LL-L "Morphology" 2004.06.22 (02) [E]

Tue Jun 22 19:13:43 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 22.JUN.2004 (02) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth at gnu.org>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2004.06.22 (01) [E]

Just a bit of random info that might prove helpful

Kenneth

> Dutch:
> schoen [sxuːn] 'shoe'
> schoenen [sxuːnə(n)] 'shoes'
>
> It appears that the old plural form (with /+ən/ was turned into a singular
> form, and, etymologically speaking, the new plural form contains another
> plural-marking suffix (/+ə(n)).

This is also what all dutch etymology dictionaries tell

> Similarly, Afrikaans:
> skoen [skuːn] 'shoe'
> skoene [skuːnə] 'shoes'
>
> Theoretically (*), this ought to have been as follows:
> Dutch:
>    *schoe [sxuː] 'shoe'
>    *schoeën [sxuːə(n)] or schoen [sxuːn] 'shoes'
> Afrikaans:
>    *skoe [skuː] 'shoe'
>    *skoeë [skuːə] 'shoes' (or perhaps *skoes [skuːs])

skoen is a loan from Hollandic Dutch. You cannot compare the plural
ending in Afrikaans to Dutch (just like you cannot compare the adjective
system with Dutch either) as Afrikaans probably has developed as a Cape
dialect mixed with two Dutch based Pidgins spoken by the Hottentot. The
-s after -er etc is kept, but -e is used for plural for almost
everything else. Non-mother tongue speakers will guess that -e was the
plural ending of skoen.

> Lowlands Saxon (Low German) has the same pattern as that of German, but
the
> main vowel underwent umlauting, and in most dialects the final vowel has
> been dropped:
> schou (<Schoh>) [sɣɔˑ ] ~ [sxɔˑ ] ~ [ʃɔˑ ] ~ [ʃaˑ ] 'shoe'
> schöy (<Schöh>) [sɣœːɪ] ~ [sxœːɪ] ~ [ʃœːɪ] ~ [ʃɔːɪ] 'shoes'
> derived from schöye ['sɣœˑɪe] ~ ['sxœˑɪe] ~ ['ʃœˑɪe] ~ ['ʃɔˑɪe] 'shoes'

In Danish sko is both used in singularis and pluralis

> Another example:
> Dutch:
>    kind [kɪnt] 'child'
>    kinderen ['kɪndərə(n)] 'children'

Dutch has double plural for all words originally having plural with -er.
Maybe these are all loanwords from Low Saxon [?] or -er became a foreign
plural form at some point

> Afrikaans:
>    kind [kə̃nt] 'child'
>    kinders ['kə̃n(d)ərs] 'children'

Kinders is also a known Hollantic dialect form, as well as a Low Saxon
dialect form

> In this case, the singular form is etymologically predictable, while the
> plural form receives two plural suffixes (Dutch /+ər+ən/, Afrikaans
> /+ər+s/).|

-s probably from South Hollandic dialect.

> The Afrikaans case is like that in Lowlands Saxon, but double-marking is
> optional or varies from dialect to dialects:
> kind (<Kind>) [kʰɪˑnt] 'child'
> kinder (<Kinner>) ['kʰɪˑnɝ] ~ kinders (<Kinners>) ['kʰɪˑnɝs] 'children'

Was kinder used before the standardization of the language? And what is
used in Orange River Afrikaans?

> Some speakers use _kinders_ only as a vocative: 'children!', 'kids!'
>
> The opposite of this, I suppose, is apparent "non-marking" of plural
forms,
> namely zero marking (/+0/).  In English, this tends to occur where
plurality
> denotes (or denoted) uncountable or uncounted mass.  (Examples of mass
nouns
> would be "sand," "water," "people," and "cattle.") E.g.,

Danish: Sand (uncountable), slim (uncountable...It is also said today
that Latin virus (originally slime) is actually both singularis and
pluralis; virii and vira are invented forms), vand, får, sko, lort,
folk, fisk, sild etc

> English:
> fish | fish (not *"fishes," at least not in this sense)
> herring | herring (not *"herrings," at least not in this sense)
> sheep | sheep (never *"sheeps")

danish
fisk fisk
sild sild
får får

Kenneth

----------

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

Thank for the response (above), Kenneth.

> You cannot compare the plural
> ending in Afrikaans to Dutch (just like you cannot compare the adjective
> system with Dutch either)

I don't think I was doing that.  Or does it look as though I did?  I was
merely noting that both languages have what etymologically are double plural
markers, just as I pointed out that Lowlands Saxon does too.  None of this
should be seen as amounting to stating or implying that one was derived from
or influenced by the other.

> Dutch has double plural for all words originally having plural with -er.

Apparently, as in ...
Dutch:
   ei 'egg' -> eieren 'eggs'
   hoen 'chicken' -> hoenderen ~ hoenders (?) 'chickens' [1]
Afrikaans:
   ei 'egg' -> eiers 'eggs'
   hoender [2] 'chicken' -> hoenders 'chickens'

[1] hoenderen seems to have predominated in Middle Dutch (e.g., _Om te
stouen hoenderen metten vercken vleesce_ 'to stew chickens with pork', 1510,
http://users.pandora.be/willy.vancammeren/NBC/, _ses en veertich gebraeden
Hoenderen_ 'forty-six roasted chickens'
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_vee001veel01/Veelder_022.htm, _het kaeckelen van
de Hoenderen_ 'the chickens' cackling', 1614
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/joris/sinnepoppen/html/em2.45.html)
[2] old plural form -> modern singular?

> Maybe these are all loanwords from Low Saxon [?] or -er became a foreign
> plural form at some point

I hazard the guess that the latter is the case.

However, even then it is somewhat remarkable that the relic suffix survived.
Would it not be similar to English adding plural _-s_ to "children" and
"brethren" (thus, child -> *childrens, brother -> *brethrens)?

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