LL-L "Grammar" 2011.04.22 (02) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 22 April 2011 - Volume 02
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================



From: Hellinckx Luc <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar"

On 22/04/11, at 20:03, Lowlands-L List wrote:

 I'm well aware that the treated distortion phenomena, once grammatically
established and generally used, hardly could changed back. But perhaps some
more historical consciousness could be integrated in Dutch language teaching
and grammar (and not only in historical linguistics, where I indeed found
the material).

How do you thing about that? Tell me, where my fact finding is erroneous and
- in case - why my concept of historically aware grammar is mistaken.



I cannot but agree on your findings and remarks. My take on it, is that due
to heavy influx of well to do and influential Southerners in Holland, back
in the 16th and 17th century, language "architects" have started to engineer
Dutch. A standard language was constructed. Here in the South though, this
"novel" language did not catch on, it has long been considered "alien"
because it was perceived as a "boekentaal" (which it actually was to a large
extent).



One example, my parents will never use the word "jullie", it's just not part
of their casual register, it's a "boekenwoord". They will write it down when
necessary, but they will never pronounce it.

Personally, because I'm a teacher, I will use the word only in a scholastic
environment. Outside the classroom, even with co-workers, it won't cross my
lips...it's just not felt to be colloquial. Reason of course is, that we
stick to the old "gij-lie" (> gijle, gelle). No initial -j- forms at all in
our Frankish, those are considered Western and Northern.



Students are slowly evolving though, and like always, the dialect that
triggers these changes the most is the city dialect of Antwerp. It almost
functions as a bridge between the Deep South and Holland. On the one hand,
it still sounds "plat" (making it acceptable for trendsetters), on the
other, it's probably the most innovative dialect (testing ground for
Northern novelties). Moreover, the increasing number of female teachers in
Belgian education plays a role too. The less conservative nature of female
speech (compared to men's) will set a blueprint for the near future.



Voilà, just my two cents.



Kind greetings,



Luc Hellinckx, Halle, Belgium


----------


From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2011.04.22 (01) [EN-NL]


From: Joachim <Osnabryg+Lowlands at googlemail.com>

 Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2011.04.22 (01) [EN, NL]

Grammatical dis-figurations (verbasteringen)/deformations of modern Dutch:
personal pronouns *(du), u, jij/je, jullie* and their verb forms

I guess your observations are basically right, but I don't like how you
charge your report with personal judgement. "deformation", "wrong", "myth"
etc.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion about linguistic features (my
own dialect of Low Saxon does not know any polite forms because people in
the villages always use the personal "du" and anybody foreign enough to be
addressed politely would automatically be addressed in German. Therefore I
personally like languages with no T-V distinction better, like English or
the Scandinavian languages which dropped the T-V distinction in the 60s/70s
[<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du-reformen><http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du-reformen>
]).

But there's no point in calling linguistic features "deformations" or
classifications "wrong" or observations "myths". Dutch has changed its
pronoun system. You can personally consider it a "deformation" but from a
strictly linguistical point of view this change is neutral and similar
changes occured in many languages. A normal linguistical process. You can
personally consider it "wrong" to regard "jij bent" as a singular form, but
in contemporary Dutch its role is singular irrespective of what the role of
"jij" was historically. You can personally consider the Eenheidspluralis a
"myth", but looking at contemporary Dutch, the language has a common form
for the plural. By the way, even though Dutch nowadays has a
Eenheidspluralis, it is still considered to be outside the Eenheidspluralis
area, the Eenheidspluralis line being an important isogloss along the Low
Franconian/Low Saxon border (
<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eenheids-pluralislijn><http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eenheids-pluralislijn>
).

Marcus Buck

=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
===============================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20110422/c0a8cb6e/attachment.htm>