LL-L "Morphology" 2003.09.29 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.SEP.2003 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
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
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2003.09.29 (05) [E]

This talk of the Bavarian pronoun _mia_ is interesting. In Nottingham
English we say _us_ to mean _me_ in some situations, e.g., _Gie us tha_
('Give me that'). Semantic shifts or something older?

Criostóir.

----------

From: Jan Strunk <strunkjan at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2003.09.29 (05) [E]

Hello folks,

Luc Hellinckx wrote:
> Very interesting topic...In Brabantish, "me" is also the unstressed form
of
> "we" (E).
> So it would surprise me very much if this is due to Slavonic influence. Or
> it would have to date from before the migration of the Franks (when they
> were still living at the other side of the Rhine).

I think a standard assumption that I also find quite plausible is that
the beginning consonant of the pronoun was contaminated by the nasal plural
suffix of the verb.
If certain personal pronouns often occur after the verb in the sentence,
they tend to lean on it and partly fuse with them (so-called clitics).
Examples from my dialect that does not use mir for the first person plural
nominative:
hat's /hatet    from    hat es / hat et   (it has)
hamma        from    haben wir (have we)

In some dialects, people have started using the fused form of the pronoun in
other
contexts, such as in front of the verb, too.
Bavarian:    mir ham    (we have)
                  's hot        (es hat)

Unfortunately, I have no citations to prove my claim of a standard
assumption.
I only remember Damaris Nübling, Klitika im Deutschen, Gunther Narr Verlag.
That's an interesting book.

Guedgaon!
Jan Strunk
strunk at linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de

----------

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

Críostóir (above):

> In Nottingham English we say _us_ to mean _me_ in some situations, e.g.,
> _Gie us tha_ ('Give me that'). Semantic shifts or something older?

It may be fairly old if you consider its spread.  As far as I know, this
feature is quite widespread in Scots, apparently also in Northumbrian and in
various North English dialects.  You will also encounter it in Australian
English.

> I think a standard assumption that I also find quite plausible is that
> the beginning consonant of the pronoun was contaminated by the nasal
plural
> suffix of the verb.
> If certain personal pronouns often occur after the verb in the sentence,
> they tend to lean on it and partly fuse with them (so-called clitics).
> Examples from my dialect that does not use mir for the first person plural
> nominative:
> hat's /hatet    from    hat es / hat et   (it has)
> hamma        from    haben wir (have we)

Sure, in the north, too, you'll hear _hammia_, _hamma_ etc. for _haben wir_
("have we"), in Hamburg Missingsch _haamwiä_ in more careful mode and _haami
ä_ when spoken more rapidly, also _geemwiä_ ~ _geemiä_ for _geben wir_
("give we"), etc. (_haamwia_ ~ _haamia_ and _geemwia_ ~ _geemia_  in Berlin,
right?).  However, it's always _wiä_ (and _wia_) where this sort of liaison
is not possible.

I feel rather skeptical with regard to attributing this shift from _wir_ to
_mir_ to preceding verbs ending with [m] ([=m:] <- /...m+n/, [(b)=m] <-
/...b+n/, [p=m] <- /...p+n/, [f=m] <- /...f+n/).  That would be quite some
influence a few verbs have in infinitive form in prepronominal position.

I have done a bit more reading about it, and it turns out that _mir_ etc.
for 'we' is extremely widespread, if not predominant, in non-Standard
German, almost all the way north to the Lowlands Saxon (Low German)
borderline, and from formerly German-speaking areas in today's Poland and
Russia all the way west to the Moselle area and, as we have now heard, all
the way into the Flemish area.  Besides, as I mentioned, 'we' is _mir_ (מיר)
in Yiddish as well, in both Western and Eastern Yiddish, I believe, and in
this case this points to the _wir_ > _mir_ shift going back quite a few
centuries and to the general Rhenish area.  Moreover, as far as I know,
_wir_ > _mir_ also occurred in dialects in which the infinitive and plural
endings are not _-(e)n_ but _-e_ (e.g., _mir habbe_ -> _habbe mir_).

Best wishes!
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.
=======================================================================