LL-L "Syntax" 2003.04.11 (04) [E]
Lowlands-L
admin at lowlands-l.net
Fri Apr 11 17:30:51 UTC 2003
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 11.APR.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
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
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================
From: Ruud Harmsen <rh at rudhar.com>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2003.04.11 (03) [E]
08:11 11-4-2003 -0700, Jari Nousiainen <jari at delphisexpress.com>:
>2) What is the background of the double "nie" construction in
Afrikaans?
I don't know. Two suggestions:
- I think Middle Dutch had a double negative: en ... niet.
- Influence from French? Many Afrikaners of Dutch decent were
Hugenots, originally from France.
BTW French ne ... pas, ne ... que, ne personne originally were not
double negatives, but "negated positives". Literal meaning: not a
... pace/step, not ... except when, not a ... person. Personne still
means "nobody", but also "person" in French.
--
Ruud Harmsen http://rudhar.com/ - update 15 maart 2003
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <admin at lowlands-l.net>
Subject: Syntax
Below:
Re: double negatives
From: our archives
(http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html)
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
===
Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: Ted Harding [Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk]
Subject: Double negative
There is an interesting inverse relationship between the usually
"ungrammatical" use of double negative in Germanic/English languages
and the ungrammatical use of "simple" negative in French.
In English, "I did nothing this morning" is correct, while "I didn't
do nothing this morning" is considered incorrect though not uncommon in
"uneducated" speech.
In French, "ne ... rien" (and similar constructions) is strictly and
rigidly enforced in the official grammar of the language. Therefore
"Je n'ai rien fait ce matin" is the only strictly correct form.
Nevertheless, in casual speech, even by educated people, the form
"J'ai rien fait ce matin" occurs quite frequently.
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: 15-Sep-99 Time: 10:02:26
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
----------
From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Double negative [E]
I don't see why British English should be left off the list, but I think a
distinction may have to be made between a fixed use of the double negative
(if I have understood the Afrikaans example properly) and the simple
addition (or multiplication) of negatives in BrE, eg "I ain't never done
nothin' like that to nobody, nohow!"
I'm not sure that French has a double negative, at least if forms like "ne
... rien" are being referred to. The second element of such pairs originally
had a purely positive meaning ("rien" derives from Latin "rem", "thing" )
and only the "ne" created the negative sense. But the negative sense became
attached to the second word, which can now have a negative sense without
"ne". (Some words have both senses, eg "jamais".) We ought therefore to see
"ne .. rien" and "rien" as two forms of the negative, rather than the former
being a double negative.
John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk
----------
From: wim kotze [wimkotze at hotmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Double negative" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 14.SEP.1999 (05)
Dankie, Laaglanders, vir julle reaksie op my vraag aangaande die dubbele
ontkenning. Ek het beslis baie geleer wat ek NIE voorheen geweet het NIE.
(Thank you, Lowlanders, for your response on my question concerning the
double negation. I certainly learnt a lot which I haven't known before. )
It sure ain't no co-incidence that I used a double negative above.
Where I have found all the responses most interesting, it was only the
Brabantish that Roger quoted that rang familiar to the use in Afrikaans that
I was referring to. The (requoted underneath) syntax of those (requoted
below) corresponds so closely to that of Afrikaans that it is highly
inconceivable to deny the relationship. Not 100% the same, though. Please
take a look at my comments after the quote.
3. Brabantish (not general, but in the Aarschot area)
>Ik heb _niemand_ _niet_ gezien _niet_
>Daar zal _niemand_ _niet_ komen _nie_
>Na acht uur laten de gendarmen hier _niemand_ _niet_ meer passeren _nie_.
>Die oude vent is nog _nooit_ _niet_ ziek geweest _nie_. (1)
>Hij wil _geen_ soep _niet_ meer eten _nie_. (2)
>_Neen_, de deur is _niet_ toe _nie_.
>Is dat _niet_ waar _nie_. (3)
I suspect that the shades of meaning differ between the quotes above, and
Afrikaans. To clarify this, I am going to translate the numbered sentences
in English, as if they were Afrikaans. Can anyone perhaps also supply the
correct translations from Aarschot Brabantish ? I suspect that (1) and (2)
have quite the opposite meanings. If that is true, then speakers of the two
tongues could really get confused should they ever meet (hypothetically
speaking of course, since I don't know if the given form of Brabantish is
still in use)
1) The old guy has never not being ill. (ie he has never been healthy)
(the occurrences of three negations "nooit", "niet" & "nie" would revert the
meaning to affirm that the guy was always ill, to Afrikaans speakers)
2) He doesn't not want to eat any soup (ie whenever he sees soup, he has to
eat it, here again, "geen" counts as an added negative, which negates the
meaning of the double negative)
3) Isn't that true ? (I've got a a feeling the meaning here is the same in
both tongues)
Thanks Ian for the Ulster Scots contribution. Thanks also to Ron and above
all for way you handle the mailing list !
