• Re: Somewheres

    From Peter Moylan@21:1/5 to Madhu on Mon Sep 2 23:29:18 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 02/09/24 16:13, Madhu wrote:
    * (jerryfriedman) <[email protected]>
    : Wrote on Sun, 1 Sep 2024 19:27:48 +0000:

    On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 8:37:16 +0000, Paul Carmichael wrote:

    El Sun, 01 Sep 2024 09:49:19 +1000, Peter Moylan

    As a singer, I have been told to de-emphasise any final 's'. In
    fact, most of the choir is asked to leave it silent.
    That's how people speak here. "Los olivos" are "loh'holivoh".

    Also here in el Norte (of New Mexico). People even say "ahina" for
    "así", which people from other parts of the Spanish-speaking world
    think is funny.

    Does the dropping of the final S go back to Greek or Hebrew?

    Crossposted to sci.lang, where people might know the answer.

    Is there a natural tendency for languages to lose final syllables or
    final consonants? This thread has provided examples in Spanish. French
    lost a lot of final consonants (in speech, but not in writing) centuries
    ago. Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
    this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
    the language. Portuguese seems to drop all sorts of things.

    Those are all examples in Romance languages. I can't think of any
    examples in Germanic languages, and I don't know enough about other
    language families.

    The well-known example in English is the "dropped g", which reduces an
    -ing ending to -@n. But that's not actually the dropping of a consonant,
    it's the replacement of one consonant by another. The average English
    speaker doesn't notice that, because we're not used to thinking of "ng"
    as a single consonant.

    --
    Peter Moylan [email protected] http://www.pmoylan.org
    Newcastle, NSW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Peter Moylan on Mon Sep 2 17:29:40 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Peter Moylan wrote:

    Is there a natural tendency for languages to lose final syllables or
    final consonants? This thread has provided examples in Spanish. French
    lost a lot of final consonants (in speech, but not in writing) centuries
    ago. Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
    this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
    the language. Portuguese seems to drop all sorts of things.

    Those are all examples in Romance languages. I can't think of any
    examples in Germanic languages, and I don't know enough about other
    language families.

    Spoken Danish drops as much as possible. "Synes" => "sys", "trapperne"
    "trappern", and there are many more examples.

    In dk.kultur.sprog (language) we joked with pronouncing
    "socialdemokratiet" with three syllables (it has 8).

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Funk@21:1/5 to Peter Moylan on Mon Sep 2 16:31:42 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Peter Moylan wrote:

    Crossposted to sci.lang, where people might know the answer.

    Is there a natural tendency for languages to lose final syllables or
    final consonants? This thread has provided examples in Spanish. French
    lost a lot of final consonants (in speech, but not in writing) centuries
    ago. Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
    this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
    the language. Portuguese seems to drop all sorts of things.

    Those are all examples in Romance languages. I can't think of any
    examples in Germanic languages, and I don't know enough about other
    language families.

    The well-known example in English is the "dropped g", which reduces an
    -ing ending to -@n. But that's not actually the dropping of a consonant,
    it's the replacement of one consonant by another. The average English
    speaker doesn't notice that, because we're not used to thinking of "ng"
    as a single consonant.

    The -ing suffix in Modern English is a fusion of two Old English
    suffixes, one similar to German -ung & the other to German -end. I'm
    not sure of the extent to which that encouraged the development of the
    current -in'/-ing situation.



    --
    With the breakdown of the medieval system, the gods of chaos, lunacy,
    and bad taste gained ascendancy. ---Ignatius J Reilly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Funk@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Mon Sep 2 16:34:41 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    Peter Moylan wrote:

    Is there a natural tendency for languages to lose final syllables or
    final consonants? This thread has provided examples in Spanish. French
    lost a lot of final consonants (in speech, but not in writing) centuries
    ago. Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
    this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
    the language. Portuguese seems to drop all sorts of things.

    Those are all examples in Romance languages. I can't think of any
    examples in Germanic languages, and I don't know enough about other
    language families.

    Spoken Danish drops as much as possible. "Synes" => "sys", "trapperne"
    "trappern", and there are many more examples.

    In dk.kultur.sprog (language) we joked with pronouncing
    "socialdemokratiet" with three syllables (it has 8).

    Isn't there a Scandinavian joke to the effect that Danish drops all
    the consonants & one of the others drops all the vowels, so it evens
    out?


    --
    We got music in our solar system
    We're space truckin' round the stars

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Adam Funk on Mon Sep 2 19:01:30 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Adam Funk wrote:

    The -ing suffix in Modern English is a fusion of two Old English
    suffixes, one similar to German -ung & the other to German -end. I'm
    not sure of the extent to which that encouraged the development of the current -in'/-ing situation.

