > wiggst, 3. weegt/weigt ~ wiggt)
> This is also true for Twente and probably de Achterhoek, but not for all
> Nethersaxon regions, I think. Except for rocking a cradle: "wegen" (D:
> wiegen); these are weak verbs. But we have another word for (rocking) a
> cradle: heijan, of which I do not know the conjugation.

Dat's je nu gediegen!  As Verb weet ik dat in de nordsassischen Dialekten in
Düütschland nich.  Kunn man nu doch wesen, dat 't dat up de düütsche Siet vun de
Grenz ook gifft.  Ik weet dat man bloots as 'n Nomen: "Heia" för "Bedd", t.B.
"in de Heia gaan" = "in de/to Puuch gaan" = "to Bedd gaan".  Ik glööv', düsse
Wöörd' kaamt vun 't Seggen vun "heia, heia" wenn 'n 'n Lütten in'n Slaap wiggt.
Dat gifft ook dat ole "eia", dat 'n see wenn 'n wen strakelt or fiechelt.
Daarüm gifft dat nu dat swacke Verb "eien", t.B. "Se eit dat Kind" = "Se
strakelt dat Kind".  In't Missingsch un in't Noorddüütsche bruukt wi "Heia" un
"eien" ook.  Ik glööv' ook, dat dat Woord "eisch" vun'n verdreetlichen Uutroop
"Ei!" kamen is.

Now that's peculiar!  I don't know it as a verb in the North Saxon dialects of
Germany.  But that's not necessarily to say that it doesn't exist on the German
side of the border as well.  I only know it as a noun: _haia_ (_Heia_) for
'bed'; e.g., _in de haia gaan_ (_in de Heia gaan_) 'to go to bed'.  I assume
these words came from saying _heia_ or _haia_ while rocking a baby to sleep.
There is also the old _eia_ or _aia_ that people used to say while stroking or
petting someone.  That's why there's now the weak verb _aien_ (_eien_); e.g.,
_Sei ait dat kind_ (_Se eit dat Kind_).  We use _Heia_ and _eien_ in Missingsch
(i.e., German dialects with Low Saxon substrates) as well.  Also, I think that
the word _aisch_ (_eisch_) 'naughty' was developed from the deprecatory
exclamation _Ai!_ (_Ei!_).

Gröten / 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
 ========================================================================