LL-L "Morphology" 2007.10.26 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  25 October 2007 - Volume 05
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Morphology" 2007.10.26 (02) [E]

I wonder if the popular realisation of -ing as -in' in English may be the
key here...
I suppose, older English had an equivalent of -end in stead of -ing, as in
German, Dutch, Scandinavian and all other Germanic languages.
So let's assume, -ing was abbreviated to -in', and -end to -en' in spoken
colloquial English at the same time. This must have led to confusion and
merging between -in' and -en':
I am warnend thee => I am warnen' thee.
I give thee a warning => I give thee a warnin'.
But, in the written language the abbreviated forms were not accepted, so
both -in' and -en', no longer distinguished in spoken language, were spelt
both the same, as -ing, but both pronounced -en. Later, the pronunciation
as -ing was restored because of the spelling.
Just some instant thinkin' of mine, of course I don't know if this is true
at all. But it might be an explanation why English is different in having
no -end here. Ingmar

Ron:
The present participial "-ing" (as in "the sleeping baby") may be unique to
English and Scots. Or is it?

----------

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

That's a very interesting hypothesis, Ingmar.

Yes, Middle English still had the present participial markers -ende, -ande,
-end and -and. It's quite easy to imagine that this resulted in *-en and *
-an and possibly to *-in over time, especially in a final unstressed
syllable. (The shift -nd to -nn and finally to -n is very common in Low
Saxon, similar also in Afrikaans.)

I believe that the tendency of making final -ng into -n (and in other
dialects into -nk, as in Low Saxon) is common and quite old in English,
going by spelling "errors." This could have easily led to overcompensation
in the case of assumed present participial *-en, very likely analogously to
the already existing deverbal noun suffix -ing.

The Oxford English dictionary on this topic:

-ing

suffix of the present participle, and of adjs. thence derived, or so formed;
an alteration of the original OE. *-ende* = OFris., OS. *-and*, OHG. *-ant-i
* (*-ent-i*, *-ont-i*, MHG. *-end-e*, Ger. *-end*), ON. *-and-i* (Sw. *-ande
*, Da. *-ende*), Goth. *-and-s*, *-and-a*, = L. *-ent-*, Gr -οντ, Skr. *
-ant-*.
      Already, in later OE., the ppl. *-ende* was often weakened to *-inde*,
and this became the regular Southern form of the ending in Early ME. From
the end of the 12th c. there was a growing tendency to confuse *-inde*,
phonetically or scribally, with *-inge*; this confusion is specially
noticeable in MSS. written by Anglo-Norman scribes in the 13th c. The final
result was the predominance of the form *-inge*, and its general
substitution for *-inde* in the 14th c., although in some works, as the
Kentish *Ayenbite* of 1340, the pple. still regularly has *-inde*. In
Midland English *-ende* is frequent in Gower, and occasional in Midland
writers for some time later; but the southern *-inge*, *-ynge*, *-ing*,
favoured by Chaucer, Hoccleve, and Lydgate, soon spread over the Midland
area, and became the Standard English form. The Northern dialect, on the
other hand, in England and Scotland, retained the earlier ending in the form
*-ande*, *-and*, strongly contrasted with the verbal n. in *-yng*, *-ing* (*
-yne*, *-ene*). At the present day the two are completely distinct in
Northumberland and the Southern Counties of Scotland, although the general
mutescence of final *d*, and the change of (-ıŋ to (-ın), make the
difference in most cases only a vowel one: e.g. 'a singan' burd', 'the
singin (-ın) o' the burds', but 'a gaan bairn' (a going child), 'afore
gangin' hame'.
      As *-inge* was the proper ending of the vbl. n. (-ING1), it has
naturally suggested itself to many that the levelling of the pres. pple.
under the same form must have been the result of some contact or confusion
of the functions or constructions of the two formations. But investigation
has discovered no trace of any such functional or constructional contact in
Early ME.; and it is now generally agreed that the confusion was, in its
origin, entirely phonetic. On the other hand, the fact that the *forms* had,
by the 14th c., become identical, may have been a factor in the development
of the gerundial use of the vbl. n., which began then; and it has certainly
influenced the subsequent development of the compound gerundial forms *being
made*, *having made*, *having been made*, *being about to go*, etc., which
have the same form as the corresponding participles (see -ING1 2). The
identity of form of pr. pple. and gerund probably also assisted the process
whereby, at a later date, such a construction as 'the king went a-hunting',
formerly '*on* or *an* huntinge', was shortened to 'the king went hunting',
the last word being then taken as the participle; and thus to the shortening
of 'the ark was a-building', orig. 'on building', to 'the ark was building',—
in which, if 'building' is taken as a pple., it must be explained as a pple.
*pass.* = being built. To the same cause must be ascribed some of the
current constructions of the gerund, and the tendency of the vbl. n. when
used attributively to run together with the pr. pple. used adjectivally, as
in *cutting tools*, a *driving wheel*
Nice call, Ingmar!

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071026/96f85562/attachment.htm>