    One might add that the -ung is a suffix that substantivates a verb,
    while the -end makes the verbform present particip. There are parallels
    in Danish where we have -(n)ing and -ende.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Adam Funk on Mon Sep 2 18:55:58 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Adam Funk wrote:

    Spoken Danish drops as much as possible. "Synes" => "sys", "trapperne"
    "trappern", and there are many more examples.

    In dk.kultur.sprog (language) we joked with pronouncing
    "socialdemokratiet" with three syllables (it has 8).

    Isn't there a Scandinavian joke to the effect that Danish drops all
    the consonants & one of the others drops all the vowels, so it evens
    out?

    There may be, but it's wrong. Danes drops anything. Swedes and
    Norwegians generally speak clearly.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to Peter Moylan on Mon Sep 2 19:26:42 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:

    Is there a natural tendency for languages to lose final syllables or
    final consonants?

    If you take the big picture view, the answer is certainly yes, but
    the details vary wildly.

    I can't think of any examples in Germanic languages,

    Take PGmc *hringaz > OE hring > PDE ring.

    Proto-Germanic *-az was the counterpart to the ubiquitous Latin
    ending -us, Greek -os, but it was mostly lost in West Germanic.[1]
    Much later, along the way from Old English [hrɪŋɡ] to Present Day
    English [rɪŋ], final [g] after [ŋ] was lost.

    Strikingly, Middle English lost final -e and, inconsistenly, -en,
    which is intimately tied to the collapse of the declension system.

    and I don't know enough about other language families.

    Proto-Slavic went through a stage where the language had only open
    syllables, i.e., all syllables ended in a vowel. Getting there
    clearly entailed the loss of some syllable- and word-final consonants.

    This thread has provided examples in Spanish.

    Many Spanish words that end on a consonant have clearly lost a final
    -e in the past, think este/ese/AQUEL vs. Portuguese este/esse/aquele.

    The debuccalization of post-vocalic [s] > [h] isn't limited to final
    position, though: mismo [mihmo].

    French lost a lot of final consonants (in speech, but not in
    writing) centuries ago.

    The sound shifts from Vulgar Latin to Old French were brutal. One
    striking change is the loss of all vowels in the final syllable
    other than a, which became e [ə]. In a nutshell, this is why you
    have -o/-e/-a in Spanish and Italian, but -/-/-e in the corresponding
    French forms. If you look at adjectives, the Old French masculine
    would then end in a consonant, the feminine in [ə]. This stage is
    still preserved in the spelling. Later, most final consonants would
    drop, as well as final [ə], so in modern spoken French it's the
    masculine forms that now end in a vowel and the feminine ones that
    end in a consonant.


    [1] If you know German, the nominative singular masculine ending
    -er of determiners and strong adjectives is from PGmc *-az.
    That Old High German conserved this but Old English didn't
    might have been another subtle factor in the collapse of English
    nominal declension. OHG also innovated a nom. sg. neuter ending
    -eȥ (modern -es) by misanalyzing part of the stem of neuter
    pronouns as an ending. That's two endings that could have
    remained distinct during the fall of -e and -en in Middle English
    if only Old English had had them in the first place. Details,
    details.
    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to Peter Moylan on Mon Sep 2 19:48:13 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:

    Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
    this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
    the language.

    Okay, this opportunity is as good as any to mention something I've
    been burning to post ever since I re-read it in Akire/Rosen:

    Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
    forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
    instead of *parlàno? And where is that -o from anyway? Spanish
    doesn't have it and if you look at Latin (-ant), there's no source
    for it.

    Oh, you haven't wondered? ;-)

    Apparently Old Italian had the expected ending -an, so what happened?
    The blame goes to the 'to be' word. The Latin first singular "sum"
    and third plural "sunt" both ended up regularly as "son" in Old
    Italian. But that was the only first person form that didn't have
    -o, so eventually it picked one up, producing "sono". Now, since
    the first singular and third plural had already merged, "sono" also
    became the third pural. And from there the -o spread to the third
    plural of all other verbs, but as a latecomer it didn't move the
    stress.

    It's an intriguing explanation, especially since it includes two
    developments that ran in opposite directions: First the addition
    of -o from many forms to one, then the spread of -o from one form
    to many. I would guess the strong overall tendency toward open
    syllables in Italian had something to do with it.

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Silvano@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 3 08:59:02 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Christian Weisgerber hat am 02.09.2024 um 21:48 geschrieben:
    On 2024-09-02, Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:

    Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
    this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
    the language.

