LL-L: "Pronouns" LOWLANDS-L, 24.JUN.2001 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 24.JUN.2001 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server 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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Pronouns

Richard Dury <richard at interac.it> wrote:

> Marijke van der Wal in the *Geschiedenis van het Nederlands* says that
> speakers of Flemish, with only one singular pronoun of address (gij),
came
> into contact with standard Dutch after the Second World War and with its
> polite pronoun (u). Since they met with standard Dutch only in formal
> situations some of them overgeneralized the use of u (assumed that
standard
>
> Dutch only had this one pronoun of address), and some Flemish
> mothers started to use this pronoun even to their children (Wal  1992:
> 407-8).  Wal
> cites an article by Deprez/Geerts (1980).
> Have there been any other studies of this phenomenon (use of *u* to
> children in Belgium)?
>
> I ask because I'm interested in the disappearance of *thou* in English
and
> it might have been partly caused by a similar sociolinguistic situation.

But aren't the 2nd person pronouns in Modern Dutch derived from original
plural forms?

           singular   plural
Familiar:  jij ~ je   jullie ~ je
Polite:    u          u

Did not Old Low Franconian have familiar singular *_thû_ and plural *_gî_,
where the plural form became the singular?

Modern Low Saxon (Low German) of Germany still retains the old system:

Old Saxon:
       singular  plural
nom.:  thû       gî
obj.:  thî       iu

Middle Low Saxon:
       singular  plural
nom.:  du        gî
obj.:  dî ~ dik  jû(we) ~ jük

Modern Low Saxon:
       singular  plural
nom.:  du        ji
obj.:  di(k)     ju(k)*

(*_dik_ ~ _dek_ and _juk_ ~ _jük_ ~ _jök_ only in Modern Eastphalian
dialects)

Using plural forms of personal pronouns in place of singular forms is a
common shift toward creating polite or deferential pronouns, and in some
cases the former singular form eventually becomes obsolete.  I believe that
this is what happened in both Dutch and English.  This can be observed not
only in Germanic and Indo-European but within other language families as
well.

Interesting cases of this sort of shift in process can be found among the
Turkic languages, languages with moderate to high degrees of mutual
comprehension in which various types of linguistic shift can be clearly
observed in comparing these language varieties.  The original system of
first and second person pronouns was something like this (in
reconstruction), where _-n_ marks the singular and _-z_ marks the (archaic)
plural:

      singular   plural
1st:  bin/min    biz/miz
2nd:  sin        siz

For some reason -- probably changes to more complex, stratified social
structures, which may be due to non-Turkic influences -- the need was felt
to create a 2nd person polite/deferential form.  This came to be
accomplished by using the plural form for the singular.  This is what
happened in English (where the objective plural form came to be used), with
the result that singular and plural now share the same form in English:

Old English:
       singular  plural
nom.:  þu        gê
obj.:  þê        êow

Modern English:
       singular  plural
nom.:  you       you
obj.:  you       you

Turkic did not permit this type of non-distinction.  To preserve
singular-plural distinction, most Turkic languages added the
plural/diversity suffix _-lär_~_-lar_ ("all kinds of ...") to create a new
plural; e.g., Modern Uyghur (used mostly in Western China but also in
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan):

           singular   plural
familiar:  sän        silär (< sänlär)
polite:    siz        sizlär

However, _sän_/_silär_ can nowadays only be safely used in addressing
animals and small children (and learners may want to avoid them
altogether), _siz_/_sizlär_ being in the process of taking over like
English _you_ once did.  In fact, _siz_/_sizlär_ is losing the polite or
deferential connotation, while the need remains to retain or even expand
the familiar-polite-deferential inventory.  This calls for the invention of
new polite and deferential pronouns: polite singular _özäng_ ("thyself"),
plural _özänglär_ ("yourselves"), singular _özingiz_ ("yourself"), plural
_özingizlär_ ("yourselves"), deferential singular _özlär_ ("selves") and
plural _härqaysiliri_ ("those of every type").

I do not believe that foreign influences are actually essential in these
types of shift.  All that is needed is social change, though admittedly
this is frequently triggered by foreign influences.

It is interesting to note that the default personal pronoun system in Low
Saxon (Low German) of Northern Germany is still without polite forms.
Singular _du_ [du:] and plural _ji_ [ji:] can be fairly safely used in
addressing anyone, certainly outside the large cities.  My theory is that
this is because the language has been mostly used in small, close-knit
communities (pretty much as a semi-hidden language in the cities) and
demands a familiar tone among its speakers.  Low Saxon has been seen as
"plain language" (_plat(t)_).  Putting on airs and introducing "High"
German concepts and social distinctions in this language used to be and
largely still are considered _geel_ ("yellow"), High-German-like, and
_Patentplatt_ ("patented, i.e., invented, non-authentic Platt").  However,
under ("High") German influences, many speakers now use _Se_ (< _se_
'they') [zE%I] as the polite singular and plural 2nd person pronoun.
(Interestingly, due to German accusative _Sie_, most people use _Se_ also
in objective case, where _Jüm_ (< _jüm_ 'them') would be grammatically
correct.)  Some people distinguish plural _Se_ and singular _He_ (< _he_
'he') [hE%I] in addressing males, probably derived from archaic, i.e.,
pre-20th-century German (_er_ 'he' > _Er_).  I gather that Low Saxon
dialects of the Netherlands have by and large picked up the Dutch system
(_je_, _u_, etc., rather than singular *_doe_).

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================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
=======================================================================