LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 15.JAN.2001 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 15.JAN.2001 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * 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>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
  =======================================================================

From: Stefan Israel [stefansfeder at yahoo.com]
Subject: "Grammar"

Ron wrote:

> Barbara's remark about the loss of a vocative case is
> interesting.  It is true that Germanic varieties do not
> have a vocative.  (Or are there any?)
> [...] Can we be so sure that a vocative case is ancient and
> has been lost here and there?  Or could it be that some
> language varieties developed a
> vocative independently?
> Of course, the fact that Latin has a vocative and the modern
> Romance languages do not
> might sway us in the direction of assuming loss.

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) did have a clear specifically vocative
singular ending in masculine o-stems (the most common
decelension): -e.
In fact, since e alternated with o in PIE, the ending -e was
originally not a case ending but the raw root with no case
ending at all, since a vocative has no particular grammatical
function as such.  Thus a word like *kar-o- "dear" would be _o
care!_ [o: karE) "oh dear one!"

This -e shows up in the various Indo-European languages: Latin
and Greek, in Slavic (Bozhe moi, "my God!", from _bog_, God.),
even in Gothic: PIE -e was lost in Germanic, thus the vocative
(still only in masculine singular o-stems) was simply
endingless:

thiudan! "oh king!"
versus sa thiudans "the king" (nominative)
or thana thiudan "the king" (accusative).

The vocative and accusative looked the same in nouns; perhaps
that's why the Norse abandoned a distinct vocative case.  The
Lowland languages and High German all lost the nominative noun
ending, so that the vocative became identical to the nominative,
ending a distinct vocative case.  Of course, vocative -usage-
continues unchanged, it just happens to have no special ending.

(You may ask- why wasn't the vocative extended to other
declensions, genders and number?  I donno.  Languages tend
towards being sytematic, but it's only a tendency).

Stefan Israel
stefansfeder at yahoo.com

----------

Stefan Israel [stefansfeder at yahoo.com]
Subject: "Grammar"

Sandy Fleming [sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk]

> I think Ron's rule makes sense but I'm not sure how generally
> applicable it might be. Could it be that this argument will
> only hold if we keep the discussion within the bounds of
> Indo-European languages, and then only because they're so
> similar that Stefan's rule:
>
> > Or more particles/prepositions etc.:  we might refine the
> > rule to: the less you use of one strategy, the more you have
> > to use other strategies.

My only intent was to make explicit that there are various
strategies for marking grammatical function; English is shifting
from morphological endings to word order and discrete functional
words (prepositions, auxilliary verbs etc.), as Ron had already
shown.
Some of the more common markers around the world are: case
endings (or prefixes), word order, particles (such as Japanese
has), morphophonemic alternation (such as leniting the following
word in Celtic, which reflects what the ending had once been),
etc.

> However, at this point I get a bit lost as to what the
> discussion here is actually about. Are we talking about
> languages generally or just Indo-European grammar?

We should be focusing on Lowland languages, I know, but pointing
out that other languages (and not just Indo-European ones
either) indicate the same grammatical functions as languages
with case endings: the important point is to remind ourselves
that just because the Lowland languages have lost -cases- in no
way means that they have lost the grammatical categories, only
that they use other means to indicate them.

I suppose we should also bear in mind that cases tend to have
multiple grammatical functions lumped together- the Latin
ablative had 17 different functions, so just because e.g. one
language using dative and accusative with prepositions as well
does not mean that another language has to mark prepositional
objects with the same markers as the indirect and direct object.
 English treats direct and indirect objects differently, but it
still doesn't mark the difference that German does between _vor
das Haus_ and _vor dem Haus_ "in front of the house (change/no
change of position).  Think of grammatical function, regardless
of what case expresses it in a given language, and a lot of the
confusion clears up.

> The success of English as a world language
> is often put down to the fact that it's easy to learn. I
> would suggest that:
>
> The more morphological marking, the harder a language is to
> learn.
> The more syntactic marking, the harder a language is to
> master.

I second that. In a decade of teaching languages, that has been
my experience too, e.g. Spanish or French vs. German or Russian
or Latin.  Learners generally master one element at a time, and
when multiple elements are bundled together (e.g. the present
subjunctive 2nd person plural passive) is easier to learn when
it's built up out of a half-dozen discrete words than when it's
built out of one ending).

> Incidentally, Margaret's profs' idea that the vocative case
> is "going away" - how can this be? Surely they only mean
> that the morphological markers for the vocative case are
> disappearing?

