The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages: A Study of Personal Pronoun Morphology and Change in the Germanic Languages from the First Records to the Present Day 9783110819205, 9783110146363

Table of contents :
Paradigms
Figures
Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter 1: Morphology of the personal pronouns
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Morphological patterning
1.3 Morphology of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages
1.4 Patterning - suppletion
1.5 Factors determining the morphological type of the personal pronouns
1.6 Conclusions
Chapter 2: Change in the personal pronouns
2.1 The relevance of distinctions outside the personal pronouns
2.2 Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns
2.3 Redistinction or new distinction in the personal pronouns
2.4 Analogy
2.5 Phonological change in the personal pronouns
2.6 Socially-motivated change in the personal pronouns
2.7 Functional reinterpretation
2.8 Sources of new personal pronoun forms
Chapter 3: Pan-Germanic
3.1 Accusative-dative
3.2 Dual
Chapter 4: Gothic
Chapter 5: Older runic inscriptions
Chapter 6: English
Old English
Middle English
6.3 Development of she
6.4 they - them - their
6.5 Changes in the 3rd person pronouns
Modern English
Chapter 7: Frisian
Old Frisian
Middle West Frisian/Early Modern West Frisian
Modern West Frisian
Modern East Frisian
Modern North Frisian
Pan-Frisian
7.6 Case developments in the Frisian personal pronouns
Chapter 8: Dutch
Middle Dutch
Modern Dutch
8.2 Morphological case distinction in the Modern Dutch personal pronouns
8.4 Developments in the forms of address
Chapter 9: Afrikaans
Chapter 10: Langobardic
Chapter 11: German
Old High German
Middle High German
Early New High German
11.3 Extended forms
Old Saxon (Old Low German)
Middle Low German
Modern German
11.6 Case distinction in the Modern German personal pronouns
Chapter 12: Yiddish
Chapter 13: Scandinavian
Chapter 14: Swedish
Old/Middle Swedish
Old Gutnish
Modern Swedish
Chapter 15: Danish
Old/Middle Danish
Modern Danish
Chapter 16: Norwegian
Old/Middle Norwegian
Modern Norwegian
Continental Scandinavian
Chapter 17: Faroese
17.2 Case
Chapter 18: Icelandic
Old Icelandic
Modern Icelandic
Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Stephen Howe The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages

W DE G

Studia Linguistica Germanica

Herausgegeben von Stefan Sonderegger und Oskar Reichmann

43

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1996

Stephen Howe

The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages A study of personal pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic languages from the first records to the present day

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1996

® Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt.

Library of Congress Catalogngin-Publicaúon Data

Howe, Stephen, 1964— The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages : a study of personal pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic languages from the first records to the present day / Stephen Howe, p. cm. - (Studia linguistica Germanica ; 43) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-014636-3 (alk. paper) 1. Germanic languages - Pronoun. 2. Germanic languages Morphology. 3. Germanic languages — History. I. Title. II. Series. PD261.H69 1996 430-dc20 96-27271 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Howe, Stephen: The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages : a study of personal pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic languages from the first records to the present day / Stephen Howe. - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1996 (Studia linguistica Germanica ; 43) Zugl.: London, Univ., Diss., 1995 ISBN 3-11-014636-3 NE: GT

© Copyright 1996 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen Printed in Germany Druck: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin

To Kristina

Preface This study is the published version of my PhD thesis (University of London 1995), and first of all I would like to thank the supervisor of my PhD at the University of London, Professor Martin Durrell (now at the University of Manchester), and my 'step-Doktorvater' while in Germany, Professor Dr Otmar Werner at the Institut für Vergleichende Germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik at the University of Freiburg. In addition, I would like to thank several other people at the University of Ghent and the University of Lund for their assistance during periods of research in Belgium and Sweden, and further a number of other departments and institutes visited in the course of this research. — All the staff at the Department of Dutch Linguistics and Flemish Dialectology at the University of Ghent, both for their helpfulness and their hospitality during my stay. The Fryske Akademy in Leeuwarden/Ljouwert and the Frysk Ynstitút at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The Nordfriesische Wörterbuchstelle at the University of Kiel, in particular Dr Alastair Walker and his students, and Professor Nils Ârhammar at the Nordfriisk Instituut in Bräist/Bredstedt. Furthermore, Professors Christer Platzack, Ulf Teleman and Gösta Holm at the Nordic Department of the University of Lund, the staff at the Institute of Danish Dialect Research at the University of Copenhagen, and Professor Michael Barnes at University College London. I would also like to thank several other people who very kindly answered questions in correspondence, and in some cases read through earlier drafts of individual language chapters: Eivind Weyhe at the Faroese Language Department of Fróàskaparsetur F0roya in Tórshavn; Hans den Besten at the University of Amsterdam; Professor J. Goossens at the Universities of Louvain and Münster, Dr O. Vries at the Frysk Ynstitút, Dovid Katz at the University of Oxford, and Frederic G. Cassidy at the University of Wisconsin. Further thanks to the authors and publishers who gave permission to reproduce figures in this book (in particular Professor G. de Schütter at the University of Antwerp who kindly supplied original maps). Of course, as is usual, it goes without saying that all errors and oversights, and the many shortcomings remaining are entirely my own. I would also like to acknowledge here my gratitude for funding from a number of sources: the British Academy for a three-year Major State

viii

Preface

Studentship for PhD research, the Belgian Flemish Community Department of Education Scholarship for research at the University of Ghent, the Robson-Scott Travelling Scholarship for research at the University of Lund, and the Edna Purdie Scholarship for research both in Sweden and in Germany. Finally, I would like to add personal thanks to a small group of people: to my parents, to Rolf and Ing-Britt for the use of their summer cottage while the final stages of this book were written, and to Kristina.

Contents Paradigms Figures Abbreviations Introduction 0.1.1 0.1.2 0.1.3 0.1.4 0.1.5

General introduction The personal pronouns in connected speech Reference in the personal pronouns Use of the subject pronoun in the early Germanic languages Further references

Chapter 1: Morphology of the personal pronouns 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2 1.2.1 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.5 1.6

Introduction Comparison of the hypothetical models with the actual personal pronouns in the Germanic languages Connection between + and - accent forms Morphological patterning Other studies of patterning Morphology of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages Factors determining the psychological reality and signalling value of a formative Types of formative Patterning - suppletion Factors determining the morphological type of the personal pronouns Conclusions

Chapter 2: Change in the personal pronouns 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2

The relevance of distinctions outside the personal pronouns Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns . . Change Type [A] Change Type [B]

xvii xix xxi 1 1 6 9 11 13 15 15 17 28 32 37 43 44 46 48 51 57 60 61 63 64 66

X

Contents

2.2.3 2.2.4

Distinction by other means Why do personal pronouns often retain distinctions longer? 2.3 Redistinction or new distinction in the personal pronouns . 2.3.1 Change Type [C] 2.3.2 Homonymy - ambiguity 2.3.3 Possible developments in the personal pronouns because of ambiguity 2.4 Analogy 2.5 Phonological change in the personal pronouns 2.5.1 Change in + and - accent forms 2.5.2 Sandhi 2.5.3 Phonological merger 2.6 Socially-motivated change in the personal pronouns . . . . 2.7 Functional reinterpretation 2.8 Sources of new personal pronoun forms

Chapter 3: Pan-Germanic 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2

Accusative-dative 1st and 2nd p. singular accusative-dative 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural accusative-dative 3rd person singular and plural accusative-dative Dual

Chapter 4: Gothic

68 69 74 74 76 78 80 87 87 88 91 93 95 100 105 105 105 Ill 112 118 125

4.1.1

1st p. plural acc. and dat. uns, unsis

125

4.1.2

Dual

127

Chapter 5: Older runic inscriptions

128

Chapter 6: English Old English 6.1.1 Accusative-dative 1st and 2nd person 6.1.2 Dual 6.1.3 3rd p. plural gender distinction Middle English 6.2.1 1st p. sing, nom 6.2.2 2nd person dual and plural 6.2.3 3rd p. sing. fem. obj. forms 6.2.4 3rd p. sing. fem. acc. and 3rd p. plural acc. his(e) type . . . . 6.2.5 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. h- and h-less forms

130 130 130 135 135 137 137 137 139 139 140

Contents

xi

6.2.6 Dual 6.2.7 Accusative-dative 3rd person 6.3 Development of she 6.3.1 Distribution of the 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. forms in Middle English 6.3.2 Modern dialect forms 6.3.3 Explanations of the origin of she 6.4 they - them - their 6.4.1 Nominative th- forms 6.4.2 Objective th- forms 6.4.3 Possessive th- forms 6.4.4 Difference in the spread of th- forms in nominative, objective and possessive 6.5 Changes in the 3rd person pronouns Modern English 6.6.1 ye-you and thou-thee subj.-obj. distinctions 6.6.2 Loss of thou-thee-thine, thy 6.6.3 Dialectal stress-governed usage

141 142 145

Chapter 7: Frisian

178

Old Frisian 7.1.1 3rd p. sing. fem. nom 7.1.2 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural s- forms 7.1.3 3rd p. sing. masc. enclitic -r forms 7.1.4 3rd p. plural gender distinction Middle West Frisian/Early Modern West Frisian Modern West Frisian 7.2.1 2nd p. sing. Τ enclitic -sto,-ste etc 7.2.2 3rd p. sing. fem. subj. and 3rd p. plural subj. sy 7.2.3 2nd p. sing. V jo Modern East Frisian 7.3.1 Harlinger Frisian forms Modern North Frisian 7.4.1 Dual Pan-Frisian 7.5.1 Demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use in Frisian . . 7.5.2 Developments in the 2nd and 3rd p. plural pronouns in Frisian 7.6 Case developments in the Frisian personal pronouns . . . . 7.6.1 Accusative/dative 7.6.2 3rd p. plural

178 178 178 180 181 182 184 184 184 187 191 191 193 193 196 196

145 146 148 154 157 158 158 159 160 166 166 170 175

196 199 199 201

xii

Contents

Chapter 8: Dutch

203

Middle Dutch 8.1.1 1st and 2nd p. singular obj. mijn, dijn 8.1.2 2nd p. sing. nom. enclitic -stu 8.1.3 3rd p. sing. mase. acc. enclitic -s 8.1.4 3rd p. sing. masc. acc. enclitic -ten 8.1.5 3rd p. sing. fern, nom 8.1.6 3rd p. plural obj. hem, hen 8.1.7 3rd p. plural obj. haer 8.1.8 Accusative-dative 8.1.9 Extended plural forms with liede etc Modern Dutch 8.2 Morphological case distinction in the Modern Dutch personal pronouns 8.2.1 3rd p. sing. masc. clitic forms [am], [an], [ana] 8.2.2 3rd p. plural oblique forms as subj 8.3.1 3rd p. sing. masc. subj. enclitic -die/-tie 8.3.2 3rd p. sing. fem. obj. d'r 8.3.3 3rd p. sing, neuter het 8.3.4 3rd p. plural obj. hun, hen 8.3.5 1st p. plural subj. me etc 8.4 Developments in the forms of address 8.4.1 Loss of du-di-dijns 8.4.2 g- and j- forms 8.4.3 jullie 8.4.4 u

203 203 205 205 205 206 206 206 207 209 212

Chapter 9: Afrikaans

230

9.1.1 9.1.2 9.1.3 9.1.4 9.1.5 9.1.6 9.1.7

Full and unaccented forms Morphological case distinction ons 2nd p. plural julle 3rd p. plural hulle u 1st p. sing. obj. myn

212 215 215 219 219 219 219 220 220 222 223 226 227

230 233 234 235 235 237 238

Chapter 10: Langobardic

240

Chapter 11: German

241

Old High German 11.1.1 1st p. sing. nom. ihha, ihcha 11.1.2 3rd person initial h-

241 241 241

Contents

xiii

11.1.3 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative-dative distinction 11.1.4 Dual Middle High German 11.2.1 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc 11.2.2 1st p. plural nom. mir, mer 11.2.3 1st p. plural dat. unsis, unses 11.2.4 1st p. plural umlaut oblique forms 11.2.5 Fem. sing, nominative-accusative 11.2.6 Fem. sing, dative-genitive 11.2.7 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative-dative syncretism 11.2.8 3rd p. plural gender distinction Early New High German 11.3 Extended forms 11.3.1 3rd p. sing. masc. acc. inen/ihnen 11.3.2 3rd p. plural dat. inen/ihnen 11.3.3 3rd p. sing. fem. dat. iren¡ihren Old Saxon (Old Low German) 11.4.1 3rd person initial h11.4.2 3rd p. sing, masc./neuter dative forms 11.4.3 1st and 2nd person accusative and dative 11.4.4 Dual 11.4.5 3rd p. plural gender distinction Middle Low German 11.5.1 2nd p. plural 11.5.2 3rd p. plural dative jüm 11.5.3 1st and 2nd person accusative-dative 11.5.4 3rd p. sing. fem. nom Modern German .' 11.6 Case distinction in the Modern German personal pronouns 11.6.1 1st and 2nd p. singular accusative and dative 11.6.2 1st and 2nd p. plural obj. forms 11.6.3 3rd person accusative and dative 11.6.4 Nominative-accusative 11.6.5 Complete levelling of nom./acc./dat. distinction 11.7.1 Forms with initial h- in the 3rd person pronouns 11.7.2 Originally dual forms in German dialect 11.7.3 1st and 2nd p. plural nom. forms with initial m- and d-. . . 11.7.4 Swiss German 1st p. plural nis, 2nd p. plural nech etc. . . .

243 244 246 246 246 246 248 248 248 249 251 252 252 252 252 254 255 255 255 255 257 258 259 259 259 261 261 262 262 267 268 270 274 275 276 279 280 282

Chapter 12: Yiddish

283

12.1.1 2nd person plural originally dual forms 12.1.2 Accusative-dative

283 285

xiv

12.1.3 12.1.4 12.1.5 12.1.6

Contents

1st p. plural nom. indz 1st p. plural nom. mir Central Yiddish ram, nir, nes 3rd p. sing. fem. ζί-3τά person plural zej

289 289 289 289

Chapter 13: Scandinavian

290

Chapter 14: Swedish

292

Old/Middle Swedish 14.1.1 Dual 14.1.2 Accusative-dative (subjective-objective) 14.1.3 3rd p. plural gender distinction Old Gutnish 14.2.1 3rd p. sing. fem. nom.-acc Modern Swedish 14.3.1 2nd p. plural/sing. V subj. ni 14.3.2 3rd p. sing, neuter enclitic subj. and obj 14.3.3 Forms of 'det' with initial h-

292 292 294 296 298 298 300 300 305 305

Chapter 15: Danish

308

Old/Middle Danish 15.1.1 1st p. plural obj. forms with initial w-,v15.1.2 Accusative-dative 15.1.3 Dual 15.1.4 3rd p. plural gender distinction Modern Danish

308 308 310 311 311 312

Chapter 16: Norwegian

314

Old/Middle Norwegian 16.1.1 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural nom. forms with initial mand p16.1.2 2nd person dual/plural oblique forms with initial dental . . 16.1.3 vi 16.1.4 I 16.1.5 Dual 16.1.6 Accusative-dative (subjective-objective) 16.1.7 3rd p. plural gender distinction Modern Norwegian 16.2.1 1st person plural subj./obj. oss 16.2.2 2nd person plural subj./obj

314 316 318 319 319 320 321 324 325 325 325

Contents

xv

Continental Scandinavian 16.3.1 den 16.3.2 Developments in the Continental Scandinavian 3rd p. plural pronouns 16.3.3 Norwegian 3rd p. plural subj./obj. dei etc

331 331

Chapter 17: Faroese

339

17.1.1 17.1.2 17.1.3 17.2 17.2.1 17.2.2 17.2.3 17.2.4 17.3.1

Neuter singular nom./acc Dual and plural forms 2nd person singular V Case Acc./dat. differentiation Dialectal 1st and 2nd p. plural nom. okur, tykur 2nd p. sing. V nom./acc./dat. tygum 3rd p. plural nom./acc 2nd person forms with initial t-

334 338

339 341 342 343 343 344 345 345 346

Chapter 18: Icelandic

348

Old Icelandic 18.1.1 2nd person dual and plural nom. forms with initial p- . . . Modern Icelandic 18.2.1 Dual forms

348 348 350 350

Summary and Conclusions

352

19.1.1 19.1.2 19.1.3 19.1.4 19.1.5

Pan-Germanic corpus The personal pronouns in connected speech Complex morphology Personal pronoun change Further research

352 353 354 356 363

Bibliography

365

Index

385

Paradigms Gothic

126

Older runic inscriptions

129

Old English West Saxon Old English Mercian Old English Northumbrian Middle English Modern English

131 132 133 138 167

Old Frisian Middle West Frisian/Early Modern West Frisian Gysbert Japicx . . . Modern West Frisian Modern East Frisian Modern North Frisian

179 183 185 192 194

Middle Dutch

204

Modern Dutch

213

Afrikaans

231

Old High German

242

Middle High German Early New High German Old Saxon/Old Low German Middle Low German Modern German Luxemburgish Swiss German (Zürichdeutsch h Berndeutsch)

247 253 256 260 263 264 265

Modern Yiddish

284

Rune Swedish/Early Old Swedish Old Gutnish Modern Swedish

293 299 301

xviii

Paradigms

Old/Middle Danish Modem Danish

309 313

Old Norwegian Norwegian Bokmâl Nynorsk

315 326 327

Modern Faroese

340

Old Icelandic Modern Icelandic

349 351

Figures Introduction 0.1.3 Reference of the personal pronouns

10

Chapter 1: Morphology of the personal pronouns 1.1a Patterning agglutinating pronouns 1.1b Suppletive portmanteau pronouns 1.1.1a Example paradigms 1.1.1b Example paradigms 1.1.1c Example paradigms l.l.ld Example paradigms 1.2a & 1.2b Patterning in New High German pronouns 1.2c-f Patterning in Modern Swedish pronouns 1.2.1a Old English personal pronouns 1.2.1b Old English personal pronouns 1.2.1c Modern English pronouns 1.2.1d Norwegian pronouns (dialectal) 1.3 Patterning in lexical words

16 16 19 24 26 27 33 35 38 39 40 42 42

Chapter 2: Change in the personal pronouns 2.4 Analogical extension of initial h- in 3rd person pronouns in Germanic languages

84

Chapter 8: Dutch 8.2.1a & 8.2.1b 3rd p. sing. masc. subj. & obj. end 8.3.5 1st p. plural subj. proclitic forms

216 221

Chapter 11: German 11.6.3a 3rd p. sing. masc. accusative-dative in German dialects . . 11.6.3b 3rd p. sing. fem. accusative-dative in German dialects . . . 11.7.1 Initial h- in 3rd person pronouns

271 273 277

Chapter 12: Yiddish 12.1.2a 1st person singular 12.1.2b 3rd p. sing, fem

286 287

Chapter 14: Swedish 14.3.1 2nd person plural subj. forms in Swedish dialects (in part also in Norwegian and Danish) 14.3.3 (Personal pronoun) 'det' sentence-initially, unstressed subj. .

302 306

Chapter 16: Norwegian 16.1.11st p. plural subj. forms in Modern Norwegian

317

Abbreviations 1st p. 2nd p. 3rd p.

1st person 2nd person 3rd person

sing. pi.

singular plural

masc. fem. nt.

masculine feminine neuter

nom. acc. dat. subj. obj. obi. gen. poss. det. indep. end. Τ V

nominative accusative dative subject(ive) object(ive) oblique genitive possessive determinative (gen./poss.) independent (gen./poss.)

E W

East(ern) West(ern)

E AmE

English American English

Fris WFris EFris NFris

Frisian West Frisian East Frisian North Frisian

N1

Dutch

OHG MHG ENHG NHG OSax MLG

Old High Middle High Early New High New High

German German German German

Old Saxon Middle Low German

Y

Yiddish

Sw Da Nw NN Fa Ic

Swedish Danish Norwegian Nynorsk Faroese Icelandic

IE Gmc

Indo-European Germanic

V C

vowel consonant

enclitic inferior/familiar etc. superior/polite etc.

