LL-L "Morphology" 2003.01.05 (15) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 05.JAN.2003 (15) * 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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology

Dear Lowlanders,

In the area of morphology, one of my pet subjects is diminutive derivation
(denoting small or cute creatures or things, such as “bit” > “bitty”, “babe”
> “baby”) and, augmentative derivation, its opposite.

It is striking to me that in the language branch known as “Low German”
(i.e., Frankish- and Saxon-based language varieties of the continental North
European Lowlands) diminutive derivation is, on the whole, more strongly
developed in the Lowlands Frankish varieties than in the Lowlands Saxon
varieties.  Older Lowlands Saxon texts seem to prove that diminutives used
to be used more freely than they are now.

Question 1:
Does anyone have any clue why there has been such a decline?

Among the Lowlands Frankish varieties, diminutive derivation is not confined
to nouns; it can be used in adverbs as well, intensifying notions such as
“gently” or “lightly”.  For instance, Dutch has _zacht_, an adjective or
adverb, ‘gentle’, ‘gently’, ‘soft(ly)’, ‘slow(ly)’.  Its diminutive
derivative is _zachtjes_ (with the diminutive suffix _-je_ and the adverbial
suffix _-s_) ‘nice and gently’, ‘slowly and softly’, etc.

Adverbial diminutives are fascinatingly strange to speakers of German and of
Lowlands Saxon (Low German) dialects of Germany.  In Northern Lowlands
Saxon, the only way I know how to intensify ‘softly’ is to take _sacht_
(with pretty much the same meanings and pronunciation as Dutch _zacht_) and
derive _sachtens_ (['zaxtn=s]) from it, thus ‘very gently’, ‘nice and gently
’, ‘very carefully’, ‘very quietly’, sometimes also connoting ‘carefully, in
a secretive manner’ (e.g., _Se krööp sachtens uut ’t Huus_ ‘She slipped out
of the house carefully and quietly’).

The only true adverbial diminutive I can think of in North German Lowlands
Saxon is _suutje_ ['zu:tje] ‘very carefully’, ‘very deliberately’, ‘nice and
easy’, etc.  Native speakers do not analyze it as an adverbial diminutive.
There are two reasons for this: (1) there is no such paradigm, and (2) the
supposed root *_zuut_ does not exist.  As I have explained on an earlier
occasion, _zuutje_ must be a Dutch loanword.  It corresponds to Dutch
_zoetjes_ ['zu(:)tj at s] with the same meaning, and this Dutch adverb is
derived from Dutch _zoet_ [zu(:)t] ‘sweet’ (cf. French _doux_ ~ _douce_
'sweet' > _doucement_ 'gently', 'softly') in the same way _zachtjes_ is
derived from _zacht_.  If Lowlands Saxon had an analog form, it would have
to be *_söötje(s)_ ~ *_seutje(s)_, from _sööt_ [zœIt] ~ _seut_ [zOIt] ‘sweet
’.

Question 2:
Do any Lowlands Saxon dialects have genuine adverbial diminution?

Question 3:
Do any Lowlands language varieties other than Lowlands Frankish ones have
genuine adverbial diminution?

Question 4:
How widespread is adjectival and adverbial diminution in the Indo-European
languages?

I know that in Portuguese diminutive adjectives and adverbs are derived like
nouns; e.g.,

rapaz ‘boy’ > rapazito ‘little boy’
primo ‘male cousin’ > ‘priminho’ ‘sweet, little male cousin’
prima ‘female cousin’ > ‘priminha’ ‘sweet, little female cousin’
(Glória >) Ló > Lotita
cidade ‘city’, ‘town’ > cidadezinha ‘little town’

coitado ‘poor’ > coitadito ‘(little, pitiable and) poor’
pobre ‘poor’ > pobrezinho ‘(little, pitiable and) poor’

cedo ‘early’ > cedito ‘nice and early’
depressa ‘quick(ly)’ > depressinha ‘nice and quickly’
perto ‘near’ > pertito ‘very/conveniently near’

To add a nice and friendly tone, diminutives are used frequently in
Portuguese (a Romance language), especially in Brazilian dialects, going as
far as deriving “cute” polite phrases, such as _obrigrado_ (“obliged”)
‘thank you’ > _obrigadinho_, and _adeus_ (“to God”) ‘good bye’ >
_adeusinho_.  (Compare Eastern Prussian German diminutive _Juten Tagchen_ <
_Guten Tag_ “good day” = ‘Hello!’)

Question 5:
How widespread is the use of augmentatives, the opposite of diminutives, in
Indo-European?

In Sorbian (here Upper Sorbian, a Slavonic language), there is diminution of
nouns and adjectives; e.g.,

hólc ‘boy’ > hólčik ‘little boy’
(*kniga >) kniha ‘book’ > knižka ‘small book’, ‘booklet’
nan ‘father’ > nank ‘daddy’
list ‘letter’ > listčik ‘(dear) little letter’
žona ‘woman’, ‘wife’ > žonka ‘nice, little woman/wife’

skrómny ‘modest’ > skrómnuški ‘nice and modest’
zrudny ‘sad’ > zrudnuški ‘pitifully sad’
kóždy ‘each’, ‘every’ > kóždźički ‘each little’, ‘every little’
mały ‘little’ > małki ‘nice little’ > mólički ‘tiny’

Only nouns can undergo augmentation, and in every instance they are changed
to neuter gender; e.g.,

psyk ‘dog’ (masc.) > psyčisko ‘large, scary dog’
žona ‘woman’, ‘wife’ (fem.) > žonisko ~ žonišćo ‘large, horrible woman/wife’

Italian (a Romance language) has, besides diminution, augmentation of nouns
and adjectives, verbs only with diminution, and these derivations are
lexicalized (with specific meanings) with a difference between pure
“augmentative” and “pejorative”; e.g.,

ragazzo ‘boy’ > ragazzino ‘little boy’
ragazza ‘girl’ > ragazzina ‘little girl’
libro ‘book’ > libruccio ‘little book’, ‘booklet’
casa ‘house’ > casuccia ‘little house’

ragazzo ‘boy’ > ragazzone ‘big boy’
ragazza ‘girl’ > ragazzona ‘big girl’

ragazzo ‘boy’ > ragazzacio ‘naughty boy’
parole ‘word’, ‘expression’ > parolaccia ‘vulgar word’, ‘curse word’

mìsero ‘poor’ > miserello ‘miserable little’
pigro ‘lazy’ > pigretto ‘a bit lazy’
pigro ‘lazy’ > pigraccio ‘horribly lazy’
sciocco ‘stupid’ > sciocchino ‘silly’
sciocco ‘stupid’ > sciocchone ‘terribly stupid’

lèggere ‘to read’ > leggiucchiare ‘to skim (through text)’
mangiare ‘to eat’ > mangiucchiare ‘to have a little bite’, ‘to eat like a
bird’
cantare ‘to sing’ > cantarellare ‘to sing quietly to oneself’

Question 6:
Are there any Lowlandic varieties that use augmentation?

Question 7:
Does diminution of verbs exist in Lowlandic?

Thanks,
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>.
=======================================================================