    Okay, this opportunity is as good as any to mention something I've
    been burning to post ever since I re-read it in Akire/Rosen:

    Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
    forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
    instead of *parlàno? And where is that -o from anyway? Spanish
    doesn't have it and if you look at Latin (-ant), there's no source
    for it.

    Oh, you haven't wondered? ;-)

    Apparently Old Italian had the expected ending -an, so what happened?
    The blame goes to the 'to be' word. The Latin first singular "sum"
    and third plural "sunt" both ended up regularly as "son" in Old
    Italian. But that was the only first person form that didn't have
    -o, so eventually it picked one up, producing "sono". Now, since
    the first singular and third plural had already merged, "sono" also
    became the third pural. And from there the -o spread to the third
    plural of all other verbs, but as a latecomer it didn't move the
    stress.

    Please note, however, that the first singular and third plural present
    forms merged only in "sono".


    It's an intriguing explanation, especially since it includes two
    developments that ran in opposite directions: First the addition
    of -o from many forms to one, then the spread of -o from one form
    to many. I would guess the strong overall tendency toward open
    syllables in Italian had something to do with it.

    I would guess the strong overall tendency toward open syllables in
    Italian was the main reason for this development.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Peter Moylan on Tue Sep 3 09:17:54 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Peter Moylan wrote:

    Those are all examples in Romance languages. I can't think of any
    examples in Germanic languages, and I don't know enough about other
    language families.

    I don't remember all the examples, but when the people in de.etc.sprache.deutsch write spoken German, they write "ham" statt
    "haben" - eh, in stead of, that is. They sometimes write something that
    I can't understand at all, but that usually will be a dialect.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Funk@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Tue Sep 3 09:30:59 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    Adam Funk wrote:

    Spoken Danish drops as much as possible. "Synes" => "sys", "trapperne" >>>=> "trappern", and there are many more examples.

    In dk.kultur.sprog (language) we joked with pronouncing
    "socialdemokratiet" with three syllables (it has 8).

    Isn't there a Scandinavian joke to the effect that Danish drops all
    the consonants & one of the others drops all the vowels, so it evens
    out?

    There may be, but it's wrong. Danes drops anything. Swedes and
    Norwegians generally speak clearly.

    Heh, maybe Athel's version is right & it's Danish vs Portuguese.


    --
    It's a tasty world.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Funk@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Tue Sep 3 09:33:11 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    Adam Funk wrote:

    The -ing suffix in Modern English is a fusion of two Old English
    suffixes, one similar to German -ung & the other to German -end. I'm
    not sure of the extent to which that encouraged the development of the
    current -in'/-ing situation.

    One might add that the -ung is a suffix that substantivates a verb,
    while the -end makes the verbform present particip. There are parallels
    in Danish where we have -(n)ing and -ende.

    I'm not surprised. I think (but am open to correction) that English is
    the only Germanic language that has merged them.


    --
    We take the music far more seriously than we take the lyrics, which
    are just throwaway lines. ---Malcolm Young

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Helmut Richter@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Tue Sep 3 10:51:50 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On Tue, 3 Sep 2024, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    I don't remember all the examples, but when the people in de.etc.sprache.deutsch write spoken German, they write "ham" statt
    "haben" - eh, in stead of, that is.

    This is a very natural process which took place in many areas in Germany,
    both in the S and in the E; I am not sure whether in the SW as well.

    Step 1: replace -en by syllabic -n (still same number of syllables):

    haben → habn, leben → lebn, kommen → kommn, schaffen → schaffn,
    reden → redn, sagen → sagn, packen → packn, hängen → hängn [hɛŋn]

    Step 2: assimilate this -n to become homorganic with the preceding sound:

    habn → habm, lebn → lebm, kommn → kommm [kɔmː], schaffn → schaffm,
    redn = redn, sagn → sagŋ, packn → packŋ, [hɛŋn] → [hɛŋː]

    The long nasals allow to distinguish standard "kommen/hängen" from
    standard "komm!/häng!".

    Step 3: merge the two final consonants if the first one is a lax plosive:

    habm → ham, lebm → leːm, redn → reːn, sagn → saːŋ

    This explains "haben/leben" becoming "ham/leːm" which appear in
    colloquial speech nearly all over Germany.

    Especially Bavarian has another interesting feature: where step 3
    makes no difference, the final nasal is often changed to [a], in
    particular, long nasals must be removed.

    Step 4 (Bavarian):

    kommm [kɔmː] → kemma (mand.), packŋ → packa (opt.), [hɛŋː] → henga (mand.)

