LL-L "Morphology" 2004.05.05 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.MAY.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: 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: marco [evenhuiscommunicatie] <marco at evenhuiscommunicatie.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2004.05.04 (08) [E]

Ron asked:

> > 1. "Hest du unsen all seihn? (Have you already seen ours?)
> V: Ei 'n oezen  al gezien?
> 'Have you already seen ours?'
>
> > 2. "Hest du uns all seihn?"
> V: Ei  oes al gezien?
> 'Have you already seen us?"
>
> Does this mean that in your Flemish dialect the word for 'to have' is a
> cognate of 'to own' and is related to 'own' (e.g., Dutch _eigen_, LS
> _eygen_) and that this spilled over into auxiliary verb use?  Or is _ei_ a
> derivation of _hebt_ (or _hest_)?

In Zeelandic:

1. ei-je den oônzen a gezien?
2. ei-j' oôns a gezien?

It's just a deriviation of _heb_:

Dutch:
ik heb - heb ik?
jij hebt - heb je?
wij hebben - hebben we?
jullie hebben - hebben jullie?

Zeelandic (this roughly counts for West-Flemish too):
ik è - 'eb ik? (or: ik èn - èn ik?)
jie eit - ei jie (or: gie èt - èije gie)
oôns/me è(n) - èn oôns/me? (or: wydder èn - èn wydder?)
julder è(n) - 'ebbe je/julder?

Regards,

Marco

----------

From: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2004.05.04 (08) [E]

Ron wrote:

>Luc en andere Vlaamse vrienden,
>
>Under "Syntax" today:
>
>> 1. "Hest du unsen all seihn? (Have you already seen ours?)
>V: Ei 'n oezen  al gezien?
>'Have you already seen ours?'
>
>> 2. "Hest du uns all seihn?"
>V: Ei  oes al gezien?
>'Have you already seen us?"
>
>Does this mean that in your Flemish dialect the word for 'to have' is a
>cognate of 'to own' and is related to 'own' (e.g., Dutch _eigen_, LS
>_eygen_) and that this spilled over into auxiliary verb use?  Or is _ei_ a
>derivation of _hebt_ (or _hest_)?
>
>Regards,
>Reinhard/Ron
>
Hi Ron

I will answer for french western flemish but I think the answer will also
be right for west flemish in general.
In french flemish, I write your second sentence :
"Het je nuus al ezien ?"
The so-written "het je" will be pronounced something like _ae ye_. But it's
clearly derived from the flemish verb "hen" ("to have"). Here is its
conjugation:

'k hen
gy/je het
hen het
z'het
't het
m' hen
gydder/julder het
z'hen

infinitive : hen

The "t" in the singular form "het" is not pronounced except before a vowel.
In this case it is pronounced as a "d".

Related word for own in flemish is "eigen" or "eegen" like in the sentence :
"k zei in men eegen" litt. "I was saying to my own".

I hope other will agree.

Best regards,
Frederic Baert

----------

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

Hi, Marco and Frédéric!

Good to hear from the two of you, as always.  And thanks for enlightening me
(and others?).

I should have thought a little harder before firing off my question, given
that I am aware (or *should be* aware by now) of West Flemish and Zeelandic
h-deletion.  Once you consider this phonological rule, the derivation of
these forms becomes clear (*heb je > *eb je > *eje > ei).  However, by
soliciting your learned responses I may have helped Lowlanders besides
myself as well.

Thanks again, buds!

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