0 M Mod Pres Std

Old Middle Modern Present Standard

Ν S

North(ern) South(ern)

Abbreviations

XXll

V Ν Ρ A det

verb noun preposition adjective determiner

C16 etc. c. ms. (mss.) occas. esp. unstr. v.

century circa manuscript(s) occasionally especially unstressed very

1 2 3

In paradigms 1st person 2nd person 3rd person

S D Ρ

singular dual plural

M F Ν C

masculine feminine neuter common gender

Introduction 0.1.1 General introduction This study investigates the forms and development of the personal pronouns in all the Germanic languages from the earliest records to the present day. Although a few detailed studies exist for the personal pronouns of individual Germanic languages or dialects, or of single developments, this book for the first time brings together and examines the complete attested development of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages as a whole. This study includes chapters on the personal pronouns in Gothic, Older runic, English, Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans, Langobardic, High German, Low German, Yiddish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic. The aim of this study is twofold: to give a comprehensive investigation of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages from the earliest records to the present day, and, from this Pan-Germanic corpus, to give a detailed analysis of the morphology of the personal pronouns and to put forward a comprehensive theory of change in the personal pronouns. Detailed studies of the personal pronouns of single periods of individual Germanic languages or dialects are, most notably, Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965) for Old/Middle Danish, Scholtz (1963b-e) for Afrikaans, De Schutter (1989) for pronominal clitics in Dutch dialects, Walch & Häckel (1988) for Early New High German, and Zelissen (1969) for Rheinisch-Maasländisch to 1300. Noteworthy studies of individual pronoun developments important to this volume are Gu5mundsson (1972) on the pronominal dual in Icelandic, and Werner (1991) on the English 3rd person pronouns. Reconstruction is a separate task — only attested forms are included here — and two comparatively recent studies are Seebold (1984) who reconstructs the preliterary Germanic personal pronouns based on data of all the early Germanic languages, and Schmidt (1978) for the personal pronouns in Indo-European. On Germanic demonstrative forms see also Klingenschmitt (1987). For more global comparative studies of pronoun systems see for example the articles by Ingram and Head in Greenberg (1978), Forchheimer (1953), Wiesemann (1986), and also Mühlhäusler & Harré (1990). In contrast to much of the earlier research on the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages which has often concentrated on a single

2

Introduction

language or a single development only, or viewed the personal pronouns in isolation, this study attempts to give a comprehensive investigation of the developments in the personal pronouns by including all the Germanic languages and their whole attested development, and by examining them within the language system in which they are spoken. Comparative Germanic investigation of the personal pronouns has rarely been done in detail before — even in such obvious cases as Dutch and Afrikaans where pronominal forms attested in Afrikaans are important to the explanation of more than one Dutch development (and of course vice versa) — see the comments by Scholtz (1963d: 89f.) and the Dutch and Afrikaans chapters here. I do not wish to imply by this study that the (immediate) genetic relationship (in this case Germanic) is necessarily the most important or the sole one — note for example some similarity in the affix-like character of the Present French and Present English subjective pronouns, or the influence of French in forms of address — however, the personal pronouns even in English or Afrikaans — two languages with significant nonGermanic contact — remain very much Germanic. As with the inclusion of all the Germanic languages, taking the whole documented period of the languages similarly gives a better basis for examining the types of change in the personal pronouns. Developments often viewed and discussed in isolation in earlier studies are here considered together, which frequently enables underlying principles to be identified more clearly. Thus investigation of the personal pronouns and developments in all the Germanic languages has it is believed in many cases enabled better explanation of pronoun forms and developments in individual languages. However, as anyone who has looked at pronoun forms in language will know, the number of variants is almost inexhaustible, and in a comparative study such as this a balance must be drawn between detailed investigation of each individual language, and the overall aim of a comprehensive theory. However, on the other hand I am acutely aware of the dangers of- inaccuracy and oversight in such a Germanic-wide study. — My approach and aim can I hope be summed up by the comments by Quirk et al. (1985: 91) for their comprehensive English grammar: 'Both the complexities and indeterminacies of grammar place the prospect of writing a complete and definitive grammatical description [of English] beyond reasonable expectation. Given inevitable limitations, what we aim to achieve here is a description which combines breadth of coverage and depth of detail, and in which observation of particularities goes hand in hand with the search for general and systematic explanations'. Chapters 1 and 2 concentrate respectively on personal pronoun morphology and on personal pronoun change. The morphological analysis in chapter 1 examines the degree of regularity-irregularity and the complex morphological type of the pronouns. And in chapter 2 a theory of personal

Introduction

3

pronoun change is put forward which allows many of the changes in the pronouns for the first time to be explained in the same theoretical framework. A number of the conclusions of this study may have wider validity to the study of morphological change and pronoun systems. One question is to what extent the factors discussed and put forward in this study can also be applied to other forms, and whether or not they are also applicable to comparable paradigms outside the Germanic languages — the 'irregularity' of the personal pronouns and indeed of other forms in many languages suggesting some common factors, though it must be emphasized that there is considerable variation in pronoun systems in languages of the world. — While it may well be a general property of natural languages that they possess devices for referring to entities mentioned elsewhere in or involved in the discourse (cf. Radford 1988: 78) — i.e. that pro-forms or pronominalization of some kind is universal — and language change is of course a fundamental universal — individual pronoun forms, their usage and their meaning vary considerably, so universal morphological characteristics or universal factors in pronominal change require a great deal of further research. The theoretical discussion of personal pronoun morphology and change takes up the first third of this book, however, the approach in the individual language chapters has purposely been undogmatic, in order that this study may also serve as a Pan-Germanic corpus. The aim in the individual language chapters has been both to point out where the pronominal theory discussed in the first chapters of this study explains personal pronoun forms and developments, and also to give alternative explanations full discussion, including full references to facilitate access to the material. This study focuses on rather than isolates the personal pronouns in language — the personal pronouns cannot be studied in isolation — and does not exclude phonological, syntactic, pragmatic and other factors, indeed it would be impossible to do so. The personal pronouns must be examined within the language system in which they are spoken rather than in isolation. Important also is a focus in geographical, social, and chronological space — i.e. in 3-D. The personal pronouns can only be adequately explained by taking account of all of these. For example the fact that some Present English language-users acquire a pronominal distinction /-rue, we-us and me-us, but only you, while others have youy'all, youse etc. can only be explained diachronically, regionally, and with reference to socially-motivated language change, as well as to the language system in which these forms are used — see e.g. chapter 6. Ideally, an all-embracing study of the pronouns would include reflexive and (independent/determinative) genitive/possessive forms — what Quirk et al. (1985: 345f.) for English term the central pronouns — plus demonstra-

4

Introduction

tive pronouns. However, for reasons of coverage, these are not central to this study, but are indeed included wherever relevant. Phonological variants are given in the paradigms, but are normally not discussed in the text, though of course phonological variation may become morphologically significant, as in the development of new personal pronoun forms in sandhi for example. The development of clitic pronouns to inflection as in the Scandinavian mediopassive suffix -s(t) falls outside this study and will not be dealt with in detail here. However, on verb endings from pronouns in some German Alemannisch and Bairisch dialects (including examples of reduplication as in Dutch below) see Niibling (1992: 257-260, 263). And on the increasing restriction of nominative forms to preverbal position in English and to varying extent also in other Germanic languages see further chapter 2 (2.7). Duplication of pronouns as in the Dutch dialectal examples ik heb ik dat niet gedaan, ik heb dat ik niet gedaan, dat heb ikik niet gedaan, ik heb ikik dat niet gedaan, ik heb dat ikik niet gedaan etc. is not dealt with in this study — cf. Goossens' comments in (forthcoming c: 3f.). These occur in southern Dutch dialects, according to Goossens up to the Uerdinger Line in the East. For further discussion see for example the recent articles by Goossens (1991)1 and De Schutter (1990: 20 with references). Note also that duplication of pronouns can also occur in other Germanic languages — English Me, I'm not going, or Swedish Det är inte illa, det, Jag ska gora det jag ocksá — though whether or not or to what extent these are parallel to the (re)duplication above is unclear. Genitive/possessive forms are given in paradigms but are not discussed in detail. References are given in 0.1.5 below, including on extended forms such as English hers, its, theirs, ours, yours, hisn, hern, theirn, yourn etc. However, particularly in the Modern Germanic languages the genitive/ possessives differ from the nominative and objective pronouns in a number of respects. In English for example the independent gen./poss. forms are always accented, and their frequency of occurrence is lower than determinative possessives for example — see the London-Lund corpus statistics in 1.5 below and Kjellmer (1986: 152f.) for Brown and Lancaster-Oslo/ Bergen corpora statistics. Determinative gen./poss. forms of course differ syntactically but are clearly morphologically closely connected. Forms such as mine, my, yours, your, his etc. are generally labelled in this study 'genitive/possessive' or 'gen./poss.', (a) because of variation in terminology and definition in Germanic languages, and (b) because their function, as even a simple example such as It's his loss, not mine can illustrate, is not restricted to 'possession'.

1 Cited in Goossens (forthcoming c: 4).

Introduction

5

Similarly, forms of address are not dealt with separately here, but, again, are always discussed where relevant — for example in the virtual loss of thou-thee-thine, thy in English and innovatory plural forms y'all, yous(e) etc. For a detailed bibliography of studies of forms of address (including non-Germanic languages) see Braun et al. (1986), and for a comparative/ universale study of respect in pronominal reference see the article by Head (1978). The terms Τ and V (Brown & Gilman 1960) are used as abbreviations for socially-differentiated forms of address. However, Τ and V (from Latin tu and vos) are not wholly accurate, as 3rd person forms — such as German earlier 3rd p. sing. Er, or Present German 3rd p. plural Sie — also occur as forms of address. Similarly the 1st person pluralis majestatis is not accurately labelled Ύ\ Note also that it is not only in address that T/Vlike criteria are relevant — in the 1st person the pluralis majestatis already mentioned, or the use of us as singular in requests in colloquial English (Do us a favour, Lend us a tenner etc.), or Japanese forms for Ί ' for example. In the 3rd person in Luxemburgish for example, according to my information gathered from native speakers (aged about 25 to 30), the originally neuter pronoun hatt can be used only for feminine (for 3rd p. sing, neuter only et, and not hatt is possible). As feminine singular pronouns, hatt and si differ semantically: si is used as a pronoun for a woman not known by the speaker and/or an older woman, for example hatt could be used pejoratively of a female professor who would usually be referred to as si. (On the use of neuter and masculine pronouns for feminine personal reference in other Germanic dialects see e.g. Ârhammar 1975: 56f., Wahrig-Burfeind 1989: 681,132, & 293.) The situation is often more complex than a T - V dichotomy (rather T ' - V ' - V " etc.) as social differentiation in forms of address may include more than two variants, and include nonpronoun forms such as title and name. However, given these reservations, Τ and V are useful labels and are used in this study to denote socially-governed pronominal forms. Note also t h a t ' T ' and 'V are representative relative terms — not absolutes — their absolute value may change diachronically and vary from language to language and in language varieties. Similarly, labels such as 'subjective', 'objective', 'masculine', 'feminine', 'neuter' etc. identify in this study cognate or corresponding forms, as their distribution and use can vary considerably both diachronically and between languages — for example in Afrikaans the use of the 3rd person pronouns is far from a straightforward masculine-feminine-neuter or animate-inanimate contrast, compare similarly Wahrig-Burfeind (1989: 298) on gender in the southern North Sea area, or Quirk et al. (1985: 21f.) on the use of the feminine pronoun for inanimates and also impersonally in Australian English. Indeed even 'personal pronoun usage' is not easy to define Pan-Germanically.

6

Introduction

Generally speaking, unless very current in English, dialect terms are given in their original language for a number of reasons: firstly, English terms do not exist for all Germanic dialects (e.g. in Frisian); secondly to avoid clumsy translation, and thirdly, internationally, native terms for various Germanic language dialects are preferable to their English translations. Similarly, where used, the usual diacritics (e.g. length signs etc.) for each language are generally retained. A number of figures and pronoun maps have been included, as well as pronoun paradigms. References are given to further maps of Germanic pronoun forms in the text and Index, and in 0.1.5 below. The layout of the paradigms represents a compromise — no single layout is ideal for all the Germanic languages and the general format used in this study is for ease of reading and presentation. To facilitate comparison between languages and periods the same format, with minor exceptions, has been used throughout. As in the presentation generally in this study, the aim is to use as standard a format and terminology as possible, without however obscuring differences in individual languages. 0.1.2 The personal pronouns in connected speech A study of the personal pronouns must take account of their variation in accent and consider them in connected speech. The isolated written or citation form of a personal pronoun is in connected speech the exception rather than the rule. For example for English Gimson/Ramsaran (1989: 266) state that his, her, we, them have over 90% occurrences as unaccented forms. In a study of connected speech cited in Crystal (1987: 147) single words were cut out of a tape recording of clear, intelligible, continuous speech: when these were played to listeners, there was great difficulty in making a correct identification. Crystal states that 'Normal speech proves to be so rapidly and informally articulated that in fact over half the words cannot be recognized in isolation', and makes the important point that 'models of speech perception based on the study of isolated sounds and words will be of little value in explaining the processes that operate in relation to connected speech'. This last point is particularly relevant to a study of the personal pronouns, both diachronically and synchronically. Personal pronouns and many other function words differ considerably from lexical words in connected speech — compare again Gimson/Ramsaran (1989: 265f.): 'Content words . . . generally have in connected speech the qualitative pattern of their isolate form and therefore retain some measure of qualitative prominence even when no pitch prominence is associated with them and when they are relatively unstressed.' Many function (or 'grammatical' or 'form') words, on the other hand, have 'two or more qualitative and quantitative patterns according to whether they are unaccented (as is usual) or

7

Introduction

accented .. Λ Gimson/Ramsaran further add (1989:268f.) that also 'certain form words, not normally possessing an alternative weak form for unaccented occurrences, may show such reductions in very rapid speech' citing for example (among others) English I as in I [9] don't know. As Gimson/Ramsaran (1989: 261) point out, function words such as the personal pronouns, articles and auxiliary verbs are likely to be unaccented, 2 although they may be accented if the meaning requires it. This important difference between personal pronouns (and similar function words) and lexical or content words is immediately apparent in a comparison (using English examples) of the personal pronouns with (partially) homophonic lexical words: eye3 yew wee4

ewe

mine 3 yaws hours5

hymn The difference is similarly apparent when personal pronouns are used as nouns in examples such as 'Is it a he or a she?', 'You're it' (in children's games), 'The diet to create a better you' etc.6 In this study 'accent' is used as in Gimson/Ramsaran (1989) where 'variations of pitch, length, stress, and quality, contribute to the manifestation of the accented parts of connected speech' (1989:262). Gimson/Ramsaran (1989:290) state (of English function words) 'Such is the reduction and obscuration of the unaccented forms that words which are phonetically and phonemically separate when said in isolation may be neutralized under weak accent'. They add that 'Such neutralization causes no confusion because of the high rate of redundancy of meaningful cues in English; it is only rarely that the context will allow a variety of interpretation for any one cue supplied by an unaccented word form'. However, this study will show (and will be dealt with in detail in the following chapters) that merger when unaccented and the presence or absence of

2 3 4 5

Demonstrative pronouns, on the other hand, are likely to be accented. Noun or verb. Noun, verb, or adjective. As noted above, the independent genitive/possessives mine, yours, ours etc. (outside the main area of this study) are always accented (see Quirk et al. 1985: 362). 6 There may further be evidence for a psychological and neurological distinction between function and content words (cited in Fromkin & Rodman 1993: 39, 440 & 445), though see also the comments on the duality of the personal pronouns in chapters 1 and 2 below.

8

Introduction

'meaningful cues' have been important factors in change in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. Unlike some earlier studies which have often tended to concentrate on the written citation forms,7 this study gives considerable attention to the variation in accent in the personal pronouns, considering them in connected speech rather than in isolation — indeed variation in accent is an important factor in much of the change in the personal pronouns. In the pronoun paradigms, as well as throughout this study, unaccented as well as accented forms have been given wherever possible (of course depending on the forms attested in earlier periods). For the modern period IPA transcriptions are generally given for each of the Germanic languages (nearly always including accent variants). 8 Generally speaking, in the modern standard languages the full (or accented) forms are written — i.e. the less frequent forms. In this respect the written languages generally do not represent the most usual forms of the personal pronouns in speech.9 In this study generally accent variants in the personal pronouns will be referred to as accented and unaccented where this is unambiguous, and by a convention +accent(ed) and -accent(ed) which represents greater-less accent(ed) (and not necessarily straightforwardly with/without or plus/ minus accent). The use of the variables + and - accent(ed) — i.e. relative rather than absolute terms — as for example the T/V convention also used here, is very useful in a diachronic and cross-linguistic study where absolute dichotomous terms such as accented and unaccented or strong and weak are sometimes less helpful, and this convention indeed enables simpler and neater explanations of a number of changes. The use of accented-unaccented or + and - accent, as also with T/V, should not be taken to mean that there are necessarily only two accent variants. Further, reference is also made to the (en-, pro-) clitic status of pronouns, for example where developments derive specifically from clitic use, such as 1st p. plural and dual forms with initial ra- in some of the Germanic languages. Reference is also made to specific emphatic forms (such as ikke) where necessary.

7 Though some studies — such as De Schutter (1989) for Dutch or Niibling (1992) for German — concentrate specifically on clitic forms. 8 These transcriptions, taken of necessity from separate sources for each Germanic language, may to some extent vary in detail of transcription. Furthermore, in particular in some of the Scandinavian languages it was necessary to transpose from another (non-IPA) phonetic alphabet, resulting in some cases in a degree of approximation. 9 Dutch in particular is a notable exception to this. (Standard) English for example has only the contracted written form 's: 'Let's go' (and the archaic 'T: 'Twas).

Introduction

9

0.1.3 Reference in the personal pronouns The reference of the personal pronouns is illustrated schematically in figure O.I.3.10 In the 3rd person pronouns in the Germanic languages the referent is specified generally according to whether it is one or more-than-one. In the singular (earlier and in some modern Germanic languages also in the plural) it is further specified: in Standard English for example according to whether it is male or female personal, or nonpersonal, and in German generally-speaking according to grammatical gender. This contrasts with the 1st and 2nd person pronouns which in the Germanic languages do not specify the speaker's/writer's or addressee's sex, although there is often, in Τ and V pronouns, specification of the speaker's/writer's social relationship to the addressee(s). Figure 0.1.3 illustrates t h a t whereas the singular pronouns, for example ich, du and er/sie/es, refer specifically to the speaker/writer, the addressee, or a '3rd party' respectively, this is by no means always the case in the 1st and 2nd person plural forms. The 1st and 2nd person plural personal pronouns are better explained by the term 'group reference': i.e. they specify merely the presence or absence of either speaker(s)/writer(s) and/or addressee(s) in the group, regardless of whether other persons are also referred to, and, as the examples below show (from Quirk et al. 1985: 340), we and you (or e.g. wir and ihr) can refer to several combinations of persons: we 1st p. 1st p. 1st p. 1st p.

+ 1st p. + 2nd p. + 3rd p. + 2nd p. + 3rd ρ

We, the undersigned, pledge ourselves to . . . We complemented ourselves too soon, John The children and I can look after ourselves You, Ann, and I are working ourselves to death

you 2nd p. + 2nd p. 2nd p. + 3rd p.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, children You and John will have to cook for yourselves

they 3rd p. + 3rd p.

They helped themselves to coffee and cakes

10 This introductory section is not a full discussion of reference in the personal pronouns (a fuller discussion of pronominal reference will hopefully appear in a later publication). Material here is taken from Quirk et al. (1985), Mühlhäusler & Harré (1990), Lyons (1977), or is my own. The simplified figure (0.1.3) is based for purposes of illustration approximately on the Present English and Present German pronouns and does not take account of for example English you, German Sie, earlier 1st and 2nd person dual, or 3rd p. plural gender distinction in earlier and some modern Germanic languages. In the figure 'Sp' = speaker(s) (or writer(s)), 'Add' = addressee.