    Of course, the extent to which these steps apply is very different across Germany. If step 1 is omitted, the language sounds overly distinct, and step
    2 as well sounds natural in colloquial speech. I would not hesitate to teach foreigners to apply these two steps as normal pronunciation.

    --
    Helmut Richter

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Adam Funk on Tue Sep 3 18:19:35 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Adam Funk wrote:

    There may be, but it's wrong. Danes drops anything. Swedes and
    Norwegians generally speak clearly.

    Heh, maybe Athel's version is right & it's Danish vs Portuguese.

    It's still wrong. We also drop vowels. But the joke may exist.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Helmut Richter on Tue Sep 3 18:25:51 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Helmut Richter wrote:

    This is a very natural process which took place in many areas in Germany, both in the S and in the E; I am not sure whether in the SW as well.

    Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
    words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
    lips.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Tue Sep 3 21:48:53 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Bertel Lund Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

    Helmut Richter wrote:

    This is a very natural process which took place in many areas in Germany, both in the S and in the E; I am not sure whether in the SW as well.

    Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
    lips.

    Isn't all of Danish?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 4 10:29:19 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
    words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard
    pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
    lips.

    Isn't all of Danish?

    You may enjoy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj3Kpm3O0g

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to jerryfriedman on Wed Sep 4 18:17:43 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

    Loss of the final consonant in "of"

    and "and"

    While my finger was clicking on "Send", my brain realized that the
    final consonant of "an" has disappeared when not followed by a
    vowel, and the final consonant of the determiner "mine" first
    disappeared when not followed by a vowel, then completely.
    "Thine" went through a similar process while it was mostly
    disappearing".). And "I" used to have a final consonant.

    Yes. I was thinking in terms of general sound changes. Very high
    frequency words show irregular attrition.

    For a striking example, compare the conjugation of the unremarkable
    Latin verb "habere" and that of its descendant, French "avoir".
    You might think that "avoir" was cobbled together from different
    stems, like "être" and "aller", but no, it's all from "habere",
    albeit aggressively reduced and transformed from heavy use as an
    auxiliary.

    Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
    persisting elsewhere. Since the reduction of vowels in final
    syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
    been a general change affecting endings in German, I think. However,
    people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
    aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
    dem Kind(e)". Apart from fixed expressions, conscious archaization,
    or such, that -e is completely dead now, but you'll still find it
    in texts from the 19th and early 20th century. Nowadays, first
    person singular -e in verbs is under pressure. But there is no
    general change that would delete final -e across Standard German.

    Deletion of final consonants and vowels in a High German dialect

    Standard German is notably conservative.

    in this folk song as Brahms set it.

    Da unten im Tale
    Läuft's Wasser so trüb
    Und i kann dir's nit sagen
    I hab' di so lieb.

    Note the parallel developments in the history of English:

    ich > i : ic > I
    dich > di : ðec > thee

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to jerryfriedman on Wed Sep 4 17:54:04 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

    More recently, lots of final /r/s have been lost in some dialects
    of English, except before a vowel in the next word--

    That is a more general change. I took Peter's question to be about
    word-final consonants. Also, it's not a straight loss. Take
    "weird". That is [wɪəd] in conservative Received Pronunciation.
    The r isn't lost, it is vocalized. There is a secondary change
    where the resulting diphthong is smoothed, giving [wɪːd], which,
    if isn't considered RP yet, will be soon. Equivalent changes are
    documented for [ɛə] > [ɛː] and [ɔə] > [ɔː], which raises the question whether this didn't happen for all vowels, e.g. "hard" [hɑrd] >
    ?[hɑəd] > [hɑːd]. Compare r vocalization in German and Danish.

    a similar pattern to what happened in French,

    To me it doesn't look at all similar to the historic partial loss
    of French final r, e.g. in the -er infinitives, nor the sometime
    deletion of final [r] and [l] after obstruents, e.g. chambre >
    chamb', table > tab'.

    Strikingly, Middle English lost final -e and, inconsistenly, -en,
    which is intimately tied to the collapse of the declension system.

    And lots of the conjugation system?

    Yes, I guess I meant to write "inflection" there. I don't think
    the conjugation system shows any additional losses, though. If you
    strike -e and -en from Middle English conjugation, you end up with
    the system familiar from the King James Version: 2. singular -st,
    3. singular present -th, nothing else. The 2SG ending was lost
    along with its pronoun. The 3SG change -th > -s is poorly understood,
    but didn't add or remove any ending.

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sergio Gatti@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 4 21:51:04 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Christian Weisgerber hat am 04.09.2024 um 20:17 geschrieben:
    Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
    persisting elsewhere. Since the reduction of vowels in final
    syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
    been a general change affecting endings in German, I think. However,
    people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
    aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
    dem Kind(e)".

