LL-L "Grammar" 2011.03.11 (05) [EN-NL]

Fri Mar 11 22:22:07 UTC 2011

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 11 March - Volume 04
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: Joachim <Osnabryg+Lowlands at googlemail.com>

Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2011.03.11 (04) [NL]

Beste Piet, Ron & Laaglanders,

Op 10.03.11 00:34, schreef Piet Bult <info at stellingwerfs-eigen.nl>

O, o, o...

Dat is dan niet zo best steld in et Duuts-Neddersassies..;-)
Et Grunnings bruukt (in VT; verleden tied) nog wel: ik bakde, du
bakdest, hai bakde, wie bakden.
En in et Stellingwarfs zeggen wi'j (in TT; tegenwoordige tied) ok nog
altied: ik bakke, e.z.v.

En R. F. Hahn antwoordde:

 Warüm seggst du: “niet so best steld”, as of dat Wegfallen ’n lege
(slechte) Saak weer? Dat Wegfallen vun düt un dat is in de leeglandschen
Spraken totaalmang begeng.

Vanuit het Westfaals gezien en ook na mijn taalgevoel of taalsmaak heeft
Piet Bult in dit geval gelijk.

Het heet ook in het Westfaals (verledentijd): *ik bakde/bakkede, du
bakdes/bakkedes, wi bakden enz.*

Je kunt ook zeggen (sterke buiging): *ik bouk, du bouks, ze bouk, wi bouken,
ji bouken. *Deelwijs maar vervangen door de eigenlijke optatief-vormen
*böik(s),
böiken*.

In tegenwoordige tijd heet het ook: *ik bakke, wi bakket*, maar *ik bak* is
ook niet vals.

En ik vind wel, dat het wegvallen/vergeten van belangrijke vormen voor de
betekenis in het Duits Kust-Plat een slecht zaak is. Daarom valt ook straks
of later het Platduitse weg. Een taal zonder herkenbare tijdvormen is neen
nuttig communicatie-middel meer.

Jammer, dat het Westfaals-Nederduit meer of minner dood is. Zo is misschien
het Nedersaksisch in Nederland origineler Nederduits dan het Platduits.

*Het wegvallen van dit en dat was en is misschien in de laaglandse talen
gewoon, maar sommige verliezen zijn toe wijd gaande, ook al in het
standaard-Nederlands* (het wegvallen van de *du*-vorm b.v. en de navolgende
verwarring en kunstmatigheid in het gebruik van jij/je en jullie - daartoe
een volgende keer meer).

Met echt-westfœlsken »Goudgaun!«
joachim
--
Kreimer-de Fries
Osnabrügge => Berlin-Pankow

----------

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

Subject: Grammar

Piet, Joachim, Lowlanders,

I’m switching this to English because I feel the topic is of wider
relevance.

Folks, I showed that the present and preterit forms of “weak” verbs (not of
“strong” verbs) in Northern Low Saxon dialects coincide due to deletion of
preterit *-de*;

 Present:
ik bakk*e* > bak (back)
du bakk*e*st* > *bakst (backst)
hey bakk*et* > bakt (backt)
wi bakk*et* > bakt (backt) ~ bakk*e*n > bakken (backen)

Preterit:

ik bak*de* > bak (back)
du bak*de*st* > *bakst (backst)
hey bak*de* > bak (back)
wi bak*de*n > bakn (backen)

Piet’s reaction was something along the lines of “then that dialect group is
in trouble,” and above Joachim agreed with him, saying something like “a
dialect group that doesn’t keep its tenses apart is bound to disappear.”

I regard this never proven hypothesis as being based upon the superseded,
classic-humanities-based (i.e. Greek- and Latin-fed) assumptions that ...

(1) older forms are better than newer forms,
(2) more complex morphology is better than simple morphology

If this were so, then English and Afrikaans would have long ended up on the
scrapheap of the language world, and Dutch, too, would be highly endangered
for morphological reasons.

Furthermore, you, Joachim, yourself pointed out that the Westphalian
dialects of Low Saxon do retain the old preterit *-de* and are now
endangered. In fact, they are more endangered than are the Northern Low
Saxon dialects, most of which have discarded the preterit *-de*.

In response to me having pointed out that deletion of morphemic markers is
common among the Lowlands languages, Joachim write above:

*Het wegvallen van dit en dat was en is misschien in de laaglandse talen
gewoon, maar sommige verliezen zijn toe wijd gaande, ook al in het
standaard-Nederlands*

My translation:

*The loss of this and that may be common in the Lowlands languages, but some
losses go too far, even in standard Dutch*

Question: How much is “too far,” and who gets to decide what’s “too far”?
Surely it’s for the speakers to decide. In other words, it’s for the
language itself to decide what losses are permissible and with what losses
it can and cannot cope. *Equating morphological (or other types of
linguistic) simplification with a weakening language status is quite
unfounded.*

Vital (i.e., not already highly moribund) languages have ways of “repairing”
themselves in cases of what we consider loss. Being today’s "strongest" and
predominant language, English is a prime example. It dealt with morphemic
atrophy by, among other ways, making its syntax static, inflexible, thus
compensating for the loss of morphemic object marking (by assigning subject
and object to specific syntactic slots). Afrikaans has abolished the
preterit altogether and uses only what used to be the perfective; e.g.
strong ‘go’ and weak ‘bake’:

  *English*

*Dutch*

*N. L. Saxon*

*Afrikaans*

to go, bake

gaan, bakken

gahn, backen

gaan, bak

I go, bake

ik ga, bak

ik gah, back

ek gaan, bak

I went, baked

ik ging, bakte

ik güng, back

ek het gegaan, gebakt

I have gone, baked

ik ben gegaan, heb gebakken

ik bün gahn, heff backt

In Northern Low Saxon (and even more in Missingsch varieties that are based
upon it), there is a tendency toward using the perfective form, especially
where otherwise ambiguity would arise in a preterit form. This process has
been completed in Afrikaans and in Hamburg Missingsch:

*Standard German*

*Hamburg** Missingsch*

*N. L. Saxon*

*Afrikaans*

gehen, backen

gehn, backng

gahn, backen

gaan, bak

ich gehe, backe

ich geh, back

ik gah, back

ek gaan, bak

ich ging, buk ~ backte

ich bin gegangng, habb gebackng

ik güng, back ~ heff backt
ik bün gahn, heff backt

ek het gegaan, gebakt

ich bin gegangen, habe gebacken

Context usually counteracts tense ambiguity.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

=========================================================
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/20110311/5e9149bc/attachment.htm>