10

Introduction

Figure 0.1.3 Reference of the personal pronouns 1st person singular I

plural we

Sp

circle = group size of group > 1

we = a group to which speaker(s) belong(s)

2nd person (T) singular du

plural ihr

circle = group size of group > 1

ihr = a group to which addressee(s) belong(s), but speaker(s) do(es) not

3rd person singular he

plural they

he

not Sp, not Add, personal male

(^¡he)

not Sp, not Add, personal female

it

not Sp, not Add, nonpersonal

circle = group size of group > 1

Sp

they = a group to which neither speaker(s) nor addressee(s) belong(s)

Introduction

11

What these examples clearly illustrate is that there is an order of preference or hierarchy in the selection of referring pronoun, whereby the 1st person outweighs the 2nd person, which in turn outweighs the 3rd person. This relative unspecificness of the plural personal pronouns is utilized pragmatically. According to Mühlhäusler & Harré (1990: 40), although ' "Officially", the uses of the pronouns are neatly located within a framework of the formal categories of person and number . . . evidence from actual studies of use shows that the distinctions between various acts in the performing of which speaker, hearer and third person are morally relevant beings cannot be mapped onto the existing syntactical distinctions in the English pronoun system'. However, rather than the 'official' meaning not being valid as Mühlhäusler & Harré claim, it is on the contrary the core meaning of the pronouns — i.e. ultimately deriving from the formal categories — that gives this pragmatic variation. Pragmatic constraint as opposed to variation of pronominal usage can be illustrated by Swedish, where until comparatively recently title and name were used in place of, or in avoidance of pronominal address (see Mârtensson 1988: 143f. for a brief summary and references). And in 3rd person reference note the constraints in using 3rd person pronouns, especially she, to refer to a person in their presence, if their social prestige or degree of respect is very high, even in their absence. 0.1.4 Use of the subject pronoun in the early Germanic languages Gothic and older runic Schulze (1924: 92) in a study of the use of the subject pronoun in Gothic states, 'Ob Ulfilas dem Verbum eine Form des Personalpronomens als selbständigen Subjektsausdruck beigibt oder nicht, wird in der überwältigenden Mehrzahl aller Fälle ganz mechanisch durch den Vorgang des Originals bestimmt', and adds that 'Auf den lebendigen Sprachgebrauch seines Volkes läßt sich aus diesem Verhalten im einzelnen so wenig ein Schluß ziehen, wie etwa aus der kaum anders als sklavisch zu nennenden Nachahmung der griechischen Wortstellung'. Mittermüller, in a later study, states (1983: If.) that already in early records it is not the case that the Germanic languages are purely incorporating — he states that a number of runic inscriptions show reflexes of this development. Of Gothic, Mittermüller states that the use of an independent subject pronoun 'bereits in beträchtlichen Ansätzen vorhanden ist, ja sich in bestimmten strukturellen Positionen sogar schon grammatikalisiert haben muss. Freilich bleibt .. . das alte rein suffigierende System dennoch das vorherrschende: Die Koexistenz und Konkurrenz beider Fügungstypen ist zwar deutlich angebahnt, von einem entschiedenen Rückgang des älteren Sprachgebrauchs kann aber . . . wohl nicht gesprochen werden'. Mittermüller (1983: 23-29) states that in the use/omission of the subject

12

Introduction

pronoun, Gothic records (including the Skeireins) do not differ to any great degree. Old High German Eggenberger (1961) concludes that the use or omission of a separate subject pronoun in Old High German texts is not so much dependent on a historical development but on text type. According to Eggenberger (1961: 166) it is not possible to make a generalization about the occurrence of the subject pronoun in Old High German, rather it is necessary to differentiate between interlinear glosses, Old High German 'original' sources, and texts with a mixed character. It is not the oldest Old High German texts which lack a separate subject pronoun, rather the most Latinized ones. This is clearest in the interlinear glosses where the subject pronoun is used only where it occurs in the Latin original — the few examples where a separate subject pronoun is used contrary to the Latin original are, according to Eggenberger (1961:167), not a sign of an increasing use of the subject pronoun, but rather of resistance to 'undeutsch' forms without separate subject pronouns. In what Eggenberger terms Old High German 'original' sources — texts which in comparison to the interlinear glosses are to some extent original — the subject pronoun is used already in the earliest written records, omission being the exception (Eggenberger 1961:24). In Eggenberger's texts with mixed character features both of interlinear texts and of the Old High German 'original' sources are found, for example in Tatian there are larger sections where the subject pronoun is used as in New High German, but also other sections which resemble the interlinear glosses. Eggenberger's results show that the use or omission of the subject pronoun in these mixed texts is influenced by several factors, the most important of which are clause type and grammatical person. In secondary clauses (indicative and subjunctive) the use of the subject pronoun is the norm (the interlinear glosses show no difference between main and secondary clause); in main clauses, however, although forms with a subject pronoun are predominant, verb forms without a subject pronoun do also occur (Eggenberger 1961: 168f.). A second major difference in the use or omission of the subject pronoun in mixed texts is between the 1st and 2nd person (sing, and plural) on the one hand, and the 3rd person (sing, and plural) on the other. In the 1st and 2nd person the subject pronoun is used in such a majority of cases that its use can be considered the norm;11 in the

11 An exception to this is in 1st p. plural verb forms ending in -mes: while the short forms (e.g. uuir haben, haben unir) occur with subject pronoun, the long forms ending in -mes can occur without a subject pronoun, in inversion almost always so (Eggenberger 1961:169).

Introduction

13

3rd person, however, the subject pronoun is absent in the majority of instances (i.e. in main clauses, but is usually present in secondary clauses) (Eggenberger 1961:169). Old Saxon In Old Saxon the use of the subject pronoun is usual, both in main and secondary clauses (Behrmann 1879: 17-20). This may tie in with Eggenberger's argument above, in that the major text ('Heliand' — the subject of Behrmann's study) is not translated from Latin, and is more independent syntactically. Old English Although nonexpression of the subject pronoun was more common in Old English than it is today, the personal pronoun was normally expressed in Old English when it was the subject of a verb, even when the verb form was unambiguous and a Latin original without a pronoun was being closely glossed (Mitchell 1985:104). 0.1.5 Further references Genitive/possessive Germanic Seebold (1984: 48) English Kjellmer (1986), LAE (maps M76-M79), LALME (maps 832-836), Mossé (1952: 59f.), Quirk et al. (1985: 361f.), Spies (1897: 22 & 126), Trudgill (1990: 83f.), Wakelin (1972:115), Wakelin (1984: 82), Wright (1905: §411) Frisian Sjölin et al. (1988: 47) Dutch ANS (1984:176f. & 392ff.), Overdiep (1946: 38, 40 & 52f.), Van Halteren (1906: §6 & §18-19), Van Helten (1887: 434), Van Loey (1960: §26, §27 & §30) Afrikaans Ponelis (1979: 63) High German Franck (1971: 217), Leupold (1909: 67 & 71), Mausser (1933: 750), Paul (1958: §128), Schirmunski (1962: 471f.), Walch (1990: 25), Walch & Häckel (1988: 34, 55, 62f., 89,120,133), Weinhold (1967b: 511f. & 524) Low German Behrmann (1879: 32ff.), Holthausen (1921: 114), Lasch (1914a: 214 & 216f.), Sarauw (1924:109f. & 114) Scandinavian Haugen (1976: 293ff.) Swedish Noreen (1904: 389f.), Vendell (1881: §196), Wessén (1968:144) Danish Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: §562 & pp. 25, 57f., 68,127f.) Norwegian Haegstad (1908: 216-218), Seip/Saltveit (1971: 220), Skjekkeland (1977: 98-100)

14

Introduction

Far oese Haugen (1982: 108), Jacobsen & Matras (1961: 145, 166 & 306), Lockwood (1950: 90), Lockwood (1955: 71 & 91f.) Icelandic Arthur (1964: 243f.)

Germanic pronoun maps (selected) (* = reproduced in this volume) English 1st p. sing. LALME (1034-1038) 2nd p. sing. LAE (M67) 3rd p. sing. masc. LAE (M70) 3rd p. sing. fem. LALME (10-14,19-23), LAE (M68-69) 3rd p. sing, neuter LALME (24-27), LAE (M71) 3rd p. plural LALME (28-32, 37-44, 51-56) Frisian 3rd p. sing. masc. De Schütter (1989: 29) Dutch 1st p. sing. De Schutter (1989: 51) 2nd p. sing. Weijnen (1966), De Schutter (1989: 56) 3rd p. sing. masc. Koelmans (1968: 21), *De Schütter (1989: 29, 62) 3rd p. sing. fem. C13 Berteloot (1984, map 121) 1st p. plural De Schutter (1989: 36, *90) 3rd p. plural De Rooij (1990: 126,134) Pronouns with liede etc. C13 Mooijaart (1990: 55) German 2nd p. sing. DSA (maps 5, 25, supplementary maps 31, 44, 68, 76) 3rd p. sing. masc. DSA (map 48), Luxemburgischer Sprachatlas (map 44), *Shrier (1965, map 5) 3rd p. sing. fem. *Shrier (1965, map 7) 3rd p. sing, neuter MHG Sparmann (1961, map 1), Shrier (1965, map 10) Initial h- in 3rd person pronouns *Frings & Lerchner (1966, map 22) 1st p. plural Eichhoff (1978, map 120) 2nd p. plural (DSA map 21, supplementary map 43), Giitter (1971, maps 34-35) Yiddish 1st p. sing. *Wolf (1969:144) 3rd p. sing. fem. *Wolf (1969: 146) Scandinavian 1st p. sing. Bandle (1973, map 10) Swedish 3rd p. sing, neuter Reinhammar (1975, maps *7-8) 2nd p. plural *Ahlgren (1978) 3rd p. plural Nyholm (1984, map 2) Danish 1st p. sing. Br0ndum-Nielsen (1951, map 20) Norwegian 1st p. sing. Christiansen (1948: 212) 1st p. plural ""Christiansen (1956:177) 2nd p. plural *Ahlgren (1978)

Chapter 1: Morphology of the personal pronouns 1.1 Introduction The information represented by a personal pronoun could theoretically be expressed either as agglutinating morphs or as portmanteau morphs. These two possibilities are illustrated schematically below, where figure 1.1a represents a perfectly agglutinating paradigm and figure 1.1b shows a paradigm consisting entirely of portmanteau forms.1 In the patterning agglutinating paradigm in figure 1.1a each personal pronoun consists of a number of regular discrete agglutinating morphs, added together like building blocks. Each morph is the same throughout the paradigm and unambiguously indicates its particular property,2 i.e. there are no allomorphs and there is a perfect one-to-one relationship of form to meaning. The meaning of each pronoun is a function of the meaning of its component parts. The ordering of the elements is entirely predictable and each element is clearly segmentable. A change of a property (e.g. from 1st person to 2nd person, or from singular to plural) means a change of one morph only, not a change of the whole form. The personal pronouns in figure 1.1a can thus be generated by rule.3 1 In the two models categories/properties are based on the New High German personal pronoun paradigm (i.e. 3 persons, 2 numbers, 3 genders differentiated in the 3rd p. sing, etc.); German examples have been used throughout this chapter for consistency, but the theoretical concepts discussed are also illustrated in other Germanic languages. Pike (1963:16-18) terms the patterning agglutinating paradigm type a 'simple matrix' and the suppletive portmanteau type an 'ideal matrix'; however, his terminology is less than clear as he states that a 'simple matrix' is simple because of the consistent correlation of meaning to form, and an 'ideal matrix' is ideal because it has a maximally simple matrix arrangement (but maximum morphemic irregularity) of one form to each categorial intersection. In addition, Pike himself admits (1965: 205) that he does not know of any language with an 'ideal matrix'. 2 In this study 'category' and 'property' are used as in Matthews (see 1974: 66 & 136) where 'categories' are e.g. person, number, case etc., and 'properties' are individual terms of categories, e.g. 1st, 2nd, singular, dual, nominative, accusative etc. For a survey of other terms in use see Carstairs-McCarthy (1992: 196f.). 3 In figure 1.1a: S = sing., Ρ = plural, Ν = nom., A = acc., D = dat., G = gen., M = mase., F = fem., O = neuter, Τ = familiar, V = polite. In figure 1.1b each symbol represents a single personal pronoun.

16

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Figure 1.1a Patterning agglutinating pronouns

lstp.-l· sing.

nom. ISN

acc. ISA

dat. ISD

gen. 1SG

2nd p. + sing. + Τ

2SNT

2SAT

2SDT

2SGT

3rd p. + sing, -f masc.

3SNM

3SAM

3SDM

3SGM

3rd p. + sing. + fem.

3SNF

3SAF

3SDF

3SGF

3rd p. + sing. + nt.

3SNO

3SAO

3SDO

3SGO

1st p. + pi.

ÎPN

1PA

1PD

IPG

2nd p. + pl. + T

2PNT

2PAT

2PDT

2PGT

2nd p. + V

2NV

2AV

2DV

2GV

3rd p. + pi.

3PN

3PA

3PD

3PG

Figure 1.1b Suppletive portmanteau pronouns nom. G

acc. W

dat. ß

gen. V

2nd p. + sing. + Τ

Ζ

E

Κ

À

3rd p. + sing. + masc.

S

Ö

R

L

3rd p. + sing. + fern.

Β

Q

C

&

3rd p. + sing. + nt.

Ü

M

§

υ

1st p. + pi.

Η

Y

Τ

J

2nd p. -hpl. + T

Χ

I

A

t>

2nd p. + V

Ä

Ρ

0

F

3rd p. + pi.

D

iE

Ν

0

1st p. + sing.

17

Introduction

In contrast, in the suppletive portmanteau paradigm in figure 1.1b each personal pronoun is a single unique portmanteau morph which refers to the bundle of properties, rather than formally indicating each property individually. The personal pronouns in figure 1.1b are arbitrary representative terms in the same way that most lexemes have an arbitrary relationship between form and meaning. These pronouns have no formal connection to one another and a change in a property will result in a complete change of form. The personal pronouns in figure 1.1b cannot then be formed by rule. The two morphological types represented by figures 1.1a and 1.1b can be illustrated by the following comparison (cf. Pike 1963: 23 and Werner 1987b: 290ff.): lion I lion-cub lion-ess stallion ( -foal mare

In lion/lion-ess/lion-cub

t h e change male-female

a n d adult-young

is shown

by the addition of an element -ess denoting 'female' and an element -cub denoting 'young', both of which recur with the same meaning in other words (e.g. mayor-ess,

steward-ess, host-ess a n d wolf-cub, fox-cub,

bear-cub).

In stallion/mare/foal on the other hand, the same change is shown by three completely different words which bear no formal resemblance to one another (nor indeed any resemblance to horse): the terms stallion, mare and foal are, like the suppletive portmanteau personal pronouns in figure 1.1b, arbitrary forms which merely denote the contents subsumed under their title rather than indicating components individually, i.e. either [horse + adult + male], [horse + adult + female], [horse + young], or [1st person + plural + dative], [3rd person + singular + masculine + accusative] for example. 1.1.1 Comparison of the hypothetical models with the actual personal pronouns in the Germanic languages A comparison of the actual personal pronoun forms in the Germanic languages first with the hypothetical agglutinating paradigm in figure 1.1a shows that, in contrast to the model, the Germanic personal pronouns are not made up of individual discrete agglutinating morphs; the real personal pronouns are not segmentable as a series of agglutinating morphs of for

18

Morphology of the personal pronouns

example person + number + case + gender and there is no consistent one-to-one relationship between category/property and form. This can be seen in the New High German pronouns below: New High German

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. Τ 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. pi. 2nd p. pi. Τ 2nd p. V 3rd p. pi.

ηοτη. ich du er sie es wir ihr Sie sie

acc. mich dich ihn sie es uns euch Sie sie

dat. mir dir ihm ihr ihm uns euch Ihnen ihnen

gen./poss. mein(-) dein(-) sein(-) ihr(-) sein(-) unser(-) euer(-) Ihr(-) ihr(-)

Even where a form does seem to be analysable into elements, e.g. in mich, mir, mein(-), dich, dir, and dein(-), the elements are not clear one-to-one morphs; for example, in mich, mir, mein(-) the / m / appears to indicate several properties rather than just one, e.g. 1st person and singular and oblique or non-nominative, which is a one-to-many relationship rather than a one-to-one relationship as in figure 1.1a. Nor are these elements constant and unambiguous throughout the paradigm, unlike the hypothetical agglutinating model above; for example in New High German the /ir/ in the datives mir, dir and ihr also occurs in the nominative in wir and ihr, which is a many-to-one relationship and not one-to-one as in the model. The same is also true of the other Germanic languages, as the example paradigms in figure 1.1.1a can show.4 It seems clear then that the actual personal pronouns in the Germanic languages are not formed of one-to-one agglutinating morphs. In fact, many of the personal pronouns are not obviously segmentable at all. In this respect they seem to resemble more the portmanteau forms of figure 1.1b than the agglutinating forms of figure 1.1a.

4 These example paradigms are abbreviated — for fuller detail see the individual language chapters.

19

Introduction

Figure 1.1.1a Example paradigms Rune Swedish/early Old Swedish

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. dual 2nd p. dual 1st p. pi. 2nd p. pi. 3rd p. pi. masc. 3rd p. pi. fern. 3rd p. pi. nt.

nom. iak l>u han hon Jjaet vit it vï(r) î(r) bë(r) bâ(r) t>e, t>0n

acc. mik J)ik han hâna Jjaet

nom. ic du hi si (h)et wi ghi si

*

dat. maè(r) l>éè(r) hanom haenne t>y oker

gen. min J)in hans haenna(r) J>aes okar

*

*

*

os ijser

&

os ijjer J)ëm t>êm Jsëm

vâr(ra) ij)ar t>er(r)a J)êr(r)a J)ër(r)a

acc. mi di hem haer (h)et ons u hem, hen

dat. mi di hem haer hem ons u hem, hen

gen. mijns dijns sijns haer(s) -(e)s ons(er) uwer haer

^â(r)

Middle Dutch

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fern. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. pi. 2nd p. pl./sing.V 3rd p. pi. Nynorsk

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. pi. 2nd p. pi. 3rd p. pi.

svbj. eg du han ho det vi de dei

obj. meg deg han ho det oss dykk dei

gen./poss. min din hans hennar dess vâr dykkar deira

20

Morphology of the personal pronouns

The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages do not appear to form a regular inflectional system derivable by rule. In the personal pronouns there are a few sequences of elements, but there appears to be no coherent inflectional system. This can be illustrated in the examples from New High German below: for example the 1st and 2nd person do not inflect in parallel throughout, e.g. in the singular

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. Τ

nom. acc. ich (not *mu) mich du dich

dat. mir dir

gen./poss. mein(-) dein(-)

Or in the plural: nom. wir ihr

1st p. plural 2nd p. pl. Τ

acc./dat. uns euch

gen./poss. unser(-) euer(-)

Or V forms:

2nd person V

nom. Sie

acc. Sie

dat. Ihnen

gen./poss. Ihr(-)

Nor do they inflect consistently like the 3rd person:

3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 3rd p. plural

nom. er sie es sie

acc. ihn sie es sie

dat. ihm ihr ihm ihnen

gen./poss. sein(-) ihr(-) sein(-) ihr(-)

Though note the formally (but not consistently grammatically) parallel gen./poss. sing. 1st p. 2nd p. 3rd p. masc./neuter

mein(-) dein(-) sein(-)

and 1st p. sing. acc. 2nd p. sing. acc. 3rd p./2nd p. V acc./dat. sing./plural reflexive

mich dich sich

21

Introduction

There does not seem to be any consistent correlation between singular and plural forms, e.g. in the 1st person:

1st p. sing. 1st p. plural

nom. ich wir

acc. mich uns

dat. mir uns

gen./p· mein(unser(

nom. du ihr Sie

acc. dich euch Sie

dat. dir euch Ihnen

gen./poss. dein(-) euer(-) Ihr(-)

nom. er sie es sie

acc. ihn sie es sie

dat. ihm ihr ihm ihnen

gen./poss. sein(-) ihr(-) sein(-) ihr(-)

acc. ihn sie es

dat. ihm ihr ihm

gen./poss. sein(-) ihr(-) sein(-)

And the 2nd person:

2nd p. sing. Τ 2nd p. pl. Τ 2nd person V nd the 3rd person:

3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fern. 3rd p. sing. nt. 3rd p. plural

Nor is gender marked consistently:

3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt.

nom. er sie es

Case is not indicated uniformly either: although addition of endings such as -(e)s, -(e)r, -(e)n, -a etc. in genitive forms of the personal pronouns is very common in the Germanic languages, the bases or stems of many of the forms remain nonpredictable (though some are regularly formed from the nominative or objective forms), compare for example the Early New High German extended forms with -er (for fuller detail see the ENHG paradigm):

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fern. 3rd p. sing. nt.

genitive miner diner siner ir sin

22

Morphology of the personal pronouns

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural 3rd p. plural

unser iiwer irer

The other cases are by no means regular either, e.g. the dative (in New High German): 1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. Τ 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. plural 2nd p. pi. Τ 2nd p. V 3rd p. plural

mir dir ihm ihr ihm uns (acc. and dat.) euch (acc. and dat.) Ihnen ihnen

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. Τ 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. plural 2nd p. pi. Τ 2nd p. V 3rd p. plural

mich dich ihn sie es uns euch Sie sie

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. Τ 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. plural 2nd p. pl. Τ 2nd p. V 3rd p. plural

ich du er sie es wir ihr Sie sie

Or the accusative:

(nom. and acc.) (nom. and acc.) (acc. and dat.) (acc. and dat.) (nom. and acc.) (nom. and acc.)