    It depends very much on the question: when did foreigners like me learn
    German as a foreign language? Which learning material did they use?

    I guess that foreigners learning German _now_ will possibly never find
    out that there was a masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e. I would
    have found it out at a much later stage, if I had only had the language
    course on Italian TV in the 60s and my learning experience at a school
    for interpreters in the late 70s. But I also had a learning book in
    Fraktur, written in the 1920s, where that dative was still pretty much
    alive.



    Standard German is notably conservative.

    As a native Italian, I have to point out that this statement is utterly ridiculous. I don't know the present situation, but 50 years ago
    Italians attending grammar schools read Dante in the last three years
    before university (he died 1321, so he must have written the Divine
    Comedy before that) and could understand most of it. Can you read the Nibelungenlied as it was written in the 13th century? Can English native speakers read the Canterbury Tales (written well over 60 years after
    Dante's death) as Chaucer wrote them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to Christian Weisgerber on Wed Sep 4 18:36:03 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-02, Christian Weisgerber <[email protected]> wrote:

    Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
    forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
    instead of *parlàno? And where is that -o from anyway?

    So that was an example where something was added at the end of
    words. I don't intend this as an invalidation of the general
    observation that there is a longtime trend of phonetic erosion, but
    I want to show that actual language history is complex and circuitous.

    Here's another one. From the King James Version, you may be familiar
    with the second person singular indicative ending -(e)st (-t in
    some verbs), "thou thinkest" etc. German also has -st across the
    second person singular. Clearly, -st is an old 2SG marker...

    ... Except, Slavic has -š there. Latin, not a language to drop final
    -t, has -s. Even Gothic has -s, and if you look at the variants
    in early Old English and Old High German, the original 2SG ending
    is also -s.

    Where did the -t come from? There are two hypotheses. One, dismissed
    by Ringe (and I'm skeptical as well), is from missegmentation when
    the subject pronoun (tu ~ þu) followed the verb. The other involves
    the appearance of -s-t due to sound changes in some preterite-present
    verbs, reanalysis as -st, and spread to other verbs. Remarkably,
    this appears to have happened independently in both English and
    German.

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Christian Weisgerber on Thu Sep 5 08:04:05 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Christian Weisgerber wrote:

    Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
    persisting elsewhere. Since the reduction of vowels in final
    syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
    been a general change affecting endings in German, I think. However,
    people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
    aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
    dem Kind(e)".

    I don't know if I *studied* German when learning it in school and later
    reading in d.e.s.d, but until now I didn't know about that dative form.
    I don't think that I have met it in songs either.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Aidan Kehoe@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 5 07:41:54 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Ar an cúigiú lá de mí Méan Fómhair, scríobh Bertel Lund Hansen:

    Christian Weisgerber wrote:

    Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while persisting elsewhere. Since the reduction of vowels in final
    syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
    been a general change affecting endings in German, I think. However, people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
    aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
    dem Kind(e)".

    I don't know if I *studied* German when learning it in school and later reading in d.e.s.d, but until now I didn't know about that dative form.
    I don't think that I have met it in songs either.

    Mark Twain comments on it so it may be that explicit mention of it is more familiar to native English speakers. I was aware of it, but I did study German fairly intensely as an adult.

    --
    ‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
    How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
    (C. Moore)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Helmut Richter@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Thu Sep 5 11:06:11 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    Christian Weisgerber wrote:

    Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
    persisting elsewhere. Since the reduction of vowels in final
    syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
    been a general change affecting endings in German, I think. However, people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
    aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
    dem Kind(e)".


    I don't know if I *studied* German when learning it in school and later reading in d.e.s.d, but until now I didn't know about that dative form.
    I don't think that I have met it in songs either.

    I cite from my summary of German declension: https://hhr-m.de/de-decl/
    (not a scientific work, only a summary of Usenet discussions about German):

    The usage of the optional -e ending for mn-D case and of the -es instead of
    the -s ending for mn-G case normally occurs only with words of German
    origin ending with a stressed root syllable. It is not possible with words
    with a schwa ending, with a diminutive ending -chen or -lein, with an
    unstressed foreign ending or with a full vowel other than a diphthong at
    the word end. In the remaining cases (foreign words, other words with
    unstressed last syllable, words ending with stressed diphthong at the word
    end), it is very uncommon but occurs here and there.

