Re: Zelandish (was: 2nd pers. pron. for God)

On 09/18 10:04  Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à andrew <hobbit@...>:
>
> >
> > Yes.  It's native name is Zelandisch (pronounced the same).  In my
> > journal-keeping it is spoken in the province south of Woepie river,
> > mainly in Land-in-Siet and Leewell, as well as a few outlying towns.
> >
>
> I'd be interested in some phonological explanations :)) .
>
Funny, I thought I had provided some.  Well, let's see...

Zelandish has sounds that are foreign to my dialect of English so I
don't think about the pronunciation in depth.  Phonology is not my
strong point.  But a rough guide would be...

i, ie /i/

u-accute /y/

u /u/

iC /I/

uC /U/

e, ee /e/, tends to become a diphthong

o /o/, tends to become a diphthong

eC /E/

oC /Q/

oe /2/

a-accute /O/

eu, ew /&U/

a /a/

aC /V/

unstressed vowel /@/

I think that covers most of the vowels found in Zelandish.

Most consonants are like modern English, except...

j /j/

sch /S/

cg /dZ/

> It's |jullie|. And Dutch uses |zij/ze| for the third person plural, which is
> identical to the third person singular feminine (like in German). Luckily, they
> use other forms for the object and possessive forms (|hen/hun| and |hun|
> respectively for the third person plural. The feminine has the unique form
> |haar|).
>
> I guess a plural form parallel to |jullie| would be something like *|zullie|,
> but I don't remember seeing anything like that ever...
>
A recent thread on this list refered to some Dutch dialects having the
varient third person plural pronoun |hullie|, derived from |hun lied|.
I wonder about the probability of Zelandish having |hylie| but not
*jylie.

> Funny that here |sum| is an article, after our discussion about articles and
> the status of "some" ;))) .
>
Indeed, it is an unusual coincidence!  Although |sum|, |summe| in the
plural, has been long established as the plural in Zelandish.

> > they are declined like adjectives.
>
> You mean indefinite articles are declined like adjectives?
>
Yes.

> Funny, I don't know of any Germanic language that combines prepositions and
> articles :)) .
>
Yes, I have to wonder where I get these ideas from!

One of the things I forgot to mention the first time is that Zelandish
uses the definite article for forming the demonstatives, |det deer|, and
|det heer| or |'theer| /te:r/.  It is declined for case and number.

> > Nouns are not declined for case if this is indicated in the article or
> > adjectives.  Strong nouns are declined for number with the historic
> > endings -s, -e or -0.  Weak nouns take the ending -e or -n in the
> > oblique or plural cases.
>
> So weak nouns have no ending in the subject singular form, an -e in any other
> singular form, and -n in the plural? (with or without -e?)
>
Hmm, actually I have got that wrong.  A weak noun like |vampierbane|
'vampire slayer' is indeclinable in all cases; a word like |twee|
'doubt' has the oblique singular, and plural, form |tween|.

Although: det vampierban(e); dom/des vampierbane; da vampierbanen;
etc...Hmmm, maybe there might be something in that...

> >  Not all nouns have a possessive -s.
>
> Which ones do then? :))
>
Nouns which were historically strong masculine and strong neuter, which
means that if a noun takes the endings -s or -0 in the plural, it
will have a singular possessive form with -s.  Recently I have relaxed
this rule a little to allow the enclitic use of possessive -s.

> Like the Dutch construction "Jan z'n bril": "John his glasses" for "John's
> glasses"? What I like is that in reduced form it makes it look like the
> English -'s possessive form :)) (and behaves in the same way, as a clitic).
>
The same thing happened for a while in English, but it never became
established in the language.  It has in Zelandish.

> Like weak nouns, or is the distribution different?
>
The same as weak nouns.

>   The strong adjective is rarer.
>
> When is it used then? I suppose it can be used when the adjective is used
> alone. Is there any case a noun wouldn't take an article in front of it? (since
> you have singular and plural forms for both definite and indefinite articles, I
> guess nouns without an article are rare, maybe mass nouns only...)
>
The strong adjective seems to be only used as an attributive adjective
without an article.  Occasionally I find myself trying to remember the
strong plural possessive adjective when I'm writing, i.e. |gjoeier| of
good (pl.).

> If the past tense can only be formed using an auxiliary, you cannot call it
> a "simple" tense. It is a compound tense (like the French "passé composé"). Or
> do verbs also have a preterite or simple past conjugation, uncompounded?
>
Yes, I forgot to mention that the auxiliary to for compound tenses,
although I realise I didn't write out the simple past tense: Ik teld; wy
telde; etc.

- andrew.
--
Andrew Smith, Intheologus                         hobbit@griffler.co.nz
alias Mungo Foxburr of Loamsdown
http://hobbit.griffler.co.nz/homepage.html

Pray for Peace, Act for Peace

Replies