groete uit Suid-Afrika,
Wim
***Thu, 16 Sep 1999
From: Muhammed Suleiman [suleiman at lineone.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Double negative" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 14.SEP.1999 (04)
> As a native Afrikaans speaker, I am have always wondered about the double
> negative in my language. One would think it could have been derived from
> French, the Cape colony, where Afrikaans developed, having had a
substantial
> French speaking population in early colonial times. But the Afrikaans
double
> negative is preposterously different from that of French, or other tongues
> like Welsh or certain forms of American English. I've included these
> examples:
> ek wil nie swem nie (I do not want to swim)
> niemand gaan swem nie (Nobody's going to swim)
> Question : does the double negative occur in any of the European lowland
> dialects ? I once saw it explained in a Museum that it does occur in some
> Dutch dialects.Still, I would like to offer my own explaination to the
> double negative. Again consider the sentence:
> ek wil nie swem nie (Dutch : Ik wil niet schwemmen (spelling ok ?))
I have quite a wealth of information in my notebooks about the Afrikaans
double negative, unfortunately I can't seem to spot the sources of the
information. Here is a summary of what I have, if anyone requires references
I could trace them and supply them later.
This double SPLIT negative has become one of the more outstanding features
of Afrikaans, and the length of clause which can separate the two elements
of the negative can be quite astonishing. Witness, for example:
_Dit het begin lyk asof die Transvaalse regering GEEN stap
waarby die belange van die uitlanders, in watter verwynderde
sin ook al,gemoeid was, sou kan doen sonder om te vra wat
Britanje te se^ het NIE._
The grammarians say that 'When the clause is so long that the repetition of
nie would be felt as unexpected or unnatural, the second nie may be
dropped!'
The paradox is that the final nie, which is so indispensible in most cases,
carries no stress. The lack of stress, either primary or secondary, is used
as evidence that the penomenon in Afrikaans has not been borrowed from the
French double negatives (where the second element is stressed, and the first
is disappearing in the colloquial).
A.C Bouman notes the existence in Coloureds and whites of all classes, and
even among English-speaking South Africans, of what he terms a _double
hiccup_, which puts negative sentences into relief, and which 'without a
doubt derives from indigenous languages, and specifically from Hottentot.'
The negative answer to the question: _Weet jy waar Langenhoven woon?_ (Do
you know where Langenhoven lives?) is the 'double hiccup' [ He writes this
using an upturned V with two dots below it.], or 'double hiccup'-Ek weet
nie. Bouman says that this glottal sound was disagreeable to 'white ears',
and so it was often replaced by _nee_, thus: _Nee, ek weet NIE_, so that it
is not much of a transition from _NEE, ek se^ dit NIE_ (I don't say) to _Ek
kan (dit) NIE se^ NIE_ (I can't say).
Bouman's thesis was opposed by D.B. Bosman. He points out that constructions
such as:_NEE, ek kan kom NIE_ is a polite form of phraseology found in many
languages, thus Eng. _No, I can't tell you._, Ger. _Nein, das Weiss ich
nicht._ Bosman goes on to say that here one is dealing not with
substitution, but with contamination. He links _nie...nie_ with other
constructions, like _Hij is AL lank AL weg._ (he is long gone.)or _ Hij loop
UIT die huis UIT._ (He goes out of the house.), which, moreover, has near
equivalents in Dutch (Standard and dialectal). Taking the sentence, _Ek sal
NIE gaan NIE_, he analyses it as a fusion of _Ek gaan NIE_ and _Ek sal NIE
gaan._
The Flemish linguist Blancquaert entered the debate in an article, _Over de
dubbele ontkenning en nog wat._ [Handelingen van het 6de Vlaamsche
Philologencongres, Antwerpen, 1923, pp.60-69.], in which he says that
'double negation is not at all specific to Afrikaans, but is equally
European and Dutch, and there is no need to look very far afield to find
it.'
Balcquaert's colleague, Pauwels, in his survey of the dialect of Aarschot in
Belgian Brabant [Het dialekt van Aarschot en omgeving. - Leuven, 1958]
points out the use of an analogous double negative used in that area, this
he calls the 'expletive negative'. The two important differences, however,
are that (1) The Aarschot expletive negative is never obligatory; and (2)
Brabant usage never allows huge gaps between the elements. The syntactic
usage is, however, the same, and Aarschot usage too never carries the
stress. Examples from Aarschot are: _De dokter is NIET geweest NIE._ (The
doctor has not been.); _Ze heeft er GEEN plezier aan beleefd NIE._ (She got
no pleasure from it.)
Attempts have persisted to demonstrate that the double negative in Afrikaans
originates in Hottentot. The Nama dialect of Hottentot places the negative
almost invariably after the Verb, and in many cases before and after it.
