LL-L "Grammar" 2009.06.08 (04) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 08 June 2009 - Volume 04
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2009.06.06 (04) [EN]

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org <mailto:list at marcusbuck.org>>

> But in this case it is not necessary to blame German influence. Some
> dialects have lengthened the vowel to 'komen' (and subsequently 'kamen'),
> but many others have kept the older unlengthened form 'kommen'. I think,
> there's a Wenker map for that, but the DIWA website is inaccessible at the
> moment. So 'kömming' could just as well be "real" Low Saxon.
>

There's no Wenker map for 'kamen' directly, but for the PPP (<
http://diwa.info/diwa/ECW.asp?ID1=312>), which should basically be the same
as the infinitive. And it seems I was wrong. I guess, I confused it with the
rather diverse lengthening distribution patterns of 'könnt'/'köönt' (or will
'kaamt' show similar diverse patterns?). At least the PPP is lengthened to
'kamen' in all of Mecklenburg. The only areas with non-lengthened forms are
some few places with aberrant forms in Mecklenburg and Vorpommern (and my
own dialect of "Stoder Geestplatt" which has 'kommen' too). But I'm not
sure, to which degree these findings apply to imperative and present tense
forms.

Marcus Buck

----------

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
 Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2009.06.06 (04) [EN]

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org <mailto:list at marcusbuck.org>>

> Is it a general rule, that the imperative derives from the root? I've seen
> many examples of forms both derived from the root and from the 2nd/3rd
> person form from all regions and many different times. Until now I wasn't
> able to find any system. Sadly none of the Wenker maps contains an
> imperative that helps in this question. I suspect that it could be a matter
> of dialect (although German influence plays a big role too. But perhaps not
> the only role).
>
The Wenker atlas has four maps about imperative forms: 'geh', 'tu', 'sag'
and 'bleib'. 'sag' doesn't help us at all, cause the first and second person
forms have the same stem in both German and Low Saxon ('ich sag' - 'du
sagst' in German, 'ik segg' - 'du seggst' in Low Saxon). 'geh', 'tu' and
'bleib' are a bit more useful. Although they have the same stem in German
('ich gehe' - 'du gehst', 'ich tue' - 'du tust', 'ich bleibe' - 'du
bleibst'), they differ in Low Saxon ('ik gah' - 'du geihst', 'ik do' - 'du
deist', 'ik bliev' - 'du bliffst'). This difference is present in all Low
Saxon dialects, so we can draw some conclusions from that. _All_ dialects
show the imperative forms 'do', 'gah' and 'bliev' (or the respective
dialectal variants of it) and none show imperative forms like 'dei', 'geih'
or 'bliff'. So my question above "Is it a general rule, that the imperative
derives from the root?" can be answered: Yes, without German interference
the imperative always takes the forms from the infinitive. The problem is
now, that Wenker does not tell us, wht happens _with_ German interference.
Are there any dialects, that generally follow the German rule, if the German
forms differ? Or does German interference only occur spontaneously (but at a
high rate)?

Marcus Buck

---------

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

Hi, Marcus!

Congratulations and thanks for that splendid piece of research at short
notice!

I am pretty sure that there *are* dialects out there in which the
straightforward imperative system has been disrupted by German interference.
I suspect that they exist not only at the periphery, near the boundary with
Central German, but also in the vicinity of large cities. In fact, I think
that this particular type of interference is relatively old, going back at
least to the 19th century. Not only do you get *kumm!* (for *kaam!*) in the
song *Dat du mien Leevsten büst* but also in the works of Klaus Groth
(1819–1899), a native of Dithmarschen, an area close to Hamburg.

Now that we seem to have established what the original imperative system is
I need to add a piece of information that sort of "mildly contradicts" my
own initial, *simplified* description.

"The (familiar) second person singular imperative is identical with the verb
root" is accurate in dialects that have lost final *-e* or the "drawl tone"
(*Sleeptoon*), also known as "superlength" (*Œverlängd*). (As some
Lowlanders may remember, in some varieties "deleted" final *-e* causes the
preceding long vowel or diphthong to receive additional length and a final
voiced stop or fricative does not undergo final devoicing; e.g.
*Huus*[huːs] 'house',
*H**ü**se > **H**ü**üs'* [hyːˑz] 'houses', *Bruud* [bruːt] 'bride', *Br**ü**de
> **Br**ü**üd'* [bryːˑ(d)] 'brides'.)

Where phonological conditions are right, this plays a role in the (familiar)
second person singular imperative in varieties with *-e* or drawl tone. In
other words, in one form or another these varieties preserve the old
imperative *-e*. In yet other words, the (familiar) second person singular
imperative consists of the verb root plus *-e*, but the *-e* is dropped
where the root ends with a vowel (e.g. *ga!* 'go!') and the drawl tone does
not apply either if there is no voiced final consonant (as in
*laat!*'let!'). (This system is similar to the base German system;
e.g.
*gehe!* 'go!', *sitze!* 'sit!'. I suspect the Dutch system went through a
similar process of *-e* loss in the imperative.)

For instance, in one of Groth's works (*Min Modersprak*) you find the phrase
*Nu be!* 'Now pray!' *Be!* comes from *bede!* which became *beed'* (with
drawl tone) and, as in some other varieties, the *-d* comes to be deleted in
drawl tone situations (as also in Dutch, e.g. *lui* 'people', cf. Low Saxon
*L**ü**de > **L**ü**üd'* [lyːˑd] ~ *L**ü** *[lyː]).

So, while the initially described imperative system still stands in numerous
dialects, the original system, preserved in some dialects, has a final *-e*.
(I don't want to call it "schwa" because none of the varieties I am familiar
with pronounces it as a schwa.)

What you can say in the way of a rule in these varieties is that the
familiar imperative is the same as the first person present tense form,
since it, too, has a *-e* or drawl tone; e.g. *ik bede ~ **ok beed' ~
ik be*'I pray' (as in German; e.g.
*ich bet**e**, ich geh**e**, ich sitz**e*).

This old *-e* is preserved medially everywhere in second and third person
present tense verbs whose roots end with a vowel; e.g.

Root: ga- 'go'
du ga-e-st > gaist (written *geihst*)
he ga-e-t > gait (written *geiht*)

This system seems to reveal a fossilized vowel alternation:

Root: dou- 'do' (Old Saxon *dô*)
du *dô-e-st > *da-e-st > gaist (written *deist*)
he *dô-e-t > *da-e-t > dait (written *deit*)

Theoretically, we should have forms like **doist* and **doit* here.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

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

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090608/b607b5c2/attachment.htm>