LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (11) [A/E]

Tue Sep 28 23:58:14 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.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: Tom Maguire <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.27 (03) [E]

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>

> <>Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.26 (10) [E]
>
> According to this logic, it would also be grammatically correct to say
> "are
> youn't?", because "aren't you" is an abbreviation of "are not you?", which
> no-one could claim to be correct English. Same goes for "have
> theyn't", "can
> shen't", and, of course, "do youn't". Now THAT is all grammatically
> correct,
> don't you agree? :-)
>
> Gabriele Kahn

It is interesting to use a skewed the paradigm, but not very helpful.

Take as a paradigmatic tag question form "isn't he?" What do you get if
you continue to use "be" and substitute any other pronoun?  This
learning approach - substituting known structures - is used by most
people studying a foreign language while remaining within their own country.

Of course this doesn't always exclude other possibilities, but it is
curious to see to how unacceptable even the applied paradigm becomes
when it is doesn't conform to the 'standard' form.

Regards,

Tom

--
Carpe Diem.
-Visit Nlp in Education  http://www.xtec.es/~jmaguire
-Join Nlp-Education  mailto:nlp-education-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Grammar" [E]

> From: Kevin Caldwell <kcaldwell31 at comcast.net>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.27 (10) [E]
>
> > From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> > Subject: Grammar
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > I missed this first time 'round, but don't Americans normally say "I'll
go
> > get ..."?
> >
> > "Go and" is a curious English usage. Most (all other?) Western European
> > languages use "go+infinitive".
>
> John,
>
> I would say that both constructions are "normal" here in the US.  One
> American construction that bothers me, though, is "try and [do something]"
> rather than "try to [do something]".  It has never made much sense to me.

This sort of construction is rife in Scots:

"Gaun an bile yer heid!" (go boil your head)

"Come an see this."

"Try an no mak a fuil o yersel." (try not to make a fool of yourself)

Scots also has some even more unusual uses of "and", though the forms
without "and" are also used:

"Gey an guid" (rather good)

"It wad gar an ye greet." (it would make you cry)

"What an a noise!" (what a noise)

I'm not sure exactly what the above uses connotate, though I use them myself
often enough. It seems to me to give the impression that the speaker feels
personally involved, or wants to prompt the listener to personal
involvement, in what's being commented on. Difficult to explain, but it
suggests immediacy to me, though I suspect that with many speakers they have
become habitual.

Sometimes a spurious "and" seems to get habitually infixed in a word:

"Whatanever" (whatever)

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais <goidel.glas at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (06) [E]

Latha math, Lowlanders;

Kevin wrote:
> I would say that both constructions are "normal" here in the US.  One
> American construction that bothers me, though, is "try and [do something]"
> rather than "try to [do something]".  It has never made much sense to me.

I don't think it's strictly American. If I recall correctly, Tolkien
was a great defender of "try and" again what he saw as hypercorrected
"try to". That leads me to believe that it is in fact an Anglicism as
well.

Beannachdan,
Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais

----------

From: Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (06) [E/A]

Dag almal,

Ron, you're asking:

>Are there other Lowlands language varieties that say the equivalent of
>_liggen gaan_ and _sitten gaan_?

In my paternal home turf, which is in the Northern Cape, including the
Namakwland, Bushmanland and probably Namibia (Orange River Afrikaans),
the following forms are typical:

Loop ga sit.
Ga loop sit.
Loop ry nou!  [also in Johannesburg]
Ons gaan nou loop ry dorp toe.
Wat kom julle so stadig hier aangesit?
Loop gaan lê.
Gaan loop lê nou!
Gaan loop slaap nou!
Kinders, gaan loop haal die eiers uit die neste.
Wat loop sit jy nou hier op my skoon lakens?
Wat sit loop julle nou soontoe? Ons kon mos die kar gevat het!

Groete,
Elsie Zinsser

----------

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

Dankie, Elsie.  Those constructions seem wonderfully weird at first.