Valkhoff mentions that pidgin Portuguese, which was once a lingua franca of
the Cape, has double negation, thus the reply to the question: _Estas
doente?_ (Are you ill?) would be _NA~O esta NA~O._
On the whole, however, it seems that we need look no further for the origins
of the double negative than Belgium and Holland, as other members of the
list have illustrated.
Groete
M. Suleiman***Mon, 16 Dec 2002
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Syntax
Dear Lowlanders,
I wonder if some of you are interested in revisiting once again the topic of
double negation and exploring triple negation, these being commonly regarded
as being features of unsophisticated or substandard speech modes but are
grammatically prescribed or at least acceptable in some standard varieties
(e.g., in Afrikaans in the Lowlands group).
In Northern Lowlands Saxon (Low German), double negation may occur with
_nich_ ([nIC]) ~ _ni_ ([nI]) ~_neet_ ([nE.It]) ~ _naait_ ([na.It]) ‘not’
if a phrase contains a negative pronoun or adverb, and this form of double
negation is mandatory if negation is stressed; e.g.,
(1)
Nüms (~ keeneen) snackt mit Lies’.
(“Nobody (~ no one) talks with Elizabeth.”)
‘Nobody talks with Elisabeth.’
(2)
Nüms (~ keeneen) snackt nich mit Lies’.
(“Nobody (~ no one) talks not with Elizabeth.”)
‘Nobody does talk with Elisabeth.’
(3)
Mit Lies’ wardt nie (nich) snackt.
(“With Elizabeth is never (not) talked.” [impersonal passive])
‘One doesn’t talk with Elizabeth.’
(4)
Mit Lies’ wardt nie nich snackt.
(“With Elizabeth is never not talked.” [impersonal passive]))
‘One doesn’t ever talk with Elizabeth.’
I suppose those of you who know Afrikaans or certain non-standard varieties
of other Lowlands languages are familiar with this sort of structure and
understand that using a second negative does not cancel/negate the other
negative. (I was tempted to provide Afrikaans equivalents but decided to
let others do so if they wish.)
In Sorbian (~ Lusatian ~ "Wendish", a group of West Slavonic varieties now
unique to Germany), including the two standard varieties, double negation
and even triple negation is mandatory and does not lead to cancellation or
double-cancellation; e.g., Standard Upper Sorbian:
(5)
Nichtó z Hilžu nihdy njerĕči.
(“Nobody (~ no one) with Elizabeth never not-talks.”)
(“Nobody doesn’t never not talk with Elizabeth.” = ungrammatical)
(“Nobody never talks with Elizabeth.” = marginally substandard)
‘Nobody ever talks with Elizabeth.’
In Lowlands Saxon this can be grammatical, albeit perhaps marginally so to
some listeners:
(6)
Nüms (~ keeneen) snackt nie nich mit Lies’.
(“Nobody (~ no one) talks never not with Elizabeth.”)
‘Nobody ever talks with Elizabeth.’ [?]
To me it “feels” emphatically negative (“nobody never ever ...”). To some
listeners there may be emphatic cancellation here, though I am not sure:
“There isn’t anybody that never talks with Elizabeth.” =
“Everybody talks (~ does talk) with Elizabeth.”
Probably constructions 1-4 above would be clearer, hence preferable. What
do others think? How does this sort of thing play out in other Lowlands
varieties?
Thanks in advance.
Reinhard/Ron*** Wed, 18 Dec 2002
From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2002.12.16 (04) [E]
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Syntax
Dear Lowlanders,
I wonder if some of you are interested in revisiting once again the topic
of
double negation and exploring triple negation, these being commonly
regarded
as being features of unsophisticated or substandard speech modes but are
grammatically prescribed or at least acceptable in some standard varieties
(e.g., in Afrikaans in the Lowlands group).
In Northern Lowlands Saxon (Low German), double negation may occur with
_nich_ ([nIC]) ~ _ni_ ([nI]) ~_neet_ ([nE.It]) ~ _naait_ ([na.It]) ‘not’
if a phrase contains a negative pronoun or adverb, and this form of double
negation is mandatory if negation is stressed; e.g.,
(1)
Nüms (~ keeneen) snackt mit Lies’.
(“Nobody (~ no one) talks with Elizabeth.”)
‘Nobody talks with Elisabeth.’
(2)
Nüms (~ keeneen) snackt nich mit Lies’.
(“Nobody (~ no one) talks not with Elizabeth.”)
‘Nobody does talk with Elisabeth.’
(3)
Mit Lies’ wardt nie (nich) snackt.
(“With Elizabeth is never (not) talked.” [impersonal passive])
‘One doesn’t talk with Elizabeth.’
(4)
Mit Lies’ wardt nie nich snackt.