    When a final [s] sound in the uninflected noun would render the genitive -s
    inaudible, that is, with words ending with -s, -ss, -ß, -z, -tz, -x, German
    words and foreign words stressed on the last syllable mandatorily get an
    -es ending (des Gases, des Rosses, des Kreuzes, des Schatzes, des
    Hindernisses, des Kolosses, des Kompromisses) whereas words with unstressed
    foreign ending get no genitive ending at all (des Status, des Mythos, des
    Index) with exceptions only when the word is no longer perceived as foreign
    (des Busses, des Atlasses, des Zirkusses or des Zirkus). For other words as
    well, facilitation of pronunciation is an incentive of using the longer
    form with -es; in particular with lax plosives after long vowel at the word
    end (des Siebes, des Rades, des Tages). and with word-final consonant
    clusters ending with -sch, -t, or -d (des Barsches, des Mastes, des
    Hemdes). It is, however, neither mandatory for these words nor unusual for
    other words (des Tals or des Tales, des Kinns or des Kinnes).

    Where there is free choice between -s and -es genitive, usage of -es has a
    slight poetic or archaic touch. The always optional -e dative ending,
    however, is pronouncedly archaic; many speakers use it only in idioms,
    e.g. bei Lichte besehen ([seen] in the cold light of day), im Grunde
    (basically), zu Tage treten (outcrop), im rechtlichen Sinne (in the legal
    sense), in diesem Sinne (in this spirit).

    --
    Helmut Richter

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Helmut Richter on Thu Sep 5 12:20:48 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Helmut Richter wrote:

    Where there is free choice between -s and -es genitive, usage of -es has a
    slight poetic or archaic touch. The always optional -e dative ending,
    however, is pronouncedly archaic; many speakers use it only in idioms,
    e.g. bei Lichte besehen ([seen] in the cold light of day), im Grunde
    (basically),

    Ah, "In einem kühlen Grunde" - ich habe es gesehen, ... eh, I have seen
    it, but I didn't think too much about it.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Helmut Richter@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Thu Sep 5 12:28:59 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    Helmut Richter wrote:

    Where there is free choice between -s and -es genitive, usage of -es has a
    slight poetic or archaic touch. The always optional -e dative ending,
    however, is pronouncedly archaic; many speakers use it only in idioms,
    e.g. bei Lichte besehen ([seen] in the cold light of day), im Grunde
    (basically),

    Ah, "In einem kühlen Grunde" - ich habe es gesehen, ... eh, I have seen
    it, but I didn't think too much about it.

    In einem kühlen Grunde,
    da steht ein Mühlenrad.
    Wie groß ist wohl der Umfang,
    wenn man den Radius hat?

    --
    Helmut Richter

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam Funk@21:1/5 to Bertel Lund Hansen on Thu Sep 5 12:00:11 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-04, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
    words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard >>> pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
    lips.

    Isn't all of Danish?

    You may enjoy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj3Kpm3O0g

    You'll all have to switch to English to prevent the collapse of
    society!


    --
    so ladies, fish, and gentlemen,
    here's my angled dream

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertel Lund Hansen@21:1/5 to Adam Funk on Thu Sep 5 15:12:03 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Adam Funk wrote:

    You may enjoy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj3Kpm3O0g

    You'll all have to switch to English to prevent the collapse of
    society!

    We're a long way already.

    --
    Bertel
    Kolt, Denmark

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to Sergio Gatti on Thu Sep 5 20:42:00 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-04, Sergio Gatti <[email protected]> wrote:

    Deletion of final consonants and vowels in a High German dialect

    Standard German is notably conservative.

    As a native Italian, I have to point out that this statement is utterly ridiculous.

    You ripped that out of its context, which I restored above. So:
    ... compared to German dialects.

    Italians attending grammar schools read Dante in the last three years
    before university (he died 1321, so he must have written the Divine
    Comedy before that) and could understand most of it.

    Excellent. With so much widespread exposure to early 14th century
    Italian, maybe somebody can tell me which of these conspicuous
    features of the Italian verbal system--not inherited from Latin and
    notably absent from Spanish--were already in Dante's language and
    which are subsequent innovations:

    * replacement of the 1PL present indicative by the subjunctive form
    * leveling of the same 1PL (-iamo) and 2PL (-iate) present subjunctive
    endings across all three conjugations
    * leveling of one ending across all persons in the singular of the
    present subjunctive
    * replacement of 1SG imperfect -ava/-eva/-iva by -avo/-evo/-ivo
    (Wait, I think I read that this one happened only in the last 200
    years.)

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sergio Gatti@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 6 08:17:17 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Christian Weisgerber hat am 05.09.2024 um 22:42 geschrieben:
    On 2024-09-04, Sergio Gatti <[email protected]> wrote:

    Deletion of final consonants and vowels in a High German dialect

    Standard German is notably conservative.