And the nominative:

(nom. and acc.) (nom. and acc.)

(nom. and acc.) (nom. and acc.)

23

Introduction

Nor is it necessarily the case that a category/property is formally distinguished in every pronoun. For example, in New High German accusative and dative are differentiated in the 1st, 2nd (T) and 3rd person singular, in the 3rd person plural and 2nd person V, but not in the 1st person plural and 2nd person plural T:

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. Τ 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. plural 2nd p. pl. Τ 2nd p. V 3rd p. plural

acc. mich dich ihn sie es

dat. mir dir ihm ihr ihm uns euch

Sie sie

Ihnen ihnen

Similarly, in New High German there are gender distinctions in the personal pronouns only in the 3rd person (singular). Even where there does appear to be some kind of inflection 5 or correlation between form and meaning, this may be specific to (only some of) the pronouns. For example in New High German the - / ç / in mich and dich, which seems to indicate accusative — but which in sich and euch also includes dative, and in ich indicates nominative case — does not occur outside the pronouns in similar use, nor does it consistently occur in the pronouns — i.e. as well as being restricted to the pronouns, elements may also be restricted within the pronouns (cf. here also Werner 1991: 395). Furthermore, even where an element has a consistent correspondence of form to meaning in the pronouns — such as the / d / in du-dich-dir-dein(-) in German for example — it may occur elsewhere with different meaning — e.g. in German / d / in der, die, das etc. (forms which frequently occur in personal pronoun use). The lack of inflectional system in the personal pronouns is not only true of the modern stages of the Germanic languages, but also of their older, generally more synthetic, stages, as Gothic can illustrate (figure 1.1.1b). The same is also true of the Old stages of the other Germanic languages, for example Old Icelandic in figure 1.1.1b.

5 In this study 'inflection' is used as in Matthews (1974: 74) who applies it in a wider sense than to terminations alone: 'By the "inflection" of a word, category, or whatever we will therefore refer to the entire process, or to any part of the process, by which a word-form is derived'.

24

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Figure 1.1.1b Example paradigms

Gothic

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. dual 2nd p. dual 1st p. plural 2nd p. plural 3rd p. pi. masc. 3rd p. pi. fern. 3rd p. pi. nt.

nom. ik

*

ace. mik Jjuk ina ija ita ugkis igqis uns, unsis izwis ins ijôs

ija

*

nom. ek 1>ύ hann hon Jjat vit it, J)it vèr ér, £>ér Jjeir J>aér J>au

acc. mik t>ik hann hana Jjat ok(k)r yk(k)r oss

dat. mer Jjér honom henne

y^r

yt>r

is si ita wit *

weis jus eis

dat. mis J) us imma izai imma ugkis igqis unsis, uns izwis im im im

gen. meina t>eina is izô s is

gen. min Jjin hans hennar £>es(s) okkar ykkar vár yt>(u)ar Jjeir(r)a J>eir(r)a J)eir(r)a

*

igqara unsara izwara izê izô *

Old Icelandic

1st p. sing. 2nd p. sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 1st p. dual • 2nd p. dual 1st p. plural 2nd p. plural 3rd p. pi. masc. 3rdp.pl. fem. 3rd p. pi. nt.

J)á Jjaér Jjau

J)UÍ

ok(k)r yk(k)r oss J)eim j^eim Jjeim

25

Introduction

The contrast between regular inflection and irregular or suppletive morphology can be illustrated well in English: singular - plural I eye aye I mine mine hour

but indeed

—» —» -»

—>

we eyes ayes (the ayes have it) I's ('Mississippi' has four I's) ours mines hours

you you you yew ewe U

—» —»

you you 4- all > y'all you + [z] > yous(e) yews ewes U's ('uvular'has two U's)

him hymn

-»

them hymns

genitive/possessive you ewe

—*

your milk ewe's milk

These examples in 1.1.1 (and also in 0.1.3) show that the morphology of the personal pronouns is both formally complex, and grammatically and semantically complex. However, particularly in the older stages of the Germanic languages the 3rd person personal pronouns may, more than the 1st and 2nd person, show inflectional similarity with other pronouns, such as the demonstratives, and with noun phrase inflection. The connection between distinction in noun phrases and pronominal distinction is discussed further in chapter 2. This can be illustrated here by for example Old English in figure 1.1.1c. The Old English 3rd person pronouns show considerable morphological patterning: not only do all the 3rd person pronouns share a common initial element h-, but they also have, with few exceptions, common endings with the Old English strong adjective.

26

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Figure 1.1.1c Example paradigms

Old English pronominal and noun phrase inflection 3rd p. personal pronoun nom. acc. dat. gen.

he hine him his

nom. acc. dat. gen.

hïo, hëo hïe hire hire

nom. acc. dat. gen.

hit hit him his

demonstrative masc. sing. se Jjane ]?aes fem. sing. sêo J) aère Jjäsre neuter sing. Jjaèt Jîâêt Jjéëm Jjaes

strong adjective

inflection

blind (ModE blind) blind-ne blind-um blind-es

blind/-u blind-e blind-re blind-re

blind blind blind-um blind-es

plural nom. acc. dat. gen.

hïe hie him hira

J)ä J>â J)âèm J)ära

masc. fem. neuter blind-e blind-e/a blind/-u blind-e blind-e/a blind/-u blind-um blind-ra

27

Introduction

Figure l.l.ld Example paradigms

Old High German pronominal and noun phrase inflection 3rd p. personal pronoun nom. acc. dat. gen.

er inan, in imu, imo sïn

demonstrative strong adjective inflection masc. sing, blint/blint-ër der blint-an den blint-emu, -emo demu, demo blint-es des

nom. acc. dat. gen.

siu, sï sia, sie iru, irò ira, iru

fern. sing. diu dea, dia (die) deru, dero dera (deru, -o)

nom. acc. dat. gen.

nom. acc. dat. gen.

13 Ì3 imu, imo es masc. fem. sie sio sie sio im, in irò

nt. siu siu

neuter sing. da3 da3 demu, demo des plural masc. fem. nt. de deo diu de deo diu dëm, dën dero

blint/-iu blint-a blint-eru, -ero blint-era

blint/-a3 blint/-a3 blint-emu, -emo blint-es

masc. fem. neuter blint-e blint-o blint-iu blint-e blint-o blint-iu blint-ëm, -en blint-ero

28

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Similarly for example, the Old High German 3rd person personal pronouns also show considerable similarity in inflection with the demonstratives and with noun phrase inflection, compare the examples in figure l l l d . Klein (1987: 160f.) shows that synchronically in Old High German the differences in inflection between these forms — with a few exceptions — can to a large extent be accounted for regularly, though this does not apply in the personal pronouns to the distribution of the initial elements iand s- or to sin. As in Old High German, in New High German the initial elements of the personal pronouns, unlike those of the definite article, are neither uniform, nor are they systematically distributed: where the definite article has initial /d/ throughout, the NHG personal pronoun has /e/ and /ε/ in the masculine nominative and neuter nominative and accusative singular, / i / in the masculine accusative and masculine and neuter dative, feminine gen./poss. and dative and plural gen./poss. and dative, sie in the feminine and plural nominative and accusative, and sein(-) in the masculine and neuter genitive/possessive. In many of the modern Germanic languages much of the former inflectional parallel in other pronouns and in noun phrase inflection has been lost, resulting in greater inflectional isolation of the personal pronouns. Reasons for this are discussed further in chapter 2. 1.1.2 Connection between -I- and - accent forms The accent variation of the personal pronouns (and other function words) has already been stressed in the Introduction, and, as well as separate pronouns, + and - accent forms of what we may term the same pronoun (e.g. 3rd person singular masc. nom. 'he') can also vary in their connection to one another. Niibling (1992: 6f.), following Zwicky (see Niibling for references), defines as a 'simple clitic' a clitic which corresponds synchronically to an independent full form. Such a correspondence of simple clisis accounts (with the qualifications discussed below) for many of the personal pronouns and here we can speak of full and reduced forms6 — for example English him [him - im] and her [he: - ha - 3: - a]. However, some personal pronouns in the Germanic languages can be described by what Niibling (following Zwicky) terms a 'special clitic' — either the clitic has no corresponding full form, or the full and clitic forms are not derivable synchronically. And, as Niibling (1992:20) points out, it is often difficult to determine in how far a connection exists between a

6 Unlike the Dutch grammar ANS which applies the term 'reduced forms' even to -accent forms which are not synchronically derivable from, and therefore not reducable from, a corresponding full form.

Introduction

29

special clitic and full form. Examples in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages are discussed below. Absence of a corresponding full form Examples of absence of a corresponding full form in the personal pronouns are the neuter singular forms in a number of the Germanic languages, where the personal pronoun does not have a full form equivalent to other personal pronouns, for example: German: Möchtest du das neue Stück im Stadttheater sehen? Ich habe es schon gesehen *Es habe ich schon gesehen Das habe ich schon gesehen Dutch: Weet je waar mijn boek is? Nee, ik heb het niet gezien *Nee, het heb ik niet gezien, wel je agenda Nee, dat heb ik niet gezien, wel je agenda English: I'd like to see it ? It I'd like to see ThatI this I'd like to see Contrast for example + and - accented forms of him and her: You're not You're not You're not You're not

going going going going

to to to to

MARRY /IOTI? marry Η IMI MARRY her? marry HER ?

But You're not going to EAT iti ? You're not going to eat ITI + and - accent forms not synchronically phonologically derivable These are examples where the -accented pronoun is not synchronically phonologically derivable from the +accented orthotone form — i.e. the -accented form is not simply phonologically a reduced form of the orthotone pronoun. The distinction between +accented and -accented form may range on a scale from suppletion, such as particularly well illustrated in Frisian, for example:7

7 Here Saterlandic forms are given — for full detail see chapter 7.

30

Morphology of the personal pronouns

3rd p. sing. masc. subj. 3rd p. sing. fem. subj. 3rd p. plural subj.

hie - er ju - ze jo - ze

To less extreme, but nevertheless non-synchronically-derivable differences, for example West Frisian (see Visser 1988:178f. & 187f.): 1st p. sing. obj. 2nd p. sing. Τ obj. 1st p. plural nom.

[mei] - [mi] [dei] - [di] [νεί] - [vi]

Visser makes the point that there are in these forms synchronically neither any general phonological processes which derive the -accented form from the +accented form, nor, conversely, are there any general phonological processes which derive the +accented form from the -accented form when accented. What these examples above illustrate, then, is that not only can the personal pronouns show suppletive distinctions between separate pronouns (i.e. not derivable by general synchronic rule), but that also separate, non-synchronically-derivable variants of the same pronoun may occur. The + and - accent forms of a pronoun may further differ, for example in Berndeutsch (see Niibling 1992: 265) or Luxemburgish (see 0.1.1) in gender usage. Such differences between + and - accent forms — not only in gender but also in case and number etc. — can be illustrated particularly well in Dutch: Gender difference The full and unaccented forms of the Dutch 3rd person pronouns differ in gender usage in that hij is the only full form of the 3rd person personal pronouns which can be used nonpersonally, for example (ANS 1984:168 & 175) Waar heb ik m'n auto ook weer geparkeerd? O ja, hij staat helemaal achteraan Waar heb ik die pan ook weer gelaten? * 0 ja, zij staat op de vensterbank About people: Ze staan hier al een hele tijd Zij staan hier al een hele tijd About books: Ze staan hier al een hele tijd *Zij staan hier al een hele tijd A reason for this restriction may be that the full forms — apart from, or to a lesser extent, hij — emphasize 'personal' to a degree that they cannot (co)refer nonpersonally (cf. De Vooys/Schönfeld 1957: 84-86).

Introduction

31

Case difference The Dutch'3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural are further restricted in that zij, in contrast to ze, can occur only as subjective, not as objective — see Dutch 8.2. Number difference Also in Dutch, the 2nd person unaccented form je can occur as singular and (if plural reference is clear) as plural, unlike the full forms jij, jou, jouw (sing.) and jullie (plural) (see Dutch 8.4.2). Furthermore (cf. case above), je can occur as subj./obj./poss., unlike the case-distinct singular full forms subj. jij- obj. jou-poss. jouw. Definite/indefinite The Dutch 1st and 2nd person -accented forms we, je can be used definitely, and also indefinitely as in for example (ANS 1984:265): Je weet nooit wat er kan gebeuren We weten nooit wat er kan gebeuren In Amerika zie je de vreemdste dingen ^accented wij, jij, on the other hand, cannot occur indefinitely. Compare in English You shouldn't drink and drive YOU shouldn't drink and drive We shouldn't watch so much television WE shouldn't watch so much television where -accented you or we can refer definitely or indefinitely, while accented YOU or WE refers specifically, and cannot have general, indefinite reference. An explanation for such differences is that strength of reference is a function of accent — i.e. the more strongly accented, the stronger and thus more specific the reference. 8 These examples illustrate that the correspondence between -I- and accented forms, even if synchronically phonologically derivable, is not necessarily a simple one. As elsewhere in the pronouns, we can speak of degrees of the greatest correspondence (on all levels) to the least.

8 Another example of strength of reference as a function of accent is the definite article/anaphoric pronoun—demonstrative continuum as in German der-DER, die-DIE etc.

32

Morphology of the personal pronouns

1.2 Morphological patterning The discussion above demonstrates clearly the complexity of personal pronoun morphology. However, although the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages cannot be derived by general rule, the actual personal pronouns are not as completely isolated as the forms in the hypothetical paradigm in figure 1.1b. There appears to be some kind of patterning in the Germanic personal pronouns which, although it does not reach the level of predictable full-scale inflection, may still show some potentially significant correspondences between forms. This patterning is illustrated in the two diagrams from Pike (1965: 202f.) of the New High German pronouns (figures 1.2a and 1.2b), where elements which show a pattern of correspondence between form and meaning have been encircled. In the two figures patterning is most obvious in the 1st and 2nd person singular where the elements / m / and / d / 9 clearly signal their respective categories (they are the sole contrast in mich-dich, mir-dir and mein(-)dein(-))] similarly, the /ain/ element in mein(-er), dein(-er), sein(-er) suggests genitive/possessive. Other elements, although very common, are more ambiguous: for example the /x/ 1 0 in ich, mich, dich, euch (and sich), and the / r r / in mir, dir, ihr (3rd p. fem. sing, dat.; 2nd p. plural nom.), ihr(-er) (3rd p. fem. sing, gen./poss., 2nd p. V gen./poss., 3rd p. plural gen./poss.) and wir, though this does not necessarily mean they are without significance. Pike terms these patterning elements formatives. By formatives Pike means elements which do have some signalling function, but which cannot always be dealt with in a conventional morphemic approach, as Pike states (1965: 219),11 'obvious formative groups are present, functioning as formal signals, but . . . classical morphemics cannot segment these neatly because of limiting assumptions . . . concerning the relation of form to meaning', and (1963: 7) 'when the same category is signalled by different phonemic components . . . , and by formatives at different positions . .. and when the columns overlap as to the formatives signalling their occurrence . . . clean-cut morph or morpheme distinctions are difficult to arrive at'.12 9 In some varieties of German forms with initial TO- and d- also occur as 1st and 2nd p. plural — see 11.7.3. 10 Pike uses / x / for ich, mich etc. 11 Pike is here discussing the NHG verb sein t o be', but what is said can also be applied to personal pronouns, which he discusses earlier in the article. 12 Pike has taken the term formative from Bolinger (1948), but uses it differently; for Bolinger a formative is a type of morpheme that can enter into new combinations, as opposed to one which has only diachronic value. Other possible terms are submorpheme (see Crystal 1991: 224), which is perhaps too fixed to allow for a range of relevance, and semimorpheme — Quirk et al. (1985:1584) speak of the 'semi-morphological status' of e.g. /sn/ in sneer, snide, snoop, or the ending of rattle, sizzle, tinkle.

33

Morphological patterning

Figures 1.2a & 1.2b Patterning in New High German pronouns From Pike, K. L. (1965) 'Non-linear Order and An ti-redundancy in German Morphological Matrices', Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 32, 202f., reproduced by permission Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden

1 sg.

Nom.

2 sg.

3 m.

3 neu. 3 fem. 3 pl.

sg.

sg.

sg.

2 pol. 2 pl.

1 pl.

i'x

u-

er

es

zi'

zi'

zi-

rr

VIT

Acc. m I'X

i'x

rn

es

zi-

zi'

zi-

oix

uns

m rr

rr

l'm

rm

IT

í'nen

rnen

oix

uns

m amer

amer zainer zainer rrer

rrer

í'rer

oier

unzer

m ain(-)

ain(-) zain(-) zain(-) ÍT(-)

ÍT(-)

ÍT(-)

oier(-) unzer(-)

Gen. ___ !I main]er dain! er zainler zainler ι

Poss.

Nom. lsg. 2 sg. 3 mase. sg. 3 neu. sg. 3 fem. sg. 3 pl. 2 pol. 2 pl. lpl.

l'X

dir er ¡ es zi' zi' ziIT

vi'r

Acc.