Vocative -usage- is found in every language in the world, but a
vocative case is a case that has a distinct form from other
cases, and just as you say, it is the distinctive form that is
being lost, o Sandy! ;^)

Stefan Israe!
stefansfeder at yahoo.com

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Grammar

Dear Lowlanders,

I completely agree with Stefan when he stresses that languages may lose
morphological case marking but do not lose the grammatical category whose
morphological marking has been lost.  I think we would do well bearing this
in mind at all times.

I feel that languages have a way of throwing out whatever is felt to be
redundant, and perhaps it is the more difficult morphological marking that
is first to go, especially if speakers feel that dropping it would not lead
to misunderstandings.  In the case of the vocative, we can see in Slavic,
for instance, that the (all?) Eastern Slavic varieties have discarded
vocative morphological marking, while Western and Southern Slavic languages
retain it, but it is on shaky grounds in the Western Slavic languages.  For
example, in "elevated" Polish it is mandatory, while in colloquial modes
the nominative forms tend to be used instead, especially in case of names.
Perhaps vocative marking is on its way out because it is felt to be
redundant in context or because it is used with prepositions that suffice
for the purpose.  Morphological marking may be retained longer where there
is multi-function, such as Stefan mentioned in the case of Latin.  This
would also apply to Russian instrumental marking, for instance, which is
used in various contexts, not only for expressing "with" or "by means of."

Best regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 14.JAN.2001 (04) [E]

A chairde,

John Feather wrote:

> This seems to be similar to the London usage "You
> know my brother?", which
> is not in fact a question but usually an indication
> that the speaker is
> introducing a new topic. Is this type of locution
> found in other varieties
> of English and other Lowlandic languages?

Indeed. As far as Long Eaton English - the variant I
speak - goes, we use "eeyuh" [i:j@] with a rising tone
to indicate that we are introducing a new topic. In
Long Eaton English the two versions "Eeyuh ma bruthuh,
rait, wull ee..." ("Here my brother, right, well
he...") and "Eeyuh, yuh nohw ma bruthuh, rait?")
co-exist, although the former is certainly more
informal and characteristic of the language. When I
was at school in Cornwall I was barracked severely by
the standard English-speaking teacher when, to get her
attention, I said: "Eeyuh miss..." ("Here, miss...").
Apparently to standard English speakers "Eeyuh"
("Here") is a demand, a coercion, a sociolinguistic
shove. Its meaning to Long Eaton English speakers is
"Please give me your attention as I would like it and
I am gesturing for it" It certainly doesn't have any
rudeness attached to it. Where would such a reflexive
have derived from?

In regard to the apparent rudeness of "Eeyuh" I am
reminded of a situation last night with a Norwegian
speaker. This individual is continually being
"corrected" here in Derry because he neglects to say
"please" and "thank you" in conversation, particularly
to barmen and shop staff. He argued that in Norway,
"please" and "thank you" are emotionally charged terms
that are not generally bandied about unless emphatic.
And as a "please" or "thank you" in formal
conversation is not emphatic, he sees little
justification to use it. Similarly, "yuh nohw" in Long
Eaton English is used as an "emphatic form" of "Eeyuh"
(as in "Eeyuh, yuh nohw..."), with "Eeyuh, you" being
a type of "accusative". "you" [ju:w] is the emphatic
form of "yuh" [j:@] ("you").

Recently we have noticed that this is regularly being
suffixed with an almost reflexive "yuh nohw" ['j@
no:w:] ("you know") but so far as I understand it this
emphasises the inquisitive. I'm certain that the use
of "yuh nohw" derives from standard or London English
contamination via the media, or from other variants we
were exposed to primarily through television.

Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that Long
Eaton English has picked up a striking collection of
features from London variants of English in my own
lifetime - i.e., from 1980 onward - perhaps because of
the presence of that language in a number of extremely
popular television programmes. Has the growth of
television contributed to much cross-pollenation of
"dialects" within English and other Lowland languages?
Most notable in Long Eaton English has been the
widespread adoption of glottal stops in place of
medial [t] as in "bo'uhll" [bo^?@l:] ("bottle")
amongst younger speakers. Similarly there seems to be
a strong trend toward dropping theta and dhelta
phonemes (/th/ in "think" and "this" respectively),
although this is far from uniform. Where theta and
dhelta have been lost they have been replaced by [f]
and [v]/[B] as in London English. With regard to the
introduction of glottal stops, it would be pertinent
to record that a loss of [t] and [d] in final position
is not at all a recent development, despite what many
Long Eaton English speakers may themselves believe:
elderly speakers show of the language show us that
absent terminal [t] has always been a feature of Long
Eaton English. Am I correct when I say that Norse had
no theta or dhelta phonemes?