    As a native Italian, I have to point out that this statement is utterly
    ridiculous.

    You ripped that out of its context, which I restored above. So:
    ... compared to German dialects.

    Italians attending grammar schools read Dante in the last three years
    before university (he died 1321, so he must have written the Divine
    Comedy before that) and could understand most of it.

    Excellent. With so much widespread exposure to early 14th century
    Italian, maybe somebody can tell me which of these conspicuous
    features of the Italian verbal system--not inherited from Latin and
    notably absent from Spanish--were already in Dante's language and
    which are subsequent innovations:

    * replacement of the 1PL present indicative by the subjunctive form
    * leveling of the same 1PL (-iamo) and 2PL (-iate) present subjunctive
    endings across all three conjugations
    * leveling of one ending across all persons in the singular of the
    present subjunctive
    * replacement of 1SG imperfect -ava/-eva/-iva by -avo/-evo/-ivo
    (Wait, I think I read that this one happened only in the last 200
    years.)


    Actually, you'd better ask such questions in an Italian NG about the
    Italian language, like it.cultura.linguistica.italiano. You'll find many
    more native Italians there than here. However, we never had a look at
    your questions. We just notice the differences between Dante and our own
    usage (sanza/senza).

    Anyway, a look at Luca Serianni, Italiano, Garzanti tells us (my
    translation):

    - In old Tuscan, like in many modern Italian dialects, the 1PL present indicative was semo (example from Dante - please note that he chose
    freely among the forms available at his time for euphony and rhythm
    reasons); the form siamo - since the beginning attested as an indicative
    - was used before that only as a subjunctive (following the vulgar Latin *siamus instead of the classical simus) and was probably the model for
    the the 1PL present indicative of all verbs, always ending in -iamo.

    - I can't find anything there.

    - Singular of the present subjunctive. Originally the 1st and 3rd
    persons ended in -e (like the Latin endings); the unification to only -i
    is very old and derives from the 2nd person.
    Also: worth noting is the attraction of the 1st conjugation on all other classes. Different forms are common in Leopardi's prose (benché tu vadi,
    che tu non possi) (XIX century) and abbi can be found in Bacchelli (XX century).

    - The form amavo got widespread very soon in Florentine (end of the XIV century) but it was hardly accepted for a long time in the literary
    language; its success got a huge drive through Manzoni in The Betrothed
    (XIX century).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to jerryfriedman on Sat Sep 14 13:59:05 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-05, jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

    happened to French <s> has a lot of parallels to what's
    happening to English <r> in non-rhotic dialects. The [r] is
    lost, leaving a long vowel as you say, and then <r> is used to
    write that vowel (still mostly non-standard, but there are
    examples like "Burma" and "argo"). In the same way the
    French [s] was lost, leaving long vowels, and then used
    to write those vowels as in "resve".

    That was a rather specific change of [s] between a vowel and another
    consonant. Yes, it resulted in compensatory lengthening and a new
    set of long vowel phonemes.

    Closer to home, there's the loss in Middle English of [x]~[ç] after
    vowels. (Consistent after front vowels, sometimes shifted to [f]
    instead after back vowels.) That also included compensatory
    lengthening of short vowels, e.g. <right> [rɪçt] > [riːt] > [raɪt].

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to Sergio Gatti on Sat Sep 14 15:57:14 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 2024-09-06, Sergio Gatti <[email protected]> wrote:

    Actually, you'd better ask such questions in an Italian NG about the
    Italian language, like it.cultura.linguistica.italiano.

    I need to read a book about the history of the Italian language.
    Like, where are all those geminates from?

    * replacement of the 1PL present indicative by the subjunctive form

    - In old Tuscan, like in many modern Italian dialects, the 1PL present indicative was semo (example from Dante - please note that he chose
    freely among the forms available at his time for euphony and rhythm
    reasons); the form siamo - since the beginning attested as an indicative

    I downloaded _La Divina Commedia_ from Project Gutenberg, and a
    search for -emo indeed shows a number of 1PL present indicatives.
    In fact, there's "avemo", a form still reflected in today's Italian
    in the 1PL future ending -emo.

    * leveling of one ending across all persons in the singular of the
    present subjunctive

    - Singular of the present subjunctive. Originally the 1st and 3rd
    persons ended in -e (like the Latin endings); the unification to only -i
    is very old and derives from the 2nd person.