At first I had the theory that _loop_ ('run') here connotes something like
"hurry up and ...".  Does it?  Perhaps originally?  Might it convey a sense
of urgency?

> Loop ga sit.
> Ga loop sit.
("Go run sit.")
'Hurry up and sit down!', 'Go on now! Take a seat!' ?
LS: Ga man gau sitten!

> Loop ry nou!  [also in Johannesburg]
("Run ride/travel now!")
'(Hurry up and) be on your way!', 'Hit the road!' ?
LS: Maak dy man nu up d'n pad!

> Ons gaan nou loop ry dorp toe.
("We go now run ride/travel village to(ward).")
'Let's get going to the village!' ?
LS: Nu wült wy maal gau na 't dörp (tou).

> Loop gaan lê.
> Gaan loop lê nou!
("Run go lie.")
'Lie down now!' ?
LS: Nu leg dy man/maal daal. ~ Nu ga man/maal gau liggen!

> Kinders, gaan loop haal die eiers uit die neste.
("Kids, go run fetch the eggs out of the nests.")
'Hurry up and collect the eggs, kids!' ?
LS: Kinner(s), loupt maal tou un haalt dey ayers uut dey nesten!

This is where it get's weird:

> Wat loop sit jy nou hier op my skoon lakens?
("What run sit you now hier on my clean sheets?")
'Why do you have to sit here on my clean sheets?'
LS: Wat hest (du) nu hyr up myn rayne lakens tou sitten? ~
Wat dayst (du) nu hyr up myn rayne lakens sitten?

> Wat sit loop julle nou soontoe? Ons kon mos die kar gevat het!
("What sit run you(pl.) now up-above? We could must the car caught have!" ?)
"Why are you still sitting around upstairs? We could have caught the car by
now!" ?
LS: Was dout jy nu noch baven sitten? Wy harren al in d'n wagen sitten
kunnen!

Does _loop_ here imply unexpected, unseemly or prohibited action?

Cf.

"Why did he have to go (and) die (on me)?"
"She always has to go and do the opposite of what I tell her."
"Why did you have to run and tell everyone?"

And what about _sit_ here?:

> Wat kom julle so stadig hier aangesit?
("What come you(pl.) so steady here on-sat?")
'Why do you keep coming around here all the time?" ?
Wat kümst (du) man bloots in eynsen tou hier anköterd?

NB: an-kötern (<ankötern> 'keep coming', 'bother') < köter (<Köter>) 'dog'
(pejorative), 'cur', 'tyke' < *koot 'excrement' > kötel 'turd' (_ankötern_
and _Kötel_ also in Missingsch and Missingsch-based German, _Köter_ also in
German)

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Grammar

Kevin wrote:

>I would say that both constructions ["go and get" and "go get"] are
"normal" here in the US.  One
American construction that bothers me, though, is "try and [do something]"
rather than "try to [do something]".  It has never made much sense to me.<

I think "go and get" is more common in the UK and "go get" may be felt to be
an Americanism. "Try and" is common BrE as well. Language doesn't have to
make sense (ie obey some notion of logic) as long as it conveys sense!
Surely it's all these little oddities which make languages fun. (NB I could
have expressed this differently and more accurately but I wanted to use a
singular verb where there should "logically" be a plural. A formation which
I still hesitate about, however, is "There's" = "There is" for "There are".
"I should of gone" is unacceptable.)

Henry wrote:

>In Saxon you can easily say "Ik sal eyns opstaon en wat ... halen". <
Perhaps Ron has already hinted at the following question, but what does this
Saxon mean?

In English you can say "I'll get up and get it" but not *"I'll get up get
it". You can say "I'll go out and get it" but not *"I'll go out get it".
"I'll go tomorrow and get it" but not *"I'll go tomorrow get it".

BTW Big Bad Bryson says something like "We use the definite article
differently in English. We say 'go to bed'. In other languages you have to
say 'go to the bed'". So now you know.

John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

The way to Hell is paved.

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