LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.26 (11) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.SEP.2004 (11) * 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: Kevin Caldwell <kcaldwell31 at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.26 (10) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> Thanks a lot for your response (above), Uilleam.
>
> I know that this device is used in most parts of the South, especially in
> the more rural parts, which is why it is associated with lack of
> "sophistication," with "cowboy" and "hillbillie" talk.  However, from a
> purely linguistic point of view it looks like this is a rather
> "sophisticated" little device which, like in other Germanic varieties,
> allows you, by means of objective pronouns, to differentiate between
> benefitting yourself and benefitting someone else, or expressing it in a
> non-specific way; e.g.,
>
> Non-specific:
> (1) I'll go and get some cookies.
>
> Specific:
> (2) I'll go and get me some cookies.
> (3) I'll go and get you some cookies.
> (4) I'll go and get him some cookies.
> (5) I'll go and get us some cookies.
> (6) I'll go and get them some cookies.
>
> It seems that 1, 3, 4 and 6 are acceptable in "good" English.  Is 5 all
> right?  I take it "I'll go and get some cookies for us" would be
preferred.

Some input from a Southerner:

No. 5 looks fine to me.

> 1 could also serve as non-specific for all of them.  You may have a hard
> time expressing 2 specifically in an "elegant" way, would probably just
> use
> 1, would not normally have the option of rephrasing it as *"I'll go and
> get
> some cookies for me," while you could say "I'll go and get some cookies
> for
> you," I'll go and get some cookies for them," etc.

I think it might be more "proper" to change 2 to a true reflexive ("myself"
in place of "me").  It's the use of "me" that makes it sound Southern to my
ears.

> So, the first person self-benefit forms make the inherent system more
> consistent:
>
> (2) I'll go and get me some cookies.
> (7) We'll go and get us some cookies.
>
> But can you say the following?
>
> (8) You'll go and get you some cookies.
> (9) He'll go and get him some cookies.
> (10) They'll go and get them some cookies.
>
> I have a hunch they are all right, at least in some dialects.  However, I
> feel that 9 and 10 are ambiguous or could each denote different
> beneficiaries:
>
> (9) He'll go and get him some cookies.
> (e.g., Billie will go and get Bob some cookies)
>
> (10) They'll go and get them some cookies.
> (e.g., The parents will go and get the kids some cookies.)

I think 8 would be more common as an imperative:

Go and get you some cookies.

Better yet:

Now, you jest go ahead on over there and get you some cookies.  Don't pay
your brother no nevermind!

9 and 10 are also fine, but I think the ambiguity would be avoided by
emphasizing the "him" or "them".  "He thought them cookies looked so good,
he went and got HIM some."

> To express self-benefit, I suspect you would have to make it clearly
> reflexive:
>
> (11) He'll go and get himself some cookies.
> (12) They'll go and get themselves some cookies.
>
> So we also have:
> (13) I'll go and get myself some cookies.
> (14) You'll go and get yourself/yourselves some cookies.
> (15) We'll go and get ourselves some cookies.
>
> It seems to me that the reflexive and non-reflexive systems only overlap.
>
> Any comments?

This use also shows up with verbs one would not normally expect to be
reflexive:

I'm gonna go home and watch me some football. [Meaning that I'm not just
going to watch the game, but I'm really going to get involved in it and have
a good time.]

----------

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

Thanks, Kevin.

> This use also shows up with verbs one would not normally expect to be
reflexive:

> I'm gonna go home and watch me some football. [Meaning that I'm not just
> going to watch the game, but I'm really going to get involved in it and
have
> a good time.]

This seems to be just what I was talking about: benefitting oneself.  If you
say, "I'm gonna go home and watch some football" it's neutral, doesn't say
if you like it or not.  The "me" adds this "I'm gonna give myself a treat"
connotation.

By the way, I hear this sort of construction a lot among African Americans
up here in the North.  This includes those whose families have lived in the
North for generations.  Folks may be speaking what seems to be within
Standard American English but might occasion ally lapse into "casual" talk
once in a while, "for effect."  For instance, if one says "I'm gonna get me
some more of that chicken," it changes the tone, putting a funny spin on the
speaker's "gluttony," and at the same time it may serve as a compliment to
the one who prepared the food (which is so good that you want to go for
seconds), especially if "that" is emphasized by lengthening the vowel.

I'm gonna watch me a DVD now (_Babette's Feast_).

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