    Alkire/Rosen, _Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction_, describe
    this somewhat differently. The Old Italian forms were

    indicative subjunctive
    canto cante
    cante canti
    canta cante

    parto parta
    parti parte
    parte parta

    The subjunctive forms leveled to -i (-are) and -a (-ere, -ire),
    because these forms were distincly subjunctive and not homonymous
    with an indicative form. On the other hand, this introduced ambiguity
    between first/second/third person.

    The change of 2SG indicative -e > -i for the -are verbs is later
    and in analogy to the -ere/-ire verbs.

    Unfortunately, Alkire/Rosen don't give any dates for those changes,
    so that's why I wondered which ones came before and after Dante.

    Also: worth noting is the attraction of the 1st conjugation on all other classes. Different forms are common in Leopardi's prose (benché tu vadi,
    che tu non possi) (XIX century) and abbi can be found in Bacchelli (XX century).

    But also note the other classes pushing the 2SG indicative -i into
    the first conjugation.

    * replacement of 1SG imperfect -ava/-eva/-iva by -avo/-evo/-ivo

    - The form amavo got widespread very soon in Florentine (end of the XIV century) but it was hardly accepted for a long time in the literary
    language; its success got a huge drive through Manzoni in The Betrothed
    (XIX century).

    According to Alkire/Rosent the transparent reason for this change
    was the disambiguation of 1SG and 3SG.

    Overall, we're looking at a list of changes that remove some
    ambiguities, but new ambiguities are also introduced.

    I'm a bit sensitive to this because Italian and Spanish are pro-drop
    languages, i.e., they omit the subject pronoun, except for emphasis
    or disambiguation. Spanish in particular does not distinguish 1SG
    and 3SG in the imperfect, conditional, present subjunctive, or
    imperfect subjunctive, and Spanish speakers seem to feel little
    need to inject pronouns for disambiguation, which can be disorienting
    to language learners.

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ruud Harmsen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 22 15:37:25 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Sat, 14 Sep 2024 15:57:14 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber <[email protected]> scribeva:

    I'm a bit sensitive to this because Italian and Spanish are pro-drop >languages, i.e., they omit the subject pronoun, except for emphasis
    or disambiguation. Spanish in particular does not distinguish 1SG
    and 3SG in the imperfect, conditional, present subjunctive, or
    imperfect subjunctive, and Spanish speakers seem to feel little
    need to inject pronouns for disambiguation, which can be disorienting
    to language learners.

    Portuguese does, digo eu.

    --
    Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Moylan@21:1/5 to Ruud Harmsen on Mon Sep 23 09:48:56 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    On 22/09/24 23:37, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
    Sat, 14 Sep 2024 15:57:14 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber <[email protected]> scribeva:

    I'm a bit sensitive to this because Italian and Spanish are
    pro-drop languages, i.e., they omit the subject pronoun, except for
    emphasis or disambiguation. Spanish in particular does not
    distinguish 1SG and 3SG in the imperfect, conditional, present
    subjunctive, or imperfect subjunctive, and Spanish speakers seem to
    feel little need to inject pronouns for disambiguation, which can
    be disorienting to language learners.

    Portuguese does, digo eu.

    Irish is intermediate in this respect. First person pronouns are rarely
    needed, because the verb endings are distinctive. In second and third
    person the verb endings don't help, so pronouns are essential.

    I imagine there was a time long ago when it was a pro-drop language, but
    then gradually the verb endings were eroded down into a simpler system.

    In the Germanic languages, including English, the erosion has gone a lot further.

    --
    Peter Moylan [email protected] http://www.pmoylan.org
    Newcastle, NSW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ruud Harmsen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 24 08:11:57 2024
    XPost: alt.usage.english

    Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:48:56 +1000: Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
    scribeva:

    On 22/09/24 23:37, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
    Sat, 14 Sep 2024 15:57:14 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
    <[email protected]> scribeva:

    I'm a bit sensitive to this because Italian and Spanish are
    pro-drop languages, i.e., they omit the subject pronoun, except for
    emphasis or disambiguation. Spanish in particular does not
    distinguish 1SG and 3SG in the imperfect, conditional, present
    subjunctive, or imperfect subjunctive, and Spanish speakers seem to
    feel little need to inject pronouns for disambiguation, which can
    be disorienting to language learners.

    Portuguese does, digo eu.

    Irish is intermediate in this respect. First person pronouns are rarely >needed, because the verb endings are distinctive. In second and third
    person the verb endings don't help, so pronouns are essential.

    I imagine there was a time long ago when it was a pro-drop language, but
    then gradually the verb endings were eroded down into a simpler system.

    In the Germanic languages, including English, the erosion has gone a lot >further.

    Et le français aussi.
    --
    Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)