LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.OCT.2004 (04) * 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: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.02 (06) [E]

Now hwere's something I have been wondering about for a long time. When I
first started learning English in school, in the 1960s, we learned the
following forms:

I shall
you, he, she, it will
we shall
you, they will

Those were always used; we were taught that forms such as "I will" or "we
will" are plain wrong. When I was an exchange student in Scotland in the
1970s, people seemed to use those "shall" forms all the time; at least I do
not recall hearing anything to the contrary (although that's where I learned
that most of the time, people say "I am going to" anyway). I was staying
with the family of a philology professor in St. Andrews, so they were all
well-educated and spoke a rather upperclass level of (Scottish) English,
with the occasional Scots mixed in (the mother was part of a Scots-speaking
amateur theatre group). So maybe they were not throroughly representative
for Britain at the time.

Anyway, when I moved to the USA in 1991, I noticed that nobody ever said or
wrote "I shall", and much less "we shall", despite the famous hymn "We shall
overcome". These forms are almost extinct in America and only used for
emphasis, as in "I shall not tolerate such behaviour" or in legal papers
("Both parties shall refrain from..."), where it is used in the third person
in order to indicate a future obligation.

My question: what about British English (with all its dialects and flavours)
today? Does everybody say "I will" now, or is "I/we shall" still
appropriate?

Gabriele Kahn

----------

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

Gabriele,

I was taught the same rule as hard and fast in school.  "I will" and the
like was counted as a mistake in our school work.  One teacher did say that
some people say "I will," but that that was vulgar, substandard, not to be
followed.  So there we are giving away our ages (at least roughly) and the
fact that we went to school in the British occupation zone of Germany for
which new textbooks had been written under British supervision, and where
all teachers of English had to teach that sort of grammar.  I was pretty
young when I first visited England and realized that very few people said "I
shall" and the like.

As you said, the use of "shall" is very restrictive in American English.
But what sounds truly foreign, very archaic in North America is "I shan't."
I haven't said and written that since my teen years.

In Lowlands Saxon (Low German), at least in the North Saxon dialects, the
future tense is usually not distinguished from the present tense, unless it
needs to be distinguished.  The original way of expressing future tense is
by use of _schölen_ ->

1st sing.: ik schal ~ sal (<schall> ~ <sall> [Sa.l] ~ [za.l])
2nd sing.: du schalst ~ salst (<scha(ll)s(t)> ~ <sa(ll)s(t)> [Sa.(l)s(t)] ~
   [za.(l)s(t)])
3rd sing.: hey/sey/it~dat schal ~ sal (<schall> ~ <sall> [Sa.l] ~ [za.l])
plural.: wy/jy/sey schöölt/schölen ~ söölt/sölen (<schöölt/schölen>
   ~ <söölt/sölen>  [Sø.lt] ~ [zø.lt])

So it is very similar to the traditional English system, also because
_schölen_ can mean 'must', 'be obligated/expected to'.

There are dialects in which this continues, but, supposedly under German
influence, (G. _werden_ >) _warden_ (<warrn>) has been taking over from
_schölen_.  _Warden_ means 'to become' in other contexts.

1st sing.: ik ward' (<warr> ~ <ward> [va:(d)])
2nd sing.: du wardst (<warrs(t)> ~ <wards(t)> [va:(t)s(t)])
3rd sing.: hey/sey/it~dat wardt (<warrt> ~ <ward> [va:t])
plural.: wy/jy/sey wardt/warden (<warrt> ~ <ward> ~ <warrn>
   [va:t] ~ [va:n])

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