======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.APR.2005 (02) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2005.04.26 (12) [E]
Ron wrote:
"I spit now. I spit five minutes ago. I have spit many times in the past."
Ugh! That middle one makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. It's a present
tense pretending to be past. The third one looks a little odd the more I say
it aloud, but the second one is simply, well, wrong.
[x:rxgq.ph]
Go raibh maith agat
Criostóir.
----------
From: Dan Prohaska <danielprohaska at bluewin.ch>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology"
>>From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Etymology
>>Críostóir (above):
>>> Ben Bloomgren wrote:
>>> "When did we lose shat?"
>>>
>>> We haven't.
>>Not English as a whole but American English, certainly the dialects
>>within the standard range. The same goes for "spat" (preterite of
>>"spit"). People look at me strangely when I say "spat," so I'm
>>caught somewhere between wanting to stop it and not being able to
>>bring myself to saying "spit" for the preterite. "Shat" and "spat"
>>are considered quite alien, and some people won't even know what
>>they mean.
Dear Reinhardt, everybody,
I can't remember ever having a past tense of <spit> other than <spat>, and
<shot> from <shoot>. I have noticed though, that I've rarely if ever used
the past tense of <shit>. I'd rather say "I went for a shit" or "I had a
shit" rather than "I shat".
>>By the way, this also goes for the pronunciation "at" for "ate."
>>I've always found that strange myself and don't say it. I suppose
>>it is derived from a variant with a short vowel: _atte_ ['at@] vs
>>_ate_ ['a:t@].
Actually <at> is the historical 1st and 3rd person singular. West Saxon Old
English had:
infinitive: etan
1st present: ete
2nd present: itst
3rd present: itt
pl. present: etaþ
1st, 3rd past: æt
2nd past: æ:te
pl. past: æ:ton
pp.: (ge-)eten
The historical singular is continued in dialectal /æt/ and in standard /Et/,
the latter being a contaminated form, meaning with the vowel quantity of the
singular and the quality of the plural. A similar kind of contamination is
the reason that the past tense of <read> is /rEd/ and not /ræd/.
<Ate> is a bit more difficult to explain. I’d say it’s either an early
analogically formed plural using the singular stem which was subsequently
lengthened in open syllables in the 13th century – or it is a reading
pronunciation. It could also be a more northerly form that was transferred
to the US and subsequently re-imported to the South – just an idea, but it
always surprises me how many North Midlands and northern forms survive in
the US where they are “only” dialectal in England. But this is just a wild
card.
Dan
>>Low Saxon (North Saxon):
>>eat: eten > eet - eyt - eyten
>> (eten > eet - eet - eten)
>> [e:t=n] > [e:t] - [EIt] - ['e:t=n]
>> pres.: ik eet [e:t], du itst [Itst], hey itt [It], wy eett [e:t]
>> ~ eten ['e:t=n]
----------
From: Tom Mc Rae <t.mcrae at uq.net.au>
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2005.04.26 (01) [E]
On 27/04/2005, at 1:22 AM, Críostóir Ó Ciardha
<paada_please at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ben Bloomgren wrote:
> "When did we lose shat?"
>
> We haven't. In most of England it remains the past tense of the verb
> "to
> shit".
And in the Land of Oz as Ron can confirm.
We even have an epic poem about 'The dog shat in the tuckerbox nine miles
from Gundagai'.
And they even have a bronze staue of said dog upon that box.
Regards
Tom Mc Rae
Brisbane Australia
Oh Wad Some Power the Giftie Gie Us
Tae See Oorsel's as Ithers See Us
Robert Burns
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Morphology
Hey, Críostóir!
> Ron wrote:
> "I spit now. I spit five minutes ago. I have spit many times in the past."
>
> Ugh! That middle one makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. It's a
> present tense pretending to be past. The third one looks a little odd the
> more I say it aloud, but the second one is simply, well, wrong.
Ha! As I said, don't schiet any kloten at *me*, for I'm merely an innocent
bystander caught between grammatical giants! But ... there's little in
grammar, even supposedly deviant grammar, that does not make sense one way
or another (as our Dan shows regarding "ate" above).
"Spit - spat - spat" follows the pattern of "sit - sat - sat," while "spit -
spit - spit" follows the pattern of "fit - fit - fit" and "hit - hit - hit."
So now what do you have to say, young man?
Servus, Dan! So nice you're popping in (even though you are d-t-ing me)!
I've missed your illustrious presence. Thanks for explaining that [at]
thing. It makes sense. I suppose there ought to be the orthographic
variant <at>. This would make it easier to accept it, or would "visually
ligitimize" it.
Hello again, Tom!
> And in the Land of Oz as Ron can confirm.
> We even have an epic poem about 'The dog shat in the tuckerbox nine
> miles from Gundagai'.
> And they even have a bronze staue of said dog upon that box.
Too right, mate! It's another bit of high Australian culture the world
could never do without
(http://www.holidaysearch.com.au/articles/gundagai.htm), though some bloody
wowsers see fit to change the words to "The dog sat on the tuckerbox nine
miles from Gundagai."
> [x:rxgq.ph]
Was that you making that sound, Críostóir, or was it our Arthur's reaction
to this topic refusing to go away?
Cheerio!
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.
======================================================================