(“With Elizabeth is never not talked.” [impersonal passive]))
‘One doesn’t ever talk with Elizabeth.’
I suppose those of you who know Afrikaans or certain non-standard
varieties
of other Lowlands languages are familiar with this sort of structure and
understand that using a second negative does not cancel/negate the other
negative. (I was tempted to provide Afrikaans equivalents but decided to
let others do so if they wish.)
In Sorbian (~ Lusatian ~ "Wendish", a group of West Slavonic varieties now
unique to Germany), including the two standard varieties, double negation
and even triple negation is mandatory and does not lead to cancellation or
double-cancellation; e.g., Standard Upper Sorbian:
(5)
Nichtó z Hilžu nihdy njereci.
(“Nobody (~ no one) with Elizabeth never not-talks.”)
(“Nobody doesn’t never not talk with Elizabeth.” = ungrammatical)
(“Nobody never talks with Elizabeth.” = marginally substandard)
‘Nobody ever talks with Elizabeth.’
In Lowlands Saxon this can be grammatical, albeit perhaps marginally so to
some listeners:
(6)
Nüms (~ keeneen) snackt nie nich mit Lies’.
(“Nobody (~ no one) talks never not with Elizabeth.”)
‘Nobody ever talks with Elizabeth.’ [?]
To me it “feels” emphatically negative (“nobody never ever ...”). To some
listeners there may be emphatic cancellation here, though I am not sure:
“There isn’t anybody that never talks with Elizabeth.” =
“Everybody talks (~ does talk) with Elizabeth.”
Probably constructions 1-4 above would be clearer, hence preferable. What
do others think? How does this sort of thing play out in other Lowlands
varieties?
Thanks in advance.
Reinhard/Ron
Dear Ron,
We have some similar negations in West-Flemish:
't Ei mi da niemand nie gezeid (nobody said that to me).
'k En zeg 'et niet (I don't say it)
Neên, gij eit mie dao nie gezien? Nink(no, you did'nt see me there? No i
didn't)
Gij en gaot dat niet zegg'n eneê? (You won't say that, don't you?)
'k Ei em dao nieverans nie geziene (I didn't see him anywhere)
Ge ziet gij nie ziek neê? Nink (You are not sick? Yes I'm not)
Kijkt ne keê o t'er geên gevaor niet en is.Nint(Look if there is no danger.
No there isn't)
Other words that strengthens the negative:
nievers niet(nowhere)
nooit niet(never)
niemand niet(no one)
geênszins niet (not at all)
Greetings
Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene***
Wed, 18 Dec 2002
From: Mathieu. van Woerkom <Mathieu.vanWoerkom at student.kun.nl>
Subject: Syntax
Ron wrote:
> I wonder if some of you are interested in revisiting once again the
> topic of double negation and exploring triple negation, these being
> commonly regarded as being features of unsophisticated or substandard
> speech modes but are grammatically prescribed or at least acceptable
> in some standard varieties
Of course there is always the horrible example of '1980s' Dutch:
"never nooit niet"
I can also remember that the double/triple negation is considered
by some as typical for eastern Brabantish dialects (southern Dutch):
"hier gebeurt ok nooit niks nie"
Regards,
Mathieu***Thu, 19 Dec 2002
From: Marcel Bas mrbas_26 at hotmail.com
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2002.12.18 (08) [E]
Hi Ron,
In Leiden the negation _nooit geen_ (never no) for _nooit_ (never) is very
common: "Ik krraig neujt geejn ^antwoorrd" (I never get no answer) and the
English-inspired "Daarr hebbie toch never-nooit iets an" (that will
never-never help you). It is possible that these double negations also occur
in the the other urban dialects in the Randstad area, such as in the
Rotterdam dialect.
Now I have a question; in the Dutch province of Drenthe (where a Low Saxon
dialect is spoken), in the town of Roden, I talked to a man who - to my
surprise - applied the double negation the way it was familiar to me in
Afrikaans. Attempting to speak Standard Dutch (ABN) he said: "Hij hoeft
_niet_ veel te eten _niet_", repeating the negation at the end of every
clause!
Can anyone tell me if this double negation is normal in Drenthe?
Best regards, Marcel.***Sun, 2 Mar 2003
From: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar<snip>
Secondly, I would dispute a little that this 'rule' of
Standard English is taken from Latin. It is true that
lots of 'rules' were basically made up for English on
the basis of Latin - which is of course inappropriate
(or, at best, artificial) because English is not a
Latinate language. The most notorious of these is
probably the 'split infinitive'. However, other
'rules' of Standard English were made up on the basis
of other things - for example double negation,
perfectly normal in Old English and modern
non-standard English (all varieties), was 'banned' in
Standard English on the basis of mathematics!
<snip>
================================END===================================
* 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.
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list