LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.27 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2003 (07) * 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
Archive: 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: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar

Hi Gabriele and all

You wrote

'Alas, just like with "could of"
and
"would of", there is a sad explanation for these
spellings'

I would argue for the case of Estuary English - and
possibly further afield, that the use of 'of' is
acceptable. In the short answer to a 'Could you
have...?' question in Standard British English it's
'yes, I could have' (I think in American it tends to
just be 'yes I could'). The 'have' in this context is
ever more frequently pronounced as 'of' with a full
'o' as opposed to with a schwa. In all other contexts
the 'have' is pronounced with a schwa - as in standard
English (could've) - I admit it's non-standard, but
perfectly acceptable as a dialectal difference.

Much in the same way as I have to accept people saying
pron'ou'nciation - my personal pet hate!

Gary

----------

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

Allison, I think you presented a rather compelling argument, concluding
thus:

> From: Allison Turner-hansen <athansen at arches.uga.edu>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.26 (04) [E]

> So I'll just conclude by saying that this word formation process has not
> been productive since Proto-Germanic, so the odd thing is that this fossil
> of a distinction has survived so long, not that it's disappearing.

You also said:

> Your example "Sit you down, dear
> companions" is in fact an example of just this, so you got me there. This
> thing is nothing new.

Well, if I may rush to your aid (as though you needed it) and shoot myself
in the foot, I say _Vielleicht auch ja, vielleicht auch nein_ (a (faulty)
pet saying I had when I was about three years old, as my elders still love
to rub in). This is my tentative hypothesis:

The "you" in "Sit you down, dear companions" may not be reflexive or
otherwise objective but rather subjective. In other words, this could well
be a remnant of an archaic imperative construction. To demonstrate what I
mean, I will, for clarity's sake, use the old 2nd person familiar pronominal
system:

singular: thou (obj.: thee, gen.: thy, thine, refl.: thyself)
plural: you (obj.: ye, gen.: your, refl.: yourselves)

Construction: [verb imp.] [pron. subj.] ...

Examples (* = assumed ungrammatical, ~ = varies with):

Hurry thou to the market, my child, and do not linger!
~ Hurry thou to the market, my child, and linger not!
(> Hurry to the market, my child, and do not linger!)
(~ Mayest thou hurry to the market, my child, and (mayest thou) not linger!)
(~ Mayest thou hurry to the market, my child, and linger not!)

Go you forth, my children, and multiply!
(> Go forth, my children, and multiply!)
(~ May you go forth, my children, and multiply!)

Go thou away, thou scoundrel!
(> Go away, (thou) scoundrel!)
(~ Away (with thee), (thou) scoundrel!)
(~ Mayest thou go away, (thou) scoundrel!)

[Superior mode (he = thou):]
Go he away, (the) scoundrel!
(~ May he go away, (the) scoundrel!)

Lie thou down, my child!
(> Lie down, my child!)

Lie you down, children!
(> Lie down, children!)

Lay thou thyself down, my child!
(> Lay thyself down, my child!)

Lay you yourselves down, my children!
(> Lay yourselves down, my children!)

Lay thee down, my child!
(* Lay thou thee down, my child!)

Lay ye down, my children!
(* Lay you ye down, my children!)

So, in "Sit you down, dear companions" the "you" may well be of this sort.
What do you think?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================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.
 =======================================================================