Dat.

mi'x di'x rn

mi'r di'r rm

es zi'

rm rr rnen i'nen oix uns

ZI'

zi' oix uns

rrler i'rler irler oirler unzler

34

Morphology of the personal pronouns

In this study the term morphological patterning will be used to define where there is some form-to-meaning correspondence (as opposed to purely phonological correspondences). This term allows us to speak of (grammatical or lexical) form-to-meaning correspondences without necessarily defining the morpheme status of a formative. The most detailed examination of patterning in the pronouns in a Germanic language to date is Elert's (1965) 'Graphs for the Morphological Relations in the Personal and Possessive Pronouns in Swedish'. In this article the Modern Swedish personal, possessive, reflexive and impersonal pronouns are mapped out in graph form in order to show the correspondences between form and category/property. Four of Elert's diagrams are shown in figures 1.2c-1.2f. Figure 1.2c shows the basic layout of the forms used for the graphs: the pronouns are arranged so that those next to each other in a row or column differ in one category only, e.g. as /han/ 1 3 ('he') and /hon/ ('she') differ only in the category gender. The pronouns are segmented into the largest common elements occurring in two or more neighbouring forms, as in the / h / and / n / in / h a n / and /hun/, and these elements are arranged diagonally so that each step down and to the right indicates a new phonotactic position. In figure 1.2d horizontal and vertical lines connect identical elements in the same phonotactic position in neighbouring pronouns (which differ in one category only), for example the / d / in /den/, /de:(t)/ and / di:/, or in /di:/, /de:ras/, /dom/. These lines therefore link those patterning elements which Pike calls formatives. Figure 1.2e highlights isolated elements which are not14 matched by identical elements in pronouns which differ in one category only, e.g. the 1st p. sing. subj. /ja:(g)/ or the / n / of the 2nd p. plural subj. /ni:/. Figure 1.2f, instead of showing correspondences, shows contrasts between elements or groups of elements in the same phonotactic position. Figure 1.2f therefore shows changes in formatives according to category/property, as in / a / and / o / in / h a n / and / h o n / which indicate a difference in gender, or / m / , / d / and / s / in /mej/, /dej/, /sej/ which indicate a change in person. The result to emerge from Elert's graphs is that of a total of about 85 elements (including those of the possessive, reflexive and impersonal pronouns) only 12 elements stand in isolation from their adjacent forms, and two of these differ only in vowel quantity. This means that about 75 of

13 Elert's phonemic transcriptions have been used here to match the forms given in the figures. 14 Elert omits not in the commentary to figure 1.2e.

35

Morphological patterning

Figures 1.2c-f Patterning in Modern Swedish pronouns From Eiert, C.-C. (1965), & (1970) Ljud och ord i svenskan, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 170-173 Figure 1.2c 'Pronouns which are neighbours in rows or columns in the tables differ in one inflectional category only. The morphological components in each pronoun are arranged diagonally.' 0 A Β C D E F G H I J Κ L M Ν O Ρ

1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456

ja:(g) d m ej

d

m

d

i

m a

m: s

η

i

0

ej

ej s

η

i

η 0

e

h η

h

a

η s

e

a

h

η

h η

h

η s

0

η

υ e

h

e

d η η

η

om (e)

η

η

ja:(g) m ej-

d

m i

d η

m

ui:

eji-

η

s

ej

η

-h

e:

η ,(t) d d e

e

s

s

η

i:

d

e

e:

s

0 r

a

d

e

η

o

η

ν ο: Γ

r

e:

0

0

s

om (e) η t

a

η

(e)

0

e:

i:

(e)

η

i:

0

-e: a —-s

0

s

ν

i:

Γ

d — dI e—I-e: ff ni if(t) dl

0

d

d

e

ν i:—i: e

0e:

ν

o: r—í-r

r

o

s

-om

oniη

(e)He) a

η

t

Figure 1.2d 'Horizontal and vertical lines connect phonemically identical morphological components in the same phonotactic position in neighbouring pronouns. Dotted lines connect morphological components which are identical except in vowel quantity.'

36

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Figure 1.2e Encircled morphological components are those which are not matched by phonemically identical components in pronouns differing in one inflectional category only.'

H s F

m

ui:

m ej

d

m i

d η

s

ej i

s η

ej i

0 e

η 0

η

h

η s

e

η

h

h H

η a

h

η s

|o| η

(e) η

h

e

d

d M n7(t) d d e

η η s

e

η

om

0. V ι: i:

d.

e

i:

,

s s

0s

d

ν e: [oT]

Γ r

,—,

e

0

:

0

0,

0

om

(e) (e) η t

η

0

e: r

0

ja:(g)

d

ra:

m

h

h |-i4- d

e

d

e: (t)

η 0 - 5 - •i 0 n m -ρ- d -p- s 0 h n h n d d a e e ej ej ej e I η η η -Νm d Κ s I s s s s i i i h h 0 η η η e o e η η η (e) η

om η

(e) (e) η t

|d|-p-|n|-p-|v| ι: ι: ι: d s

d

0

e: s

0

ν e: o: r r e:

r

0 o

s

om

Figure 1.2f 'The lines connecting encircled morphological components indicate some of the inflectional processes which are changes of morphological components in an unchanged environment. Capital letters between encircled areas indicate inflectional categories.' (A = 'animation', Κ = case, Ν = number, ρ = person, S = sex, sp = 'specification')

Morphological patterning

37

the 85 elements, or 88% do show some kind of potential correspondence between form and meaning. This seems a very high degree of significance, however it should be borne in mind that these formative correspondences are mostly discontinuous series of parallels rather than a complete inflectional system. It is also important to note that although 75 of the 85 elements show some patterning, this does not necessarily mean that all 75 are significant as morphological signallers: this depends on where language-users perceive a pattern and correlate it with a particular property or properties. Nevertheless, Elert's graphs do show that, at least in Modern Swedish, 88% of the elements in the personal, possessive, reflexive and impersonal pronouns are potentially functional as formatives. 1.2.1 Other studies of patterning A number of other authors have also pointed out the patterning in the personal pronouns for various Germanic languages. Pilch (1970: 120f.) divides up the Old English personal pronouns into formatives (figure 1.2.1a), and allocates meaning to the initial, following and final elements as shown in figure 1.2.1b. Trager (1967), following on from two earlier publications (Trager & Smith 1951 and Hill 1958), gives a detailed if not always tenable analysis of the Modern English personal pronouns, including also the possessives and who, whom, whose, as well as thou, thee, thine, thy and ye which Trager claims must be part of the total analysis. Trager's analysis is shown in figure 1.2.1c (for further detail behind this analysis see Trager 1967: 3 7 3 377), where in his notation follows a prefix, a raised dot precedes a 'bound' base, a hyphen follows a base or stem and precedes a suffix, < precedes a 'postfix', and a square box symbolizes absence (of gender markers). Trager (1967: 377f.) then analyses these initial elements, bound 'pronominal bases' and final elements into what he terms morphemes: he proposes that the prefixes indicate person, and sees the final elements as case or gender suffixes (or 'postfixes'). Flydal (1955) gives an analysis of the pronouns in a Norwegian dialect (Bergen), summarized in figure 1.2.1d. These previous discussions of patterning in the pronouns in various Germanic languages all illustrate the fact that there are indeed correspondences between form and meaning. In the remainder of this chapter the morphology of the personal pronouns will be examined in greater detail, and factors governing their morphological type discussed.

38

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Figure 1.2.1a Old English personal pronouns From Pilch, H.: Altenglische Grammatik, p. 121 © 1970 Max Hueber Verlag, Munich

l.Ps. Nom. ic Gen. m-In Dat. m-ë Akk. m-ë-c

2. Ps. 1>-Ü ]>ïn t>-ë t>-e-c

Nom. Gen Dat. Akk.

Nom. Gen. Dat Akk.

l.Ps. w-ë ü-s-er ü-s ü-s-ic

Singular 3. Ps. Mask. h-ë h-i-s h-i-m h-i-ne Dual l.Ps. w-it u-nc-er u-nc u-nc-it*

3. Ps. Fem. h-ï-o, h-ë-o h-i-re h-i-re h-ï-e

2. Ps. g-it i-nc-er i-nc i-nc-it

Plural 2.Ps. /j-6/ /j-ow-ery! /j-öw/ /i-öw-ic !'

3. Ps. h-I, h-ï-e h-i-ra h-i-m h-ï, h-I-e

3. Ps. Neutr. h-it h-i-s h-i-m h-it

39

Morphological patterning

Figure 1.2.1b Old English personal pronouns From Pilch, H.: Altenglische Grammatik, p. 120 © 1970 Max Hueber Verlag, Munich

1. Ein anlautendes Formans kennzeichnet die Kategorie Person, und zwar

Sg. PI. Dual

l.Ps. m- (cas. obi.)

2.Ps.

u-

i-

3. Ps. h-

fr-

Die Formantien u- und i- erscheinen vor Vokal als [w] bzw. [j]. Das Formans / u / alterniert mit / ü / vor /s/ in der 1. Ps. Pl. cas. obi.

2. Das folgende Formans kennzeichnet die Kategorie Numerus, und zwar vor allem in den obliquen Kasus: l.Ps. 2.Ps. -e- (Dat/Akk.) -s-öw-nk-

Sg. PI. Dual

S.Ps. -illllllllllllll

Die Formantien -i, -e erscheinen als /i, e/ im betonten Wortauslaut

3. Das auslautende Formans unterscheidet die obliquen Kasus voneinander bzw. den Nom./Akk. vom Gen./Dat.

l.Ps. Nom. Akk. Dat. Gen.

Sg. PI. Dual 3. Ps. 2.Ps. l.Ps. Z.Ps. Neutr. Mask. -ü

Null

Fem. -0

-ne

-IC -in

Pl.

-e -m -er

-s

-ra

-re

40

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Figure 1.2.1c Modern English pronouns F r o m Trager, G. L. (1967) Ά Componential Morphemic Analysis of English Personal Pronouns', Language 43, 377f.

0-

" a ~~y

m - ••i-y m- -a~y m - ••a-y-n

3Ms h-»i--y h — m h—>i—ζ h—>i— z-z

32- >-aw--0 3 2 - >-i~ y »•a—y 3 2 - »•a—y-η

4 w—»-i—y 0 — s 0->-aw—r 0—*·άυτ—r-z

5

6

y—»-i—y y-»-uw~ 0 y—>-uw—r y-»-uw--r-z

3333-

3Fm s-»-i~ y h—»a--r ( = P s ? ) h—»-a--r h — r - z

••e-y ••e—m ••e—r ••e—r-z

initial elements zero in t h e presence of subj. suffix m- elsewhere

2nd person sing. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem.

6-

2nd person (plural) 3rd person plural relative-interrogative

hsh- in t h e presence of subj. suffix h- elsewhere unmarked in t h e prefix position w- in t h e presence of subj. suffix zero elsewhere y-

Ôhwpronominal

bases

1st p. sing. subj. 1st p. sing. det. poss. 2nd p. sing. det. poss. 1st p. sing. obj. 2nd p. sing. obj. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. subj. 3rd p. sing, neuter

ai-·*· - t - z ai-«·- t - z - z

R hw—>-uw--0 hw-^-uw—m hw—>-uw--ζ hw-^-uw—z-z

1st person sing.

3rd p. sing, neuter 1st person plural

3Nt [•!- y'all je (etc.) + liede > jullie hanumetc. > ham eder > er

As an indicator of the relationship between high frequency and shortness, of the one hundred most frequent words in the London-Lund Corpus, over ninety are monosyllabic — a pattern which seems to be confirmed by a number of other studies (see for example the survey in Crystal 1987: 86f. with references). Manczak (1980: 50) states that 'Gemäß dem . .. Zipfschen Gesetz sind die mehr gebrauchten Sprachelemente weniger umfangreich als die weniger gebrauchten. Es besteht eine Art Gleichgewicht zwischen dem Umfang und der Frequenz der Sprachelemente: je mehr ein Element gebraucht wird, desto kleiner ist es und umgekehrt'. Of course, in the Germanic languages disyllabic personal pronouns are also found, but these can hardly be considered long words. The important point to note is that there are no long personal pronouns at all in the Germanic languages. A fundamental characteristic of personal pronouns and indeed of other pro-forms is that a main function is to abbreviate, i.e. it is the rationale of the personal pronouns to be (relatively) short — there would be little point in personal pronouns being as a rule longer

Factors determining the morphological type of the pronouns

53

than the noun phrases they substitute (including for 1st and 2nd person terms such as name, title, 'the speaker' etc.). Manczak (1980: 50) believes that compensatory processes occur for forms which have become too short for their frequency: 'Wenn ein Wort im Verhältnis zu seiner Frequenz zu kurz wird, wird es durch ein längeres ersetzt . . . . Ebenso wird ein Morphem wenn es im Verhältnis zu seiner Frequenz zu kurz wird, durch ein längeres ersetzt'. However, it seems an oversimplification to suggest that the replacement of a very short form can be attributed solely to its high frequency: in English the indefinite article a (normal [a], accented [ei]) is very short and yet it is the sixth most frequent word in the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (Svartvik et al. 1982: 43-46), and also in the personal pronouns it is by no means the case that very short forms do not occur, compare u [y] 2nd p. V in Dutch and I [ i ] 2nd p. plural in Danish for example. It is necessary to distinguish between shortness and ambiguity — as will be shown in this study the relevant factor here is not simply how short a personal pronoun is, but rather whether or not it is ambiguous — i.e. a short form is not necessarily ambiguous, though of course the shorter it is or becomes, the more ambiguity becomes a possibility. Simple versus compound forms Another important consequence of high frequency is that highly frequent forms are more likely to be simple, in other words ready-made lexicalized forms rather than combined from separate elements each time they are needed. Compare Werner (1990: 169) who states 'Was man ständig hört und selbst benutzt, wird als kompletter Ausdruck gelernt und behalten . . . . Bei seltener gebrauchten Einheiten ist es dagegen zweckmäßiger und leichter, wenn man nur ein einheitliches Grundelement lernt und die Differenzierungen nach generellen Kombinationsregeln vornimmt'. This can be illustrated with the following examples (cf. Werner 1987b: 289-297 and 1990:168f.):17 man lion lizard

woman lion-ess adult female lizard

child lion-cub young lizard

boy male lion-cub young male lizard

girl etc. etc.

Here the more frequent man, woman, child, boy, girl are lexicalized forms incorporating the semantic features [human -I- adult + male], [human +

17 Compare also the often quoted simple (rather than compound) terms for some of the common animals: cow-bull-calf, pig-boar-sow (also hog, shoat ), sheep-ramewe-lamb, chicken-cock(erel)-hen (also rooster), dog-bitch-pup(py), doe-buck (rabbit etc.), goose-gander etc., though pig-let, chick, duck-ling, gos-ling.

54

Morphology of the personal pronouns

adult + female], [human + nonadult] etc. in one form; as has already been noted, such simple, lexicalized forms parallel the suppletive portmanteau pronouns of figure 1.1b. In lion and more so in lizard the semantic features already included in man, woman, boy etc. must be added on when required to obtain the same meaning already expressed in man, woman etc. as one ready-made form, e.g. lion-ess, lion-cub, male lion-cvb, adult female lizard, young lizard, young male lizard etc. This type more resembles the patterning agglutinating morphology of the pronouns in figure 1.1a. The development of compounds to simplex forms in the personal pronouns is discussed in chapter 2 (2.8). As outside the personal pronouns where one form such as man can represent several semantic features, in the personal pronouns several properties can be represented by one portmanteau form, e.g. NHG wir represents 1st person + plural -I- nominative rather than indicating each category/property individually; i.e. every time a German speaker wishes to say '1st person plural nominative 1 — i.e. to refer to him- or herself as part of a group, as grammatical subject — he or she does not combine separate formatives for each category/property, but rather uses a ready-made form wir, compare again Werner (1990:163) who states about ready-made forms 'Man spart an Ausdruck, d.h. auch an Produktions- und Übermittlungszeit und an Planung/Entscheidung, was das Zusammensetzen angeht; die Ausdrücke liegen schon jeweils gebrauchsfertig vor'. A portmanteau form, as well as being ready-made, may also possibly be shorter than an agglutinating form made up of several different elements: where a portmanteau form requires one morph only, an agglutinating form would require several elements. It seems more likely, though not of course absolute, that one representative form will be shorter than a number of different elements agglutinated together (compare again Werner 1987b: 312). Highly frequent forms less liable to analogy? If a form is not subject to a general analogy this may increase its 'irregularity' as it does not then conform to the general pattern. The question to be asked here is whether highly frequent forms, such as the personal pronouns, are less liable to analogy than less frequent forms. According to Maáczak (1980: 39) more frequent words are retained better in the memory than less frequent ones, he believes (1980: 41) 'daß der analogische Wandel asymmetrisch ist und von der Frequenz abhängt: je weniger ein Sprachelement gebraucht wird, desto schneller ist seine analogische Entwicklung'. Similarly, Werner (1987b: 302) states 'daß es von der Gebrauchsfrequenz abhängt, ob überhaupt eine Analogie . . . eintritt oder nicht; Niederfrequentes ist solchen Analogien früher und stärker unterworfen als Hochfrequentes'.

Factors determining the morphological type of the pronouns

55

Ronneberger-Sibold (1980: 150) believes that suppletion in frequent forms is not created intentionally but tolerated: 'Suppletivformen [sind] bei den häufigsten Wörtern . . . nicht "unerwünscht", aber auch nicht absichtlich geschaffen, sondern "geduldet". Was auf den ersten Blick aussieht wie eine ganz eigene Schöpfung, verdankt seine Entstehung eigentlich eher der Tatsache, daß nichts dagegen unternommen wird, als das etwas dafür geschah'. And Werner (1981: 158) states 'die Entwicklung von der Agglutination zur Suppletion läuft häufig so, daß weitgehende Generalisierungen stattfinden, die aber gerade diese wenigen hochfrequenten Fälle aussparen und damit isolieren'. Lehmann (1992: 108f.) makes the point that irregular frequent ('everyday') forms (such as good-better-best for example) are retained longer because they are learnt as individual forms by children before a connection with regular sets (such as fine-finer-finest) is made. Indeed, the personal pronouns do seem often to retain distinctions longer than other word classes, but, as is discussed in the next chapter, this is due to a combination of factors rather than solely attributable to frequency (see 2.2.4). Furthermore, it is by no means the case that the Germanic personal pronouns — even though highly frequent — have not undergone analogy — there are many examples of such changes in the personal pronouns. These will be discussed in detail in chapter 2 (2.4) and the individual language chapters. Accent variation of the personal pronouns The accent variation of the personal pronouns in connected speech has already been stressed in the Introduction (0.1.2), and its importance in morphology discussed in 1.1.2 above. The personal pronouns as already discussed often occur unaccented — compare Werner (1987b: 311) who believes that in highly frequent words especially in their inflectional forms minimal vowel differences are not always enough, rather 'kräftige, nicht zu überhörende Unterschiede' are needed; he states 'Hier ist es prinzipiell gut, wenn auch bei phonologischer Reduktion immer noch genug an Unterschieden zu hören bleibt'. — The relevance of phonological reduction and merger in the personal pronouns, and phonological change in -I- and accent forms, will be discussed further in chapter 2 below. The reference of unaccented pronouns — i.e. to given, anaphoric or indefinite referents or antecedents rather than new, focus, or contrastive reference — can perhaps be termed agreement (and in other languages may be absent), but must nevertheless not contradict — i.e. even unaccented forms should not be ambiguous, though the fact that more information is given from context (text or situation) means that in some cases unaccented forms may maintain fewer distinctions than accented pronouns.

56

Morphology of the personal pronouns

Size of word class Several authors have commented on the importance of the size of the word class in determining the type of morphological system or degree of 'regularity-irregularity', and the example of the personal pronouns has often been given as an illustration of the type of morphological system found in a small word class. For example Pike (1965: 205f.) states 'The "simple" matrix, with vector formatives is very efficient when a larger number of meanings is involved. A few hundred morphemes may be combined into an enormous number of messages. Yet the memory load — and the learning load — is relative to the flexibility obtained for the system. This kind of system, therefore, is efficient in its use of large open classes of forms' [Pike's italics]. For an 'ideal' (i.e. suppletive portmanteau) matrix Pike states 'The efficiency here is very great in terms of compactness of signal, since two (or more) categories are carried by the single — often short — formative'. He adds, 'although the single-celled formative is highly efficient in these terms, it must be harder to learn and remember, however, specifically because of the complexity which gives it that efficiency. This memory load seems to put some kind of a limit on the number of such formatives — e.g. affixes and particles — which any one language can maintain. For this reason it is only in small closed systems (such as a pronominal set) that one is likely to find extensive use of singlecelled formatives'. However, although this does indeed seem to describe much of the inflection in large and small word classes in for example English or German — the personal pronouns are generally more suppletive than many larger word classes — there seems to be no purely numerical reason why a large word class should necessarily be regular, i.e. morphologically rule governed. In the largest word class of all, the lexicon, thousands of lexical items with little or no formal connection are learnt with no apparent difficulty, and it is quite possible — indeed in the world as a whole quite common — for language-users to learn two (or more) languages, increasing the size of the vocabulary even further. In addition, not only do speakers memorize individual forms, but also (in Germanic languages for example) their lexical entry specifies (among other information) gender (of nouns) and in many cases a nonpredictable plural marker, as well as, for many language-users, a written form (alphabetic, syllabic or logographic). Therefore the suggestion that a suppletive word class must be small because of a numerical difficulty in remembering a large number of forms seems not to hold — it seems quite within the capacity of a language-user to learn a large number of formally unconnected items. However, where the size of the word class may be relevant is in the toleration of homoiiymy: it is likely that homonymy will be tolerated much less in a small word class such as the personal pronouns where

Conclusions

57

forms with very similar functions and reference occur frequently in similar or identical contexts. Forms such as e.g. English hair/hare, time/thyme, or veil/vale are unlikely to occur in the same contexts where ambiguity could be a problem. Similarly, syntactically as well as semantically forms such as threw(y)/through(P) — down(P, Y)/down(N) — blue(A)/blew(V) — an(det)/Anne(N) — and indeed I/eye¡aye/(the letter) I — you/yew/ewe/ (the letter) U — we/wee — him/hymn — mine/mine — ours/hours — are unlikely to occur in the same context and to result in a homophonic clash, i.e. in ambiguity. In the small word class of the highly frequent personal pronouns, however, homonymy is much more likely to be a hindrance to comprehension. The relevance of ambiguity to change in the personal pronouns is discussed in detail in chapter 2.

