LL-L "Grammar" 2002.08.27 (06) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.AUG.2002 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net> Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 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=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.08.24 (02) [S]

Sandy wrate:

>Ay, it dis leuk like he follaes "ma" rules efter aa - A dinna
>think A'd get confused juist wi the praisence o infinitives
>or imperatives, tho A did think A'd seen Lorimer brekkin thir
>rules. Is it possible that Lorimer varies his verb concord
>conform tae the dialeck he's uizin?

It's possible - I haena analysed aa the beuks. I dinna think Lorimer
actually uises different _dialects_ for the different beuks, tho - he
juist uises different _styles_ - like mibbie 'brung' insteid o 'brocht',
or siclike.

 The'r twae things is
>staunin in ma road o gittin this richt - first is, A dinna
>notice whan grammar's richt - it's the wrang stuff that
>sticks oot.

Ay - I ken whit ye mean.

(sned)

 A'd say A masel comes hauf roads
>atween (a) an (b) abuin - A ken the rules but the'r times
>whan what A wad say gauns against them (an against English
>uizage baith). This whiles gars me stop an fickle ower what
>needs pitten doun, but times like that A dout a body haes
>tae gaun wi their intuition, cause itherroads ye could loss
>something important juist for the sake o a rule.

Ay, that's deid richt. The thing ti dae is finnd oot whit wey ye say
whit ye div say - ie, ti wale oot the rule frae actual speak.
>
>> >A lands at the same conclusion thinkin on aa the texts A kens,
>>
>> Hou dis 'A lands' an 'A kens' fit inti the rule?
>
>Ay, this is it, ye see, it seems richt tae me but A'm no shuir
>how - "A lands" is aesy, the implication bein A'v thocht it ower
>an ower an ay comes tae the same conclusion (ie it's the habitual),
>A'm no sae shuir aboot "A kens". It's kin o like what A wis askin
>in the first place anent hou the Praisent Historic developed - dis
>spaekers whiles transfer the concord fae ae pairt o the sentence
>tae anither, sae's ance ye'v sayed "A lands" ye micht finnd yersel
>sayin "A kens" an aa? Like the Praisent Historic, this wad be mair
>modern than traditional, A dout. Gin ma intuition aboot it's richt
>ava!

This is possible. I think the basic concord rule is the 'contact' rule -
ie, only verbs richt niest a plural pronoun haes the 'plural' form - an
the ither things is variations frae this, some local, some a maiter o
style or whitiver. My Shetlandic speak braks this rule cause it maks
plural verbs gree wi thair pronouns e'en whan thay'r sindered frae the
verb, an I uise forms like 'I lands' juist i the present historic - ie,
whan I'm tellin a story, an sae less nor you div. The uiss o 'wis' - in
forms like 'wis thay gaun' an 'ye wis gaun' - in maist kynds o mainland
Scots (but no Shetlandic) is anither exception ti the rule, an yer
'heavy' uiss o maks like 'I lands' an 'I kens' is aiblins a local
stylistic strynd.
>
>Some spaekers in ma airt seems tae uize the Praisent Historic an
>Habitual awfu, awfu heavy. A dinna think A catches them brekkin
>ony rules, tho - it's juist that some fowk's that fou o stories
>an their ain opeenions, that maist o what they say needs inflectin!

That'll be whit wey ye uise it sae muckle than!!! (:-)>
>
>Something A wis ficklin ower juist the ither nicht whan A saw masel
>writin it is, what's the rule ahint a expression like "A needs pit
>something aby..." or "Ye needsna gae that faur...". The'r naething
>wrang wi sayin "Ye needna gae that faur..." as faur as A can see,
>but the chainged verb form "needs" seems tae hae a ettle mair like
>"buid". Houanever, sayin, "A need pit something aby..." soonds wrang
>tae me.

A differ like the differ atween 'ye dinna hae tae' an 'ye'd better no!'?
This is no a mak I uise mysel, sae I'll leave ye ti figgur it oot!

I think at, whan we'r speakin aboot writin expository or narrative
prose, the thing ti dae wad be ti haud wi the basic rule an vary frae it
whan the meanin, or connotation, is nott.

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================