LL-L "Syntax" 2003.04.14 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.APR.2003 (02) * 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: jari at delphisexpress.com <jari at delphisexpress.com>
Subject: Syntax

Thanks Reinhard/Ron for the comments, most of which I anticipated.

I don't think it is enough to say that Afrikaans has a double negation. The
first problem is the curious place of the second "nie". I think the
divisible
verb theory is the best explanation, because there is no alternative which
would explain the position of the second "nie". The second problem is that
the
double negation doesn't occur where you would expect it. You can say "ek nie
weet nie" only in a subordinate clause.

As to the emphasis, I have two answers. First, when the prefix is actually
cut
off from the verb and put at the end of the sentence, it doesn't have to be
stressed, if the intervening sentence is long. Second, I think the lack of
stress of the second "nie" can be attributed to the reduplication.

If the divisible verb theory doesn't explain everything, we can consider the
influence of Indian languages too. I don't know how much Hindi, for
instance,
has influenced Afrikaans, but in Hindi you have the curious way of
supplementing every verb with "hai" (=is") at the end of the sentence, and
this "hai" is unstressed. Besides, one possible source of the plentiful
reduplication in Afrikaans could be Hindi, if there is any relation at all.

The constructs like "niemand...nie" and so on are a good point. The answer
is:
I don't know. I would like to put forward a very simple thesis: that they
are
used analogously with the "nie...nie" construction.

One has to bear in mind, as you pointed out (I think), that Afrikaans is a
learner's language, and some of the pecualiarities are just
grammatical "mistakes". So instead of looking for neat Germanic theories,
like
the Germanic double negation, you could consider something else. I think the
Germanic double negation could explain why the original Dutch speakers in
South
Africa could live with the double negation, even if it was not exactly what
they had heard in the Old Country.

I think the solution still revolves around the verb. For instance,
the "nie...nie" construct is so strong that it breaks the rule that in a
subordinate clause the verb has to be at the end: "omdat ek nie weet nie".
And
I think the subordinate clause is the beginning of our miseries. The
first "nie" is regarded as part of the verb in the infinitive. The second
"nie"
is thrown to the end to indicate that this is a finite form after all. And
so,
the original rule that the verb is at the end of the subordinate clause is
broken.

This would also explain why the negation is sometimes reduplicated and
sometimes not. Take "ek weet nie". The "nie" could be the Germanic negation
in
its right place, but it could also be part of a divisible verb. This double
function of "nie" is broken down when we add a prepositional phrase, and
then
we get the reduplication too. The first "nie" is still the normal negation,
whereas the second "nie" is part of the divisible verb.

There are problems of course with this thesis, but I think it has fewer
problems than some alternative explanations.

Jari Nousiainen

==================================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>.
 =======================================================================