1.6 Conclusions It has been shown in this chapter that the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages do not form a system of regular inflectional formatives, nor, however, are they all suppletive either — there are some patterns of correspondence between pronouns and with noun phrase inflection, meaning that the personal pronouns are not morphologically completely isolated. The factors discussed above combined make suppletive morphology more likely in the personal pronouns. These factors are not absolute, however, as morphological patterning is by no means uncommon in the personal pronouns — compare the example paradigms in 1.2 and 1.2.1 above — though in comparison with the morphology of many word classes the personal pronouns are indeed more suppletive. However, this is not to say that the patterning in the personal pronouns is irrelevant, obviously it is not when there is analogical extension of a pattern. Where some formal connections exist between forms these may be relevant to the languageuser. As well as correspondences between form and meaning, the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages can show in their degree of suppletive morphology a correspondence between form and function. — Not only can there be a connection between form and meaning in the morphology of the personal pronouns in the sense of regular category/property correspondences, but there also can be a connection between form and function in the greater degree of suppletive morphology in the personal pronouns as a result of the factors discussed above. Wurzel (1984: 67) discusses the difference between inflectional classes and individual forms and states that 'die Grenze dort liegen müßte, wo der Sprecher statt der Flexionsregeln die entsprechenden Flexionsformen

58

Morphology of the personal pronouns

direkt erlernt und in seinem Lexikon speichert'. Given their morphology, the pronouns must be learnt either all as individual forms, or by a combination of individual forms and subrules, and the latter may be confirmed at least to some extent by one study of pronoun acquisition in children (see Chiat 1986). The conclusion to be drawn then is that in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages both the form and the pattern of elements can be important. The patterning and suppletion in the personal pronouns is the 'official grammatical structure' of the personal pronouns. Suppletion, at least in the personal pronouns, cannot simply be regarded as a fault — a form to complete a lacking paradigm — cf. Werner (1987b: 309) who makes the important observation that 'Jedenfalls erscheint uns die Suppletion nicht mehr als semiotische Absurdität; wie könnte sie auch so etwas sein, wenn so viele Sprachen in ihrem zentralen Bereich davon Gebrauch machen'. The personal pronouns are only 'irregular' in the sense that they do not conform to the usual pattern of inflection in the language. Cf. Werner (1991: 396) who states 'Instead of postulating a basic uniformity in language which can be "disturbed" . . . , we should look for a consistent and comprehensive theory of language change that explains this non-uniform behaviour'. This type of theory of language change — for the personal pronouns — will be put forward in chapter 2, and the author will attempt to show that changes in the personal pronouns — even those resulting in suppletion — are indeed in some sense rule governed. The personal pronouns are primarily representative, i.e. portmanteau forms rather than active indicators of each category/property: one personal pronoun cannot usually be derived from another just as one lexeme cannot usually be predicted from another. Compare Hockett (1987: 62f.) who states 'It is very rarely the case, in the ordinary run of talk, that a word must be distinguished carefully from those whose norm shapes differ from it by only one or a few distinctive features of sound . . . . Usually all the other words that might conceivably occur in the same context sound quite different, so that the range of variation that will not lead to misunderstanding is large'. Bolinger (1950: 124) states 'The need to differentiate outweighs and submerges the need to interrelate in our concrete vocabulary', and this may be applicable to the personal pronouns too. The personal pronouns are generally (co)referring terms, both grammatically, and semantically to the external world — as already discussed in the Introduction (in their core meaning) I = the speaker, we = a group (greater than one) to which I belong, du = the addressee, he = the male person, er = the grammatically masculine referent etc. — and therefore it is perhaps not surprising that also formally the personal pronouns show similarities both with inflectional morphology and with the lexicon.

Conclusions

59

This duality will also be discussed further in chapter 2. Therefore the occurrence of suppletive portmanteau forms in the personal pronouns, as well as the fact that many must be learnt individually, although not the rule in the grammar, is not exceptional at all in language as a whole.

Chapter 2: Change in the personal pronouns The theoretical discussion in this chapter is based on the attested developments dealt with in detail in the individual chapters, though as a basis of this chapter highly disputed or uncertain developments such as the origin of English she have been excluded. Each theoretical point is illustrated with examples with references to the individual language chapters. Important points in much of the change in the personal pronouns are the long timescale of many developments and the relative increase and decrease of variants. (Compare here also several points made by Seppänen 1985 in an article on the dual in Gothic and other Germanic languages.) Change is frequently a gradual process, not only in the spread in the language community, but also in the language itself. A distinction may be lost in noun phrases, and (then) in some pronouns, and (possibly) eventually in all forms. Similarly for example, changes in morphological to syntactic distinction take place over a long timescale and do not represent an either-or, but rather an increase-decrease where both may be relevant. This diffusion of grammatical change is an important feature of change affecting the personal pronouns, and is one of the reasons for synchronic irregularity: change is not necessarily synchronized in all forms. — Frequently change in the pronouns does not involve immediate loss of one or more forms, but rather change in the relative domain of variants, i.e. to some extent an increasing marginalization (i.e. a decreasing domain) of one of the variants, and an increasing generalization (i.e. an increasing domain) of another. Such changes in domain can be seen in a number of developments, for example in + and - accent forms, case, number (e.g. dual-plural), and T - V forms, and will be observed both in this and in subsequent chapters. Change in domain of variants does not necessarily lead to loss of forms: in some cases this change in relative domain can result in complete loss of a form. As stated in the Introduction, the use in this study of variable, relative terms such as T - V , + / - accented, and of terms which refer to the form such as subjective-objective etc. allows for the changes and differences in relative domain both diachronically and synchronically to be expressed, though note also again t h a t there may be more t h a n two variants — for example - / + / + + accent, T ' - V ' - V " etc. — rather t h a n a straightforward dichotomy.

The relevance of distinctions outside the personal pronouns

61

2.1 The relevance of distinctions outside the personal pronouns A fundamental factor in much change in the personal pronouns is the connection between category/property distinctions in the language outside the personal pronouns and those in the personal pronouns. These categories/properties can be grammatical ones, and/or natural ones based on real-world entities.1 Examples of grammatical categories in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages are (nominative, accusative, dative, genitive) case, or (masculine, feminine, neuter) grammatical gender. Examples of real world-based categories in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages are for instance person, natural gender, and T/V. Of course, the categorization of the real world in language (as well as of course types of grammatical category) can differ from language to language — something abundantly clear in world-wide comparative studies of pronoun systems (see for example the articles on pronouns by Ingram and Head in Greenberg 1978, also Wiesemann 1986, Forchheimer 1953 and Mühlhäusler & Harré 1990), though such variation is also evidenced to a certain degree by for example differences in assignment of gender pronouns or of Τ and V pronouns in the closely-related Germanic languages. These two types of category are not necessarily mutually exclusive — both can be relevant in personal pronouns — in the Germanic languages the selection of the 3rd person gender forms is frequently governed to varying degrees by both grammatical and natural gender. Furthermore, both types of category — for example person, case and T/V — can be indicated in the same pronoun.2 Fundamental in the personal pronouns is the connection between category/property distinction in noun phrases and in personal pronouns. Grammatical categories in the personal pronouns are dependent on

1 The distinction 'grammatical' versus 'natural' categories here is meant in the same sense as grammatical and natural gender. Both types of category are grammatical categories in the sense that they display formal contrasts in the personal pronouns, although governed by different criteria. 2 Diachronic change in the real world/grammatical basis of categories is also possible: for example in grammatical to natural gender where selection of the gender pronoun becomes increasingly governed by the gender of the real-world referent rather than the grammatical gender of the antecedent. — This development, attested to varying extents in English and other Germanic languages — see 2.7 — contradicts the hypothesis of unidirectionality proposed in grammaticalization theory (see e.g. the recent survey of grammaticalization by Hopper & Traugott 1993, chapter 5). For examples of the 'prototypical', reverse process — i.e. from lexical items and constructions to grammatical functions — see Hopper & Traugott. — A further counterexample in the personal pronouns to unidirectionality is functional reinterpretation of original case forms according to accent as + and - accent forms — see 2.7 and 3.1 below.

62

Change in the personal pronouns

distinctions made in noun phrases. Real world-based categories, on the other hand, unlike grammatical categories, do not depend on distinctions made in noun phrases and can always occur, and indeed according to Greenberg (1966:113) person and number are universal categories in pronoun systems,3 though see also Mühlhäusler L· Harré (1990: 62-65). 4 The distinction of both types of category outside noun phrases, including outside the personal pronouns — for example by verb morphology or syntactically — can be important to distinction in the personal pronouns (for example in disambiguating pronoun homonymy). This will be discussed further below. The connection between category/property distinction in noun phrases and in personal pronouns can be expressed as the following implicational statement: if a category/property distinction — grammatical and/or real world — is made in noun phrases, then the distinction will usually also be made (though not necessarily with the same formatives) in the personal pronouns. Here it should be remembered that 'the full morpho-syntactic characterization of a NP is given not by any one particular formative but by the . . . combination of the formatives of all members of a . . . NP' (Durrell 1979: 71), and that noun phrase distinction in the Germanic languages includes determiner, adjective and noun inflection. Note also that this implicational statement does not exclude additional real worldbased distinctions absent in noun phrases being made in the personal pronouns. The relevance of noun phrase distinction is that syntactically personal pronouns function like noun phrases. That the pronouns parallel or follow distinction made in noun phrases is clear from their pro-form nature. This connection between category/property distinctions in noun phrases and in personal pronouns is immediately apparent from a comparison of the personal pronouns in the various Germanic languages and periods: those Germanic languages which on the whole retain more of their original noun phrase inflection, for example Modern Icelandic or New High German, generally also maintain more formal distinctions in the personal pronouns. The converse point is also generally true — those languages which on the whole have lost more of their original noun phrase inflection generally also in the personal pronouns show greater loss of formal distinctions, contrast for example the Modern Norwegian personal pronouns with those of Norwegian-descended Modern Icelandic. The same is also generally true diachronically — those Germanic languages which

3 Cited in Head (1978). 4 Note also Carstairs-McCarthy's (1992:156) point that Greenberg's 'universale' are statistical rather than absolute.

Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns

63

have subsequently lost much of their earlier noun phrase inflection also have more distinctions in the personal pronouns in their earlier stages than their later stages, contrast Old English and Modern English, Middle Dutch and Afrikaans, or Old Swedish and Modern Swedish for example. The relevance of these factors outlined above to change in the personal pronouns is discussed below in 2.2-2.4 in a number of types of change in the Germanic personal pronouns (other types of change are dealt with further below). T h e first two types Change Type [A] and Change Type [B] involve loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns, the third Change Type [CJ redistinction or new distinction, and the fourth Change Type [D] analogy.

2.2

Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns

If a grammatical category/property-based distinction is lost in noun phrases, the evidence from the Germanic languages indicates that the distinction is also (eventually) lost in the personal pronouns. Personal pronouns cannot indefinitely uphold a grammatical category/propertybased distinction alone, and the loss in noun phrases means that the personal pronouns are left with a grammatical category/property-based distinction which has little or no noun phrase parallel — and it is in this context that many of the developments in [A] and [B] take place. (Why personal pronouns often retain distinctions longer is discussed in 2.2.4.) Therefore in levelling in the personal pronouns of distinctions which have also been lost in noun phrases, the question is not so much why levelling occurred in the pronouns, but rather what was the subsequent development of the pronoun forms. For example if a morphological case distinction or case distinctions is or are lost in noun phrases, then the ultimate reasons for levelling of the distinction(s) also in the personal pronouns lie outside the personal pronouns. Similarly for loss of gender distinction in the 3rd person plural pronouns. Note similarly that absence of distinction, for example of nominative and accusative in the 3rd person sing, neuter, or of gender in the 3rd p. plural dative and genitive pronouns (or especially in later stages of gender in all 3rd person plural pronouns), is dependent in the first instance on noun phrase distinction rather than specifically on the personal pronouns. Thus in the case of grammatical (as opposed to real world-based) categories/properties, loss of a distinction in noun phrases results in the (eventual) loss of the distinction also in the personal pronouns. But for example the category person in the Continental Scandinavian languages (and to a large though not complete extent in English), or T / V in many of the Germanic languages occur only in the pronouns (including

64

Change in the personal pronouns

possessive and reflexive pronouns), which with grammatical-based categories would predict absence or eventual loss of these categories. That this is not the case — i.e. that person, T/V etc. can and do remain categories in pronouns even when not distinguished in noun phrases or even elsewhere in the language at all can be explained by their real-world nature — they are not dependent on distinction made in noun phrases. However, this does not mean that these real world-based categories/ properties are obligatory in personal pronouns: that also real world-based distinctions can be lost from the personal pronouns is shown by the loss of the dual as an inflectional property in the language as a whole including the pronouns, and also the loss of any T/V distinction in the pronouns in Present English. In fact, although (even) person as a category may seem fundamental to the pronouns — indeed as has already been stated Greenberg cites it as a 'universal' — according to Mühlhäusler L· Harré (1990: 62-64) not all languages have pronominal categories involving three persons, and some languages lack pronoun systems in our sense. In loss of a formal distinction from the personal pronouns, a further factor is the extent of levelling in the pronouns themselves: the greater the loss of a distinction in the personal pronouns, the more the distinction becomes marginalized (also) in the pronouns. Kloeke (1950: 350) for example speaks of a 'Systemzwang' in the Afrikaans pronouns of ons (subj.)-ons (obj.)-ons (poss.), julle-julle-julle, hulle-hulle-hulle, and possibly also u-u-u (see 9.1.2) — although the term 'Zwang' perhaps too strongly suggests an active analogy here.5 Such factors may also apply at a subparadigm level, for example in the plural pronouns or in 3rd person pronouns (and in the 3rd person may include other pronoun forms for example). 2.2.1 Change Type [A]: Category/property distinction lost or obsolescent outside the personal pronouns Examples of Change [A] in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages where category/property distinction is lost or obsolescent from the language as a whole are the loss of the dual number, and the loss of gender distinction in the 3rd person plural in many of the Germanic languages. These category/property distinctions are no longer expressed inflectionally, and, unlike Change Type [B] discussed further below, the distinction is not made by other means.

5 Some analogies are of course active — see 2.4 — e.g. the extension of initial hin 3rd person pronouns in Germanic languages — as opposed to the 'analogical levelling' here.

Loss (or absence) of distinction in tlie personal pronouns

65

Change [A]: types of development in the personal pronouns [1] Functional merger of forms [2] Loss of form(s) [3] If phonological merger no subsequent therapeutic change [4] Functional reinterpretation of forms [1] Functional merger of forms Examples: — 3rd p. plural gender levelling (often also phonological merger) — see for example English 6.1.3, High German 11.2.8 — Loss of dual number distinction — see for example Gothic 4.1.2, English 6.1.2 & 6.2.6, Norwegian 16.1.5 [2] Loss of form(s) Examples: — Loss of dual personal pronouns in a number of the Germanic languages, e.g. English, East and West Frisian, much of German, most Swedish — see 3.2 and 6.1.2,6.2.6,7.4.1,11.1.4,11.4.4 [3] If phonological merger no subsequent therapeutic change If phonological merger of pronoun distinction no subsequent therapeutic change Examples: — Merger of nominative dual and plural forms in Norwegian, to some extent also in Swedish and possibly in Danish — see 16.1.5,14.1.1 and 15.1.3 — 3rd p. plural gender levelling (also functional merger) — see for example High German 11.2.8 and Norwegian 16.1.7 [4] Functional reinterpretation of forms Forms may be reinterpreted functionally — see further 2.7 Examples: — Dual forms reinterpreted functionally as plural — many of the Germanic languages show to some extent functional reinterpretation of originally dual pronouns as plural forms — see further 3.2 Icelandic 1st p. plural viâ-okkur-okkar, 2nd p. plural piâ-ykkur-ykkar Faroese 1st p. plural vit-okkum-okkara, 2nd p. plural tit-tykkum-tykkara Some Norwegian 1st p. plural oblique okfco(n), ákkán etc., 2nd p. plural d0kk etc. Comparatively rarely Swedish 1st p. plural wiâ, 2nd p. plural iâ-ikkikkä etc. Some Low German 2nd p. plural (g)it-ink etc. Some High German 2nd p. plural es-enk/eng etc. Some Yiddish 2nd p. plural ets-enk-enker

66

Change in the personal pronouns

2.2.2 Change Type [Bj: Distinction in personal pronouns indicated adequately by other means A number of developments in the Germanic personal pronouns are accounted for by [Bj where a distinction is adequately indicated outside the personal pronouns (for example by word order or by verb morphology): this is the case for example with subj.-obj. or nom.-acc.-dat. distinction in personal pronouns in Germanic languages where morphological nom.-acc.-dat. distinction has been lost in noun phrases and subject and (direct, indirect) object are indicated syntactically rather than inflectionally. Levelling in some of the personal pronouns, for example in English in subj./obj. you, also indicates the redundancy of formal subj.-obj. or nom.acc.-dat. case distinction in the remaining personal pronouns. In languages which maintain some noun phrase nom.-acc.-dat. indication (such as for example New High German), both noun phrase or pronominal inflection and syntactic indication of case can be relevant. A further example of Change [BJ is where person/number — but (in the Germanic languages) not oblique case distinction or gender — are indicated by verb morphology. 6 — For example in High German, levelling of 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural siu, sie, sia, sio etc. to (NHG) sie was distinguished in the nominative by verb morphology, cf. also (Modern) Dutch zij and West Frisian hja/sy, but contrast for example English she and they where verbal number distinction was lost or reduced (this and other developments are discussed further below). Here too both factors may be relevant, compare for example in Dutch:

6 Note also that, although not central to this study (see the Introduction), [ B ] also accounts for or at least allows for absence of a separate subject pronoun. As is well known, factors governing the use and grammaticalization of independent pronouns are complex rather than a simple either-or, as the discussion in the Introduction and chapter 1, and also Schwartz (1986) and Comrie (1988: 459f.) for a number of non-Germanic languages illustrate. [ B ] accounts for examples such as West Frisian 2nd person sing. Τ where the subj. pronoun can be omitted or is not overtly expressed as reference is unambiguously indicated by the verb ending -si, e.g. (Tiersma 1985: 62): do bist you are wat bist do moai how pretty you are wat bist moai giest te hurd! you're going too fast! Similar examples also occur in other Germanic languages. Compare further examples of ellipsis such as: Dunno I don't know 'Fraid not I'm. afraid not Gone to lunch where information is clearly indicated by context.

Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns

67

zij kijk-t zij kijk-e(n) In this example the verb endings — taken in isolation — are also ambiguous (e.g. jij kijkt, u kijkt, wij kijken, jullie kijken), but in conjunction with the pronouns the meaning is clear; for example in zij kijkt the same morpheme — 3rd p. singular — occurs twice, but the two ambiguous morphs zij and -t disambiguate each other when taken together. The same is true of zij and -e(n) in zij kijke(n): the total information (of 3rd p. singular fem. or 3rd p. plural) is given not by the personal pronoun or verb morphology alone, but by the combination of the two. Change [BJ: types of development in the personal pronouns [1] Functional merger of forms [2] Loss of form(s) [3] If phonological merger no subsequent therapeutic change [4] Functional reinterpretation of forms [1] Functional merger of forms Examples: — 1st and 2nd p. accusative-dative — see (Low) German 11.5.3 — 2nd person nominative-oblique — see English 6.6.1, (West) Frisian 7.2.3 — Swedish regional to some extent subj. pronouns as obj. — see 14.1.2 and Westroth & Holm (1988:4), Eklund (1982:168) Kan du ge den át jag? (Norrland) Har jag inte sagt ât du att lata bli? (Norrland) Menar du att du sag vi pâ gatan igâr? (Norrland) Jag har inte sett ni pâ länge (Norrland) [2] Loss of form(s) Loss of forms in case levelling. A few examples are given here as illustration Examples: — Loss of nom. form, e.g. English 2nd person ye — see 6.6.1 — Loss of acc. form, e.g. 1st and 2nd p. sing. acc. forms in much of West Germanic, e.g. Old English mec, Sec — see further 3.1.1 — Loss of dat. form, e.g. Yiddish 3rd p. plural (cf. MHG in etc.) — see 12.1.2 [3] If phonological merger no subsequent therapeutic change If phonological merger of pronoun distinction no subsequent therapeutic change Examples: — English 2nd p. subj./obj. ye/you — see 6.6.1 Nynorsk 3rd p. plural subj./obj. dei — see 16.3.3

68

Change in the personal pronouns

[4] Functional reinterpretation of forms Forms may be reinterpreted functionally — see further 2.7 Examples: — Much accusative-dative levelling is functional reinterpretation according to accent — see further chapter 3 — English dialectal stress-governed subj.-obj. usage — see 6.6.3 The original (case) function of the pronouns is lost or obsolescent, and the pronominal case forms may be reinterpreted according to accent. — The accent variation of the personal pronouns in connected speech has already been pointed out above, and here in Change Type [B] we see one example of the importance of the accent variation of the personal pronouns and pronominal change — Functional reinterpretation according to position, e.g. in much of Present English the choice of subjective or objective form is governed not primarily by its role in the sentence but by position — see further 2.7

2.2.3 Distinction by other means In the Germanic languages as already stated some of the information represented by a personal pronoun may also be indicated by verb morphology and syntactically by word order, or by case governed by verb or preposition. Other more context-specific factors such as for example the semantic distinction of X gave birth etc. may also be relevant, as well as of course context in general and prosodie features. The extent to which factors such as verb morphology and word order are significant varies both from language to language and diachronically in individual languages. As illustration of verb morphology and word order distinction compare the following examples in English: Distinction through verb morphology As well as the changes she and they etc. which took place in the pronouns in English (see chapter 6), change in verb ending is also found as a means of distinguishing ambiguity. Samuels (1972: 85f.) writes that in early Middle English the Old English present indicative endings -ep in the 3rd p. sing, and -ap in the plural merged to -ep (the North has -es). In northern and southern dialects number distinction in the 3rd person was maintained by the pronouns, but in the Midlands, especially in the East and Central Midlands, the pronoun he could represent masc. sing., fem. sing., and plural. Samuels states that ambiguity was eventually solved by the she and they forms, but before that the plural present indicative verb ending -ep was replaced in the Midlands by -en. Early Middle English texts from East Anglia have this feature of verb distinction as the only distinction of number, e.g.:

Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns

he comej) he comen

69

(sing.) (plural)

Samuels states (1972: 85) that -en was adopted in precisely those areas lacking distinction in the 3rd person pronouns because 'it was required for regulation of the imbalance caused by homonymy of pronouns'. Distinction through word order According to Fries (1940) subjective-objective case distinction through word order seems to be established in English by the middle of the fifteenth century, although occasionally pronouns with distinct case forms did appear as objects before the verb. Fries (1940: 201) gives the following statistics: acc. object: before verb after verb

C.1000

C.1200

C.1300

c. I4OO

C.1500

52-5% 47-5%

52-7% 46-3%

40+% 60-%

14-3% 85-7%

1-87% 9813%

And on the relative positions of accusative and dative objects Fries (1940: 202) gives the following statistics from tenth-century Old English: dat. obj. before acc. obj. nouns pronouns

64-0% 82-8%

dat. obj. after acc. obj.

360% 17-2%

2.2.4 Why do personal pronouns often retain distinctions longer? Personal pronouns (including reflexive and possessive forms) often retain or maintain distinctions lost or absent elsewhere in the language — for example the retention of dual forms and in some cases dual number, the maintenance of person distinctions (also where absent from verbs), the retention of 3rd person (singular) gender forms after the loss or merger of grammatical gender, and the retention of case forms even where formal nom.-acc.-dat. case distinction has been lost in noun phrases. The first point to note is that retention of forms does not always mean retention of the original category/property — a common development in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages (discussed further below in 2.7) is functional reinterpretation where old forms are reinterpreted into a new use. One example here as illustration are the English 3rd person singular gender forms: English no longer has a grammatical masc.-fem.neuter distinction — the personal pronouns he-she-it (him-her etc.) are reflexes of this, but their use is governed by different (natural rather than grammatical gender) criteria. In such cases therefore, retained formal

70

Change in the personal pronouns

distinctions represent retention of the older forms in a different use rather than maintenance of the original category/property. However, examples remain which do genuinely represent a longer maintenance of a category/property in the personal pronouns than in other word classes — for example the maintenance of dual number in the 1st and 2nd person (in Sylt North Frisian also 3rd person subj.) pronouns in quite a few of the (especially earlier stages of the) Germanic languages. (The subsequent retention of dual forms as plurals in some of the Germanic languages also after loss of dual number is, as discussed above, an example of longer retention of forms and functional reinterpretation rather than the retention of the original category/property). One reason for the longer retention of distinctions in the personal pronouns is that morphologically the personal pronouns are, as discussed in chapter 1, on the whole portmanteau forms rather than suffixed inflection, and are thus phonologically less likely to lose inflection through the reduction of endings common in the Germanic languages in adjectives, nouns and verbs. Furthermore, the high degree of suppletion in the personal pronouns means that given phonological reduction, forms which have a suppletive distinction will tend to remain formally distinct longer than those with less suppletive distinctions, and this seems to be borne out by examples such as English ye-you or German 3rd person siu, sia, sio etc. where distinctions which are not or are less suppletive have been lost also in the personal pronouns, though Dutch jij-jou (unaccented both je) show that this is not absolute. Thus it may be the greater suppletive, portmanteau morphology of the personal pronouns which formally has often preserved distinct forms, where equivalent distinctions have been lost outside the personal pronouns. A further point made in chapter 1 (Lehmann 1992:108f.) is that frequent irregular forms are retained longer because they are learnt by children in acquisition as individual forms before a connection with regular sets is made. Nevertheless, for example Dutch 3rd p. plural nonstandard/dialectal hun, hullie, hulder, Afrikaans 1st p. plural ons, and Swedish and dialectal Norwegian 3rd p. plural dom, dem etc. — all of which occur as subj. — show that also suppletive distinctions can be levelled. These factors — i.e. that a personal pronoun form may often be retained longer — seem also to some extent to maintain the reality of the category/ property meaning in the personal pronouns (for example of subject and object forms). However, the evidence of the personal pronouns suggests that the reality of grammatical-based categories/properties will not be maintained indefinitely. A further point is whether personal pronouns must maintain distinctions in order to make clear reference. Hansen (1956: 190f.) in a study of case development in Danish (though with reference also to English for

Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns

71

example) discusses why (some) case distinctions have been maintained in the personal pronouns but not in nouns. Hansen states that there is a greater need for morphological distinction between nominative and oblique forms in personal pronouns than in nouns and believes that a distinction was maintained in personal pronouns because of a practical need of keeping reference clear. Hansen cites example sentences from Danish where a single subj./obj. form for 'han' or for 'hun' would result in ambiguity. Hansen overlooks, however, that in both Swedish and Norwegian, and indeed to some extent in 'han' in Danish, common subj./ obj. forms for these pronouns do indeed occur — in these pronouns, as in noun phrases, subject and object are indicated by factors other than morphological distinction. If a case distinction is eventually lost also from the personal pronouns — as has taken place with accusative-dative distinction in Danish — then Hansen's explanation can hardly be valid. Personal pronouns do, not uncommonly, show levelling to a single subj./obj. form — as Hansen also indeed notes. Hansen's explanation would predict, however, that these distinctions would be maintained indefinitely in the personal pronouns, rather than merely a delayed loss. As noted above, morphological accusative-dative distinction has already been lost in Danish, including from the personal pronouns, and Norwegian for example shows considerable levelling also of the subj.-obj. distinction in the personal pronouns (see for example Papazian 1978: 249 and the Norwegian chapter below). Compare here the following subj./obj. (nom./acc./dat.) forms in various Germanic languages: 7 English you it

WFrisian jo se it jimme se

Dutch je ze het u jullie ze

Afrikaans dit u ons julle hulle

Yiddish zej

Swedish den det dom

Danish den det

Nw Bokmál han den det dere

Nynorsk han ho det dei

Faroese tygum

7 Here only examples from the standard languages are given — for nonstandard/ dialect (which can often show more widespread levelling) see the individual language chapters.

72

Change in the personal pronouns

Croft (1990: 9,127f., 261) sees in the maintenance of the objective forms of the English pronouns me, us, him, her, them a widespread pattern of relationship between case and animacy (person, noun phrase type, and definiteness), i.e. that direct objects that refer to more highly animate beings are more likely to have distinct object case forms. The 'apparent exception' of you is also explained as due to a general pattern, namely the markedness of plural forms — though the original singular pronoun thouthee also shows dialectal subj.-obj. levelling — see 6.6.1. However, all the animate forms show some morphological and/or syntactic levelling in various Germanic languages (the neuter — which is not always inanimate however — generally does not distinguish subject and direct object morphologically — though again see 11.6.4 and 14.3.2), and while markedness and hierarchy may indeed be relevant in the personal pronouns, they are a relatively weak predictor here. Person and animacy are indeed relevant — see below — but Croft's explanation depends on the degree of correlation between grammatical case, case forms and semantic roles — note for example English Who did it? — Me! (see 2.7 L· 6.6.3). And further, in direct object-indirect object distinction, distinct accusative-dative case forms were in a number of the Germanic languages lost earlier in the 1st and 2nd person singular (and plural generally) than in the 3rd person — see 3.1.1. Important here is the distinction, which neither Hansen nor Croft makes, between grammatical and real world-based categories/properties. It cannot be expected, indeed the evidence from the personal pronouns shows, that a grammatical category/property-based distinction lost in noun phrases will be maintained indefinitely in the personal pronouns — their delay or maintenance of the form can be explained by the reasons discussed above. The maintenance of some real world-based category/ property distinctions in the personal pronouns, on the other hand, such as person distinctions or natural gender distinctions, even when absent from noun phrases, could be to facilitate clearer reference. 8 Note also the occurrence of other real world-based categories/properties in pronouns to facilitate reference: in the Germanic languages personal/nonpersonal and animate/inanimate often come under the heading of natural gender, and proximity is a category in this-that,9 8 T/V, on the other hand, is socially deictic. 9 Maintenance of some real world-based category/property distinctions in the personal pronouns to facilitate clearer reference also accounts for the absence of animacy or personal/nonpersonal distinction in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns. Outside the Germanic languages generally speaking are categories such as inclusive/exclusive or visible/invisible, though note the contraction in English Let's go (inclusive) versus Let us go (usually exclusive), the definite/indefinite contrast in YOU/you shouldn't drink and drive, WE/we shouldn't watch so much television etc. (see 1.1.2), and the constraints in using 3rd person pronouns, especially she, to refer to a person in their presence.

Loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns

73

Therefore, Hansen's point may be relevant, though not for grammatical case as he claims: grammatical distinctions lost in noun phrases are eventually lost in personal pronouns, but some real-world distinctions may indeed be maintained to facilitate reference. Maintenance of clear reference — both grammatical and real world — is taken up further in 2.3 below in discussion of ambiguity as a factor in change in the personal pronouns. A further point is that personal pronoun forms no longer part of the normal pronoun system may become lexicalized. Examples of this are English thou (thee, thine, thy) and ye in most English speakers — i.e. this must be distinguished from the minority of English speakers to whom these forms do remain part of their pronoun system. For the majority of Present English speakers thou (thee, thine, thy) and ye are not part of the usual pronoun system, though they are still known, and may be used, as pronouns. Significantly, however, their original or earlier function may be confused (e.g. ye as object or thee as subject), and — even more indicating lexicalization — they may lose the accent variation typical of personal pronouns and other function words, occurring only in their citation form (cf. 0.1.2). Contrast here the accentuation of thou and thee by most speakers of English with that of traditional dialect speakers who retain these forms, where thou, thee may frequently occur unaccented, as other pronouns. Forms such as thou etc. and ye can be said to have been lexicalized — i.e. although they retain the pronoun form, these pronouns resemble more lexical words than function words.10 It is questionable whether or in how far such lexicalization also accounts for the longer retention of for example the dual forms in some of the Germanic languages — certainly in Present North Frisian dual forms of the personal pronouns are known but generally not used in everyday speech (they may be used in ceremonial speech for instance) — though 10 Wurzel (1984: 68) also sees at least some personal pronouns as lexicalized forms, though in a broader sense than discussed here: he states about the Modern English objective pronouns 'Obwohl diese Objektformen historisch auf Akkusativund Dativformen zurückgehen, müssen sie heute als lexikalisierte unsystematische Reste bewertet werden'. Similarly, he states about the Modern Swedish personal pronouns (1984: 104) that they have 'Reste der früheren systematischen Nominativ-Akkusativ-Distinktionen', but 'sie stellen jedoch unsystematische, lexikalisierte Fälle dar'. It is perhaps an overstatement to label these personal pronouns 'unsystematische Reste' — the English subj.-obj. forms for example are generally governed by position (see 2.7 below), and the Swedish forms also retain some of their case meaning; however, they do resemble lexical forms in their comparative lack of inflectional parallel — and this is Wurzel's point. Note additionally that in the lexicalization of pronoun forms discussed here in 2.2.4 the loss of accent variation typical of personal pronouns and occurrence only of the citation form mirrors one of the processes cited by Hopper & Traugott (1993: 2f.) as typical of grammaticalization, i.e. phonological reduction (of auxiliaries) as in for example going to > gonna, or will > ΊΙ.

74

Change in the personal pronouns

lexical duals such as in English couple, pair, duo, double, and both may perhaps attest to the possibility.

(n)either-(n)or,

2.3 Redistinction or new distinction in the personal pronouns 2.3.1 Change Type [C]: Category/property still valid and not indicated adequately by other means and subsequent new or redistinction Loss of distinction in the personal pronouns as discussed in Change Types [A] and [B] above is by no means the only type of development in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. This study argues the importance of therapeutic change in the personal pronouns, and in Change Type [C] below the importance of ambiguity as a factor in change in the personal pronouns is discussed. Many developments in the pronouns can be explained as a remaking of category/property distinctions which were still valid but which had become ambiguous. Example causes of ambiguity in the personal pronouns are phonological merger, merger through T / V usage (2nd p. plural used as 2nd p. singular, 3rd person (singular or plural) used as 2nd person), or loss of former disambiguating verb morphology distinctions. A related development is where a distinction is extended to or made in previously undifferentiated forms, such as the innovatory 1st and 2nd p. plural (less often also dual) accusative-dative distinction in a number of the Germanic languages (see 3.1.2); similarly the innovatory 3rd person dual (subj.) distinction in Sylt North Frisian (see 7.4.1). A further related development are examples of possible innovatory accusative and/or dative distinction in some Low German and Frisian forms on the basis of High German superstratal influence — for example in north central Westfälisch a recent tendency to differentiate the accented and unaccented 3rd person singular forms em - en as accusative-dative on the High German pattern (Durrell 1990: 80) — see German 11.6.3 and Frisian 7.6.1. Another similar example of new category distinction is honorific usage of the pronouns in address on the basis of French influence, in Danish and Norwegian in the eighteenth century De on the pattern of German (Sie). It is important to note that developments in [C] are closely related to and overlap with Change Type [DJ — [Cj represents developments in the pronouns because of ambiguity in the language system, and [D] — Analogy — represents regularization in the pronouns to the language system on a pronominal or noun phrase pattern. Analogy in the personal pronouns is discussed immediately after [C] in 2.4. Developments which lead to a remaking of ambiguous distinctions — or grammatical therapeutic change — are thus also systematic.

Redistinction or new distinction in the personal pronouns

75

Morphologically, however, relatively few of the developments in Change Type [C] show therapeutic change by addition of regular inflection. One reason for this is that often the personal pronouns have, as discussed in chapter 1, comparatively little regular, consistent inflectional pattern and consequently often there is very little inflectional pattern in the personal pronouns to follow. Furthermore, there is often little or no appropriate noun phrase pattern to follow either as some real-world distinctions (such as person) made in personal pronouns are absent in noun phrases, and, in ambiguity in nominative singular forms, the nominative singular in noun phrase inflection may be unmarked/markerless in case, number and/or gender. However — as shown by for example English you-s(e) (plural) (or it-s — gen./poss.) (see [5] below) — where a pattern does exist, changes in the pronouns may follow this pattern. Rather than by regular inflection, a number of the changes in [C] show a type of therapeutic change akin to the lexical replacement discussed by Gilliéron 11 on the basis of the data of the Atlas linguistique de la France — i.e. by a complete change of form — though in this case a pronominal form. Where in Gilliéron's examples therapeutic change by suppletion is by lexical replacement, or in English go-went by verbal replacement, in the personal pronouns developments in [C] which show therapeutic change by suppletion show pronominal replacement — i.e. distinct forms are taken from the pronouns themselves. Not all therapeutic change in the pronouns in [C] involves the use of redundant forms for repair; however, use of redundant forms is seen in oblique pronouns as subj. forms, in dual pronouns as plural forms, in generalization of distinct variant forms, and in the borrowing of foreign or dialect forms — see [1], [2], [3] and [7] below.12 The systematicness of suppletive morphology in that it marks distinctions between forms sharing the same category/property or categories/ properties — i.e. forms are distinct from those with which they share a category/property or categories/properties — as opposed to marking correspondences as with patterning morphology — has already been discussed in chapter 1, and here in [C] it is argued how a number of

11 For a summary of Gilliéron see for example Bynon (1977:186-190). Lexical replacement or avoidance may occur not only because of ambiguity, but also because of taboo — see e.g. Lehmann (1992: 90, 260, 263f.) for examples. To some extent taboo is also a factor in pronoun usage in the Germanic languages — note the points on pronominal avoidance and constraint in the Introduction in 0.1.3 — and represents the extreme end of a scale of pragmatic factors influencing pronoun usage. Taboo is also a factor in pronominal usage in other languages of the world. 12 For a suggestion of this kind of process in children's pronoun acquisition see Chiat (1986: 391f. & 399). Lass (1990) terms use of redundant ('junk') forms exaptation, Greenberg (see Croft 1990: 236) uses the term regrammaticization.

