LL-L "Syntax" 2004.09.07 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.SEP.2004 (10) * 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: Jo Thys <Jo.Thijs1 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Syntax" 2004.09.07 (01) [E]

John,
> 1. Can't be hypercorrection. 2. Apply Occam's razor: unless there is a
> plausible "en" in English (not a joke) you're inventing something to
explain
> something which is explained already.

I was learned that Occam meant  that the most elegant theory should be
remained, with the fewest abstract constructs, that
could count for the broadest range of observations.Opposite are:
 -ain't/isn't as a contraction of am/are/ is/... not (which one is not sure)
 -ain't is ennot, in spelling hypercorrect till ain't

This only accounts for the words meaning and sound, and the former does-for
me too- seems far more logical. However, looking at the use, the contraction
hypothesis must suppose a broad generalisation of the use of "ain't"/isn't,
and explain why a finite verb has to be inserted why the other German
languages don't. If, on the otherhand "isn't" is a (upperclass)
hypercorrection of (lowclass)" innit", (that afterwards spread so easy
because it was used by the upperclass), no new grammatical construction has
to be supposed, nor a different meaning attatched to it. (btw Much of the
way in wich to do nowadays is used originated in the 18th century, and at
least "to do" seemed to be modeled on something else (but here i go again)).

However, John, i give in, and accept that the evidence for the
hypercorrection-thesis is only circumstantial and based on vague
similarities.  Thanks for your view, and do be carefull with Occam's razor
(,wil je)? Both sides are very sharp. Feel free to deliver the last blow!

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jo -avin a larf- Thys

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