LL-L "Morphology" 2004.01.27 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.JAN.2004 (01) * 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: Gaidheal <gaidheal at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2004.01.26 (08) [E]

Feasgar math, a Lowlanders:

Said Tom:
Within these postings on "Morphology" is there an underlying
desire/ideology to seek the Germanic influence on Latin?
Given that Germania and Scotland were the only 2 areas that did not
completely succumb to Roman influence in Northern Europe, is it really
believable that the non-latin dialects would affect the latin dialects
in their tenses forms?

The way I see it, the Franks (and Visigoths and indeed other Germanic
tribes) adopted Latin very
completely. But I think that maybe -entirely a hunch here- they found the
Latin verb system with
its many tenses and voices (though nothing like Turkish if what I've seen is
true!) to be too
clumsy, and therefore replaced it with a series of auxiliary verbs. I think
that I read in one of
Mario Pei's books that _le futur_ in French (inifitive +  form of _avoir_)
is basically an
inversion of the near future, which is form of _aller_ + inifitive, with a
different verb.

Now, back to the conditional: I'm thinking that perhaps the conditional as
formed through making
the future into a past tense via the auxiliary is a common Germanic thing,
adopted from the
Frankish into the French. But this requires us to believe that l'imperfait
endings are actually
auxiliary verbs. As I mentioned before, I thought that there may be a
similarity to French in the
English way of making the conditional: will, future auxiliary, becomes
would, the past tense, and
thus the conditional. Ron said that in Lowlands Saxon, the future auxiliary
_wil_, which like in
English also means to be willing, becomes past tense _wul_, and therefore
the conditional.

I assume Scots forms the conditional the same way as English. What about the
other Lowlands
languages? As far as I can tell, _werde_ in German is the future auxiliary;
_würde_, which appears to be the past tnese of _werde_, is the conditional
auxiliary.

So once more I reiterate: How is the conditional formed in other Lowlandic
languages?

Beannachdan,
Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais

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