LL-L "Morphology" 2002.05.22 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 22.MAY.2002 (04) * 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=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: <burgdal32 at mac.com>
Subject: language varieties

Dear Lowlanders

There is a very special particularity in Flemish about the  words' yes
'and'no'. We decline those words!
Does this exist in other languages also?
Examples:

Ga jij naar de stad? Jaak  (nink) (E=Yes I do, no I don't)
Gaat hij?  jaaj (Nij) (E= yes he does, no he doesn't)
Gaat zij?  jaas (nins) (E=yes sche does, no sche doesn't)
Gaan wij? Jaam, jaauw(nim, niw) (E= yes we do, no we don't)
Gaan jullie? Jaam,jaauw (nim,niw)
Gaan zij? Jaas (E = yes they do, no they don't)
Is het al laat? Jaat (nint) (E = yes it is, no it isn't)
I am very much interested in some reactions about that item!

Groetjes
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology

Thanks for the explanation (above), Luc.  That's a very interesting case
of cliticization, if not outright suffixization, by way of contraction;
e.g., ...

ja, ik ... > jaak ...
ja, hij ... > jaaj ...
ja, zij ... > jaaz ... > jaas ...

In the case of "no," there seems to be nasalization, hence _Nee, ik ..._
> _Nink ..._.

Things of this type happen a lot, albeit often sporadically, such as in
this case (when compared with related variaties).  The gradual process
of cliticization can be observed very nicely in the Altaic languages
(which are well known for being agglutinative), where a separate word in
one variety has become an enclitic in another variety (where it is
phonologically fused without obeying vowel harmony) and a suffix in yet
another variety (where it is fully integrated into the phonology of the
word to which it has been "glued").  Things of this nature happen(ed)
also in Indo-European languages (e.g., your case and English "'s").

Thanks again.

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