LL-L "Syntax" 2004.01.06 (05) [A/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 06.FEB.2004 (05) * 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: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.01.06 (02) [E]

Michel wrote:
"I was wondering, not just for Dutch, but for the whole variety of Lowlands
Languages, which reflexive/reciprocal forms do occur nowadays and what would
be even more interesting: what reflexives/reciprocals did occur in earlier
times??"

I can speak about one brand of English still current in Texas.  It's pretty
common to hear people say, "I'm gonna get me a beer."  Or, "He's gonna get
him a haircut."  It's considered sort of substandard or, perhaps, uneducated
speech.  For me (myself), it feels homey and familiar.  I probably wouldn't
use that construction at work, but I would use it at home.  What I would use
at work is, "I'm going to get myself a beer," or even simpler "I'm going to
get a beer."

Mark Brooks

----------

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

Good one, Mark!  I was just thinking about this very thing, a very
widespread feature in the English dialects of the Southern United States.
I'm wondering if in most or all cases it is less "reflexive" than "reflexive
beneficient" (if there is such a thing).

Don't you think that there can be a difference between the constructions (1)
"I'll buy a pizza" and (2) "I'll buy me a pizza"?  In my opinion, the first
construction is vague, does not necessarily imply a beneficiary.  (For all I
know, the pizza may be meant for no one's consumption -- for decoration
above the mantlepiece perhaps -- or it could imply "myself/me," "you,"
"him," "them," etc.)  The second construction is very clear in that "I" is
the beneficiary of "I"'s action.  Can't you say, at least in theory, "I'll
buy myself a pizza" in Standard English, where "myself" carries emphasis or
implies contrast (e.g., "I'll buy you a pizza, and I'll buy myself a pizza
too")?  I don't feel this is as much reflexive as it is "emphatic reflexive
beneficient," while in Southern dialects "me" in constructions of this sort
is usually just "reflexive beneficient" (not necessarily emphatic, unless
pronounced emphatically).

Test:
Can you say the following?

* I'm singing me a song. [for my own enjoyment]
* I'll read me a book.  [for my own enjoyment]
* I've got me a fail on the test. [probably not, unless failing was
intended,
   or this is a sarcastic statement]
* I've dressed me up in Ma's lingerie.  [for my own private enjoyment]
* I'll buy me a coursage.  [for my own adornment pleasure or for my date]
* I'll buy me a coursage for my prom date. [(1) because I want the
   girl to wear it, or (2) because I'll wear it myself (pretending someone
   gave it to me when I don't actually have a date)]

What I'm trying to get at here is what the limitations and true function of
this sort of construction is.

Elsie en andere Afrikaans-talige vriende, is did nie juis te sê dat
Afrikaans geen weerkerende voornaamwoord het nie?  Kan "Hy was hom" nie "Hy
was iemand (manlik)" sowel as "Hy was homself" bedoel nie?

Elsie and other Afrikaans speakers, is it not correct to state that
Afrikaans has no reflexive pronoun?  Can _Hy was hom_ not mean 'He washes
him' as well as 'He washes himself'?

Thanks,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.01.06 (02) [E]

> From: M.Verhagen <M.Verhagen at let.kun.nl>
> Subject: Diachrone syntax
> I am studying the introduction of the reflexive form "zich" in Middle
Dutch.
> At that time one could say:
> (1) Hij wast hem.
>      He washes him.

In my Limburgish (Vliermaal, Haspengouw) the ambiguity is maintained.
"Hië waas höm" can mean both "He washes him" and "He washes himself".
"Zich" is not in the dialect vocabulary.
"Hië" becomes "er" in reverse sentences: "Waas-ter höm?"

"Dzjië" is also used for both singular as plural (cf. "gij" in Brabantisch).
A few miles to the East "Dich" forms are appearing for the singular. (Dich
is used in nominative positions)

Regards,

Roger

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