There is also some slight confusion of [m] for [n] in
Long Eaton English words such as "mummf" [mumf] for
"month" although I believe this is a form of
distraction because of a nasalised preceding vowel (I
think Portugese does this), and quite an inherent
feature of L.E.E. I have noticed that a minority of
younger speakers of L.E.E are beginning to replace
"broad" /l/ (i.e., heavily palatised [lj:] as in
Irish, contrasted with "slender" [l] - words such as
"likll" [S. English "little"] begin with a slender and
end with a broad /l/) with vague [w] in a parotting of
London English. Is London English in particular - with
its strong glottal stops and [w]/[l] confusion -
having a noticeable effect on any other Lowland
languages?

In addition, I would like to thank Lowlanders who
contributed on the derivation of "senn" in Long Eaton
English. Much appreciated. If "senn" enjoys a similar
position in Zeeuws - with both deriving from
"selfun"/"zelven" - could we propose that the
"selfun/zelven" contiguity came about whilst the
proto-English were still on mainland Europe? John's
very useful contribution concerning "selfun" as
archaic seems to imply that the term could not have
derived from interactions between Midland English and
Zeeuws-speaking Flemish merchants. Even if "selfun",
whence "senn" in L.E.E., could be claimed to be a
borrowing from Vlaams/Zeeuws/continental Lowlandic how
would a largely peasant pastoral community acquire a
"merchant's" term? It seems to me more likely that
L.E.E developed its terms from an ancient "selfun",
itself manifesting whilst proto-English was still on
the continent, which then persisted in
Midland/Northern variants of later insular English. Is
this reasonable?

A second curious feature of L.E.E which I know is
common of all Northern and north Midlands English
variants is the lack of [v] or [B] where standard
English retains the phonemes. Particular examples are
L.E.E "gie" ['gi:j:] (S. English "give") and "lee"
['l:i:j:] (S. English "leave"). Isn't this paralleled
in Scots and Geordie? It is peculiar that numerals are
not affected by this absence, although "seven" is
"sayun" [se:j:'@N], and "five of us" is "fain on us
(oss)" [faijN: oN: us] (with the [o] being nasalised).
Where would "on" for "of" derive from? Is it the same
[v] + definite suffix causing eclipsis as in "selfun"
to "senn"?

Go raibh maith agaibh,

Críostóir.

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Grammar

Stefan wrote:

> What other examples in Lowland languages can people think of,
> where you can see how an ambiguous construction/pronunciation
> has led a later generation to reinterpret the grammar?  There
> should be plenty of examples.<

Sandy replied with an example of a childhood error of his own. One of mine
was to interpret "postal order" (a money order issued by the British Post
Office) as "post lorder". An adult friend of mine (an English teacher!)
consistently said "baton" for "batten" (a term much used in the theatre)
until I pointed out the difference. I'm sure this type of error is common.
I
am much less sure that there "should be plenty of examples" of
misinterpretations of grammar leading to permanent grammatical change. I
can't think of any in English apart from "could/would/ should of", and that

may not lead to a permanent change if there is in fact a reduction to
"shoulda". But must we expect that change if the written form (whichever it

is) still retains the final consonant? Interestingly, in London Demotic
"ought to have" gives the form [ort at r@v], and the genitive ending after a
sibilant is normally [iz].

Ed Alexander quoted me and replied:

>>In English the apostrophe came about because some grammarians in the
16th/17th centuries assumed that the genitive "s" was a relic of "his", so
that "Bob Green his hat" had reduced to "Bob Greens hat", and inserted the
apostrophe to indicate the supposedly missing letters.<<

>Well, this would explain why we say "Sally'r hat", for Sally her hat
[sarcasm]. <

I'm not sure whether the sarcasm is directed at me or to these grammarians.

But I note that Stefan is also uncertain about how possessives with female
names were treated.
BTW, in the case of common nouns there was a tendency in the earliest ME
for
feminine nouns to take what was previously a masculine genitive ending
(thus
the genitive of "hefne" ("heaven") became "hefness").

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

==================================END===================================
  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>.
  =======================================================================
  * 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
  =====================================================================