76

Change in the personal pronouns

developments because of ambiguity — i.e. a lack of adequate distinction — can and do result in suppletion — i.e. the taking of forms to make a distinction. This thus demonstrates one way in which suppletive morphology in the personal pronouns can arise. The systematicness of developments in [ C ] and the frequent lack of morphological parallel show how developments which result in suppletive distinctions as discussed in chapter 1 cannot simply be regarded as 'irregular'. 2.3.2 Homonymy13 - ambiguity It is not necessarily the case that all theoretically possible personal pronouns have a distinct form. Homonymy can occur both between pronoun forms, such as German ihr / i r / 3rd p. sing. fem. dat., 3rd p. sing. fem. poss., 3rd p. plural poss., 2nd p. V poss., 2nd p. plural Τ nom., and between pronoun and nonpronoun forms, such as in English /-eye, we-wee, himhymn etc. for example. As pointed out by Gilliéron, homonymy in itself does not lead to ambiguity, rather it is where homonymie forms occur in the same contexts that a homonymie clash or ambiguity can result. Factors which determine whether homonymie forms are ambiguous have also been mentioned in discussion of Changes [A] and [BJ above — i.e. whether or not a category/property is still valid, and whether or not, or to what degree the distinction is indicated by other means. Note also that unlike 'homonymy', i.e. formal sameness, which is a fixed concept, ambiguity is a variable which depends on the factors cited above — two pronouns can be homonymie without ambiguity at one stage or in one language, but ambiguous in another. 'Ambiguity' thus allows diachronic differences or differences from language to language, such as the significance of word order or extent of verb inflection for example, to be accounted for. Furthermore, a variable term 'ambiguity' also allows for the possibility of category/property hierarchy — person distinction over dual number distinction or nominative over oblique for instance, and for accented-unaccented use; and further can include on an ambiguity scale

13 Homonymy is used here as an umbrella term to enable various types of formal sameness to be brought together under one heading in discussion of ambiguity in the personal pronouns; it includes here examples of homonymy proper (same pronunciation/spelling, morphologically unrelated) such as I/eye (homophony) or thou (pronoun)/thou (one thousandth) (homography); homomorphy (same morphological form and meaning, different syntactic function — see Quirk et al. 1985: 70f.) for example his independent gen./poss., determinative gen./poss.; and polysemy (one form, more than one meaning) such as Swedish ni 2nd p. plural, 2nd p. sing. V, or possibly German sie/Sie. Examples such as German 1st p. sing, dat. mir, 2nd p. sing. dat. dir, regional 1st p. plural nom. mir, and, less widely, 2nd p. plural nom. dir illustrate that while definition by these terms is not always straightforward, the formal sameness of the forms is clear.

Redistinction or new distinction in the personal pronouns

77

addition of quantifiers such as us two, you all, or they both, which may also be defined as clarifications aimed at facilitating the task of the hearer in the communicative situation — cf. below and note the unspecificness of the plural forms (> 1 to infinity, or 'group reference') referred to in 0.1.3 above. As examples such as veil-vale, bough-bow, or bow-beau illustrate, ambiguity also depends on the frequency of use of homonymie forms — i.e. if they are comparatively infrequent, as in these examples, then ambiguity is unlikely to be a problem, even if they can occur in identical contexts — compare here the discussion in chapter 1 (1.5). As discussed in chapter 1, in the small word class of the highly frequent personal pronouns, however, ambiguity is much more likely to be a hindrance to comprehension — the personal pronouns are a small set of forms with very similar functions and reference occurring frequently in similar or identical contexts. The importance of ambiguity and therapeutic change in the personal pronouns argued here can be connected with the fact that the personal pronouns are function words, and have both high frequency of use and a condition of referential nonambiguity. Ambiguity in the personal pronouns concerns speakers and hearers in communicative situations, i.e. the speaker-hearer interface and speaker-hearer interaction, and as such is change motivated in speech and by communicative need. Forms of the pronouns such as German 1st p. sing. dat. miV-lst p. plural regional nom. mir can be termed nonambiguous homonymy in that, although like in form, they do not, or rarely, occur in the same context and result in a homonymie clash. The same applies also to other examples of nonambiguous homonymy such as English I-eye, him-hymn, we-wee etc., which similarly do not or rarely occur in a context likely to cause ambiguity — i.e. these forms, although formally alike, are as discussed in chapter 1 on other levels separate and their formal identity thus unambiguous. Note also, as already discussed, that nondistinction, for example of nominative and accusative in the 3rd person sing, neuter, or of gender in the 3rd p. plural dative and genitive pronouns (or especially in later stages of gender in all 3rd person plural pronouns), is dependent in the first instance on noun phrase distinction rather than specifically on the personal pronouns. The principles discussed here cannot, however, be taken as absolutes as the example of English you demonstrates — where a number of varieties of English have created a new plural personal pronoun form (youse, y'all, you-uns etc.), other varieties still retain a single pronoun form you, where any ambiguity is disambiguated by periphrastic compounding of pronoun + quantifier such as you lot, you guys rather than by a separate distinct personal pronoun, though note the development of new simplex forms from such compounds — see 2.8 below. Such examples may perhaps be viewed as equivalent to a lexical gap. A further example already men-

78

Change in the personal pronouns

tioned are the 1st and 2nd person plural (to some extent also dual) pronouns in a number of the Germanic languages which show after previous nondistinction innovatory accusative-dative distinction, followed by nondistinction again, even in languages where accusative-dative otherwise remain distinct (see 3.1.2). Similarly in cross-language comparison: while in for example English yousfe), y'all etc., Dutch jullie etc., Icelandic originally dual piâ etc. as plural (and perhaps also in German dialectal es and (g)it etc. as plurals) ambiguity resulting from T / V usage probably led to the various changes giving innovatory plural forms, in for example German sie/Sie homonymy (including in verb forms — sie/Sie sind etc.) has not led to similar change. 2.3.3 Possible developments in the personal pronouns because of ambiguity In the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages various developments are found which can be explained by therapeutic change. In many cases similar developments are recorded in more than one Germanic language, and can be grouped under several types. Some forms show diachronically more than one possible development, for example Dutch hullie and hulder both the addition of a lexical element ('people') and a later case change of oblique to subj., and Norwegian d0kk etc. a number extension of dual to plural and a case change of oblique to subj. Change [C]: types of development in the personal pronouns [1] Case form change [2] Number form change [3] Generalization of a distinct variant [4] Vowel change [5] Addition of a formative [6] Addition of a lexical element [7] Borrowing [1] Case form change An oblique pronoun is used as a distinct subjective form where the original subj. pronoun was ambiguous Examples: — Possibly Dutch 3rd p. plural hun, hullie, hulder — see 8.2.2 Partly West Frisian 2nd person jo — see 7.2.2 L· 7.2.3 Swedish and Norwegian 3rd p. plural dorn, dem etc. — see 16.3.2 Norwegian 2nd person dere and d0kk etc. — see 16.2.2 [2] Number form change Dual pronouns used as plural forms possibly because of ambiguity of plural pronouns as a result of phonological merger or honorific usage — see

Redistinction or new distinction in the personal pronouns

79

further chapter 3. — Number form change in [2] is a parallel type of suppletive change to Case form change in [1] above Examples: — Icelandic piâ-ykkur-ykkar ( viâ-okkur-okkar) Faroese tit-tykkum-tykkara ( vit-okkum-okkara) Some Norwegian dykk-dykkar etc. (okko(n), ákkán, okka(s) etc.) Some Low German (g)it-ink etc. Some High German es-enk/eng etc. (also Yiddish ets-enk-enker) [3] Generalization of a distinct variant Here, as in [l] with a case form, and in [2] with a number form, in [3] a distinct phonological variant is used as a nonambiguous form Examples: — Continental Scandinavian 3rd p. plural di etc. — see 16.3.2 Swedish (Norwegian dialectally) 3rd p. plural dom etc. (also a case form change) — see 16.3.2 [4] Vowel change In this type there is Analogical extension of a distinct formative — see further also [ D ] below Examples: — Old/Middle English 3rd p. plural dat. heom, gen. heora etc. probably by analogy with nom./acc. plural hèo — see 6.5 Old Frisian 3rd p. plural hiam, hiar(r)a etc. by analogy with nom./acc. plural hia — see 7.5.2 [5] Addition of a formative Both types [4] and [5] show the making of a distinction not by suppletive replacement but by Analogical extension — in [5] by analogical extension of a formative through addition of inflection. [4] and [5] illustrate how Change Types [C] and [D], i.e. therapeutic change and analogical change, can overlap. On Change Type [D] see 2.4 below Examples: — English 2nd person you + noun plural allomorph [z] > yous(e) — see 6.6.2 Southwest English 3rd p. plural hymen, hemen ('them') + nominal ending -en to distinguish from hym, hem singular — see 6.5 Possibly Old Frisian 3rd p. plural himman, himmen etc. + dative plural ending to distinguish from him, hem singular •— see 7.5.2 [6] Addition of a lexical element Examples: — Dutch + liede 'people' — see 8.1.9 Possibly Frisian + man, men > jemma(n), himman etc. — see 7.5.2

80

Change in the personal pronouns

English + 'all' you + all > y'all — see 6.6.2 English + 'ones' you + ones > you-uns — see 6.6.2 As in [5] above, type [6] shows therapeutic change by addition rather than by a change of form. In contrast to [5], however, the forms in [6] show the addition not of grammatical plural (and other) inflection, but of lexical plurals such as 'people', 'all1, 'ones' and possibly 'man, men'. — As already discussed, one reason for the strengthening of the plural distinction by addition of a lexical element rather than by extension of a pronominal formative with plural meaning is the lack of consistent pattern in plural marking in the personal pronouns. A further reason is semantic, in that the personal pronouns obviously frequently refer to people, which may thus also make lexical plurals such as 'people' (and compounds such as English you guys) etc. more likely — note the duality of the personal pronouns already referred to. — Note, however, as stated, that English yous(e) shows the creation of a new distinct plural form by addition of the regular English noun plural allomorph, and further to some extent the grammaticalization and regularization or analogical extension of (derivatives of) liede and all as pronominal plural markers in varieties of Dutch, Afrikaans and English — see 6.6.2 & 8.1.9. These forms in [6] show how new pronoun forms can develop from personal pronouns plus elements from outside the personal pronoun paradigm — for further discussion see 2.8. [7] Borrowing As [1] and [2] above, [7] is therapeutic change by a complete change of form, in this case through Borrowing Examples: — English they ( them-their) from Scandinavian — see 6.4 L· 6.5 West Frisian sy from Dutch — see 7.2.2

2.4 AnalogyAnalogy accounts for a considerable number of developments in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. Examples of the types of development are given below: Change [D]: types of development in the personal pronouns [1] Analogical extension [2] Analogical replacement [3] Possible analogy of a pronominal phonotactic pattern

Analogy

81

[1] Analogical extension A correspondence between form and meaning may be extended by analogy. A formative may be extended to pronouns sharing the same property or properties, thereby increasing the regularity of morphological marking for that property(-ies). A number of examples of analogical extension in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages are given below. Some of these developments involve new or redistinction — see also [C] above. [la] Analogy with noun phrase inflection Examples: — Possibly southwest English 3rd p. plural obj. hymen, hemen from hym, hem + nominal ending -en — see 6.5 Possibly Early New High German 3rd p. sing. masc. acc. inen/ihnen by analogy with adjective inflection — see 11.3 High German 3rd p. plural dative inen/ihnen possibly by analogy with adjective and/or noun inflection — see 11.3 Faroese extension of -urn, -un to 3rd p. plural dative and 1st and 2nd p. (originally) dual/plural dative by analogy with adjective and noun inflection (though with subsequent levelling in 1st and 2nd p. plural) — see 17.2.1 — English nonstandard 2nd p. plural yous(e) from you + [z] regular noun plural allomorph — see 6.6.2 [lb] Analogy with pronoun forms Examples: — 1st and 2nd p. plural innovatory dative and accusative forms Possibly Gothic, West Scandinavian, and High German — see further 3.1.2, and 4.1.1,16.1.6 and 11.2.3 Some Old English ûsic, ëowic etc., High German unsih, iuuih, and Low German ûsik, unsik, jük, jiich by analogy with mec, dec etc. — see further 3.1.2, and 6.1.1,11.1.3,11.4.3 — Possibly English 3rd p. plural oblique forms with th- (StdE) them-theirs, their in some areas by analogy with nominative they — see 6.4.4 Possibly Norwegian and Faroese 2nd person (originally) dual/plural oblique forms with initial dental, MNw 2nd p. plural oblique pydr, pyddher, ModNw 2nd p. plural (originally dual) dykk-dykkar etc., Faroese tykkum-tykkara, tygum-tygara by analogy with the 2nd p. singular and the 2nd p. dual and plural nominative pronouns with initial dental — see 16.1.2 & 17.3.1 Some Scandinavian 1st p. plural obj. forms with initial v-, w-, e.g. wo ss, voss, by analogy with nom. and gen./poss., e.g. wi-war, wor — see 15.1.1

82

Change in the personal pronouns

— Old/Middle English 3rd p. plural dat. heom, gen. heora etc. probably by analogy with nom./acc. plural héo — see 6.5 Old Frisian 3rd p. plural hiam, hiar(r)a etc. by analogy with nom./acc. plural hia — see 7.5.2 — 1st and 2nd p. dual some English 1st p. dual unnc-unnkerr, 2nd p. dual yunnc-yunnkerr — see 6.2.2 North Frisian dialects 1st p. dual unk, onk-unken, onkens, 2nd p. dual junk, jonk-junken, jonkens Possibly Norwegian dialectal 2nd p. (originally) dual dokk(e) by analogy with 1st person okh— see Indrebtf (1951:254) — Earlier Danish 3rd p. plural obj. thennum, dennom etc. (according to Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 173 and Haugen 1976: 374 by analogy with hanum) Analogical extension can be illustrated by the very common addition of formatives in the genitive pronouns in the Germanic languages. This development is not discussed here in detail (see the Introduction), but the personal pronoun paradigms given in this study illustrate the frequency of this development in the Germanic languages. References are given in the Introduction on the genitive, including extended forms. A schematic illustration of the extension of -s in the Danish pronouns is given here as an example: early Middle Danish min din wôr ithar haenna han s thae s therra

late Middle Danish min din wor(e) s ethaer s hende s han s the s therre s

Modern Danish min (etc.) din etc.) vore s jere s hende s han s det s den s dere s

Continental Middle Scandinavian shows a general trend towards making -5 applicable to all genitives, not only in the pronouns — cf. ONw môôors mother's, OSw herras/herrar s lords', ONw kirkionis the church's, OSw drotningennes the queen's, and Konninger udi Danmarcks Breffwe kings of Denmark's letters (see Haugen 1976: 293ff.). In the Danish pronouns the extension of the -s began around 1400, first in the 3rd p. sing. fem. hœnna and the 3rd p. plural ther(r)a (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 58 & 68). The -s was also added, though less often, to the 2nd p. plural ithar and the 1st p. plural wor. The use of the -s forms gradually increased: in the six-

Analogy

83

teenth century the 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural -s forms became the norm (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 57 & 127), and in Modern Danish the inflected 1st p. plural form vor without -s is restricted to conservative written language and has been almost completely replaced by vores in the spoken language. The 2nd p. plural jer without -s is now obsolete, meaning that all the Modern Danish genitive/possessive pronouns except the 1st and 2nd p. singular have -s (though in dialects, for example in the 3rd p. plural, forms without -s are still found — Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 127f.). Extension is not necessarily simultaneous to all pronouns affected, rather it may be a gradual process as illustrated by Danish. Furthermore, as a formative is extended to more and more pronouns, the new pronouns may also act as analogical models for the remaining unchanged forms. Pike also recognizes analogical change in matrices and states (1963: 206) 'Pressure can . . . be brought to bear to create vector formatives . . . out of some of the irregular bits, by extending a partial-vector formative to cover the whole vector. When this is done, analogy has reworked the paradigmatic material'. However, an increase in morphological patterning does not necessarily mean that the formative will be extended to all forms of a particular category/property, i.e. that it will become a vector formative. Although preliterary (and therefore not central to this study), this is illustrated well by the various extent of initial h- in the 3rd person pronouns in the Germanic languages: in Middle Dutch the h- occurs in over half of the 3rd person orthotone pronouns, in Old Frisian in all orthotone forms except the masc./neuter genitive singular, and in Old English hoccurs in singular masculine, feminine and neuter and plural, all cases. The extent of initial h- is shown in the schematic comparison in figure 2.4 of the personal pronouns in Old English, Old Frisian and Middle Dutch with Old Saxon, where initial h- is restricted, with a few exceptions, to the masculine nominative singular. (The other Germanic languages have been omitted here.) For discussion of the origin of the h- in the 3rd person pronouns see for example the references in the Introduction. [2] Analogical replacement A second type of development is Analogical replacement where a pronoun or pronouns is or are replaced by a form which coincides with a pattern already present. In terms of category/property distinction, then, this type mirrors the suppletive replacement in 2.3 above. This development is shown by the replacement in Continental West Germanic languages of the 3rd p. masc. and neuter sing, genitive pronoun is, es by sin on the pattern min-din-sin in place of min-din-is (though the 3rd p. fem. sing. gen. form was isolated from the other singular genitives)

84

Change in the personal pronouns

Figure 2.4 Analogical extension of initial h- in 3rd person pronouns in Germanic languages

Old Saxon

ik

mi

mi

mïn

thu

thi

thi

thin

0e siu

ina

im

is

sia

iru

iro

it

it

im

is

sia

sia

im

iro

siu wit git wi gi

iro

siu

im

unk ink

unk ink

us

us

Oser

iu

iu

iuwar

(unkero) *

Middle Dutch

1C

mi

mi

mijns

du

Β

di

di

dijns

[h~|em

[h"|em

sijns

[h]et si

[h]et [h~|aer, -se

[h~[em

(sijns)

|"h~|aer

[~h~|aer

si

[h~|em, -se

[h~|em

[h]aer

wi

ons

ons

onser

ghi

u

u

uwer

85

Analogy

Old

Frisian

ik

mi

mi

*

thu

thi

thi

thin

0i,-(e)r

[h"|ine

[hjim

sin

0it

0it

[h]im

sin

[h]iu, s(e)

[h~|ia, s(e)

[hjire

[h~|ire

[h]ia, s(e)

[hjia, s(e)

["h"|im(man)

[~h~|iara

wi

us

us

user

gi

ju

ju

juwer

Old English (West Saxon)

1C

me

3u

me

min

3e

ôe

δϊη

[h~|ine

[h]im

0TO

0îe

[hjire

[lT|ire

0it

0it

0im

[h]is

Eïe

0im

[h~|ira

une

une

uncer

git

ine

ine

incer

we

üs

üs

üre

ge

low

low

ïower

0ïe wit

86

Change in the personal pronouns

— Old Frisian sin, -(e)s, Modern West Frisian sin-, Modern East Frisian sin-, Modern North Frisian sin etc. Middle Dutch sijns, -(e)s, Modern Dutch zijn-, Afrikaans syne Old Saxon is (es), Middle Low German sin etc. Old High German sin, es, New High German seinSee further also 2.8 This change is illustrated schematically in High German below:

Old High German / Middle High German ih

mih

mir

min I

du

dih

dir

din I

er

inan

imu

es

sin

i3 siu

i3 sia

imu

es

sin

iru

ira

uuir

unsih

uns

unser

ir

iuuih

iu

iuuër

sie

sie

im

irò

sio

sio

im

irò

siu

siu

im

irò

[3] Possible analogy of a pronominal phonotactic pattern A third possible type is analogy of a CV etc. pattern which may have been a factor in reanalysis of a consonantal verb ending as part of the pronoun in (some) German and Scandinavian vowel-initial 2nd p. plural and dual forms — see 2.5.2 — for example possibly in Swedish, schematically: I CV I

[çD+Ξ [çv]

I CV

— >

[çv] [çv]

I de/di I etc.

Phonological change in the personal pronouns

87

2.5 Phonological change in the personal pronouns 2.5.1 Change in + and - accent forms Accent variation in the personal pronouns can result in differences in phonological development, both between personal pronoun forms, and between personal pronoun and nonpronoun forms. For example in the personal pronouns a +accented form may undergo a development which the -accented form or forms do(es) not, or vice versa. Important here also is possible change in the relative domain of originally + and - accented forms, i.e. the generalization or increase in domain of one form and decrease in domain of another — for example a +accent pronoun may be generalized also as a -accented form, or an originally -accented pronoun may be generalized as a -f accent form — compare here the comments at the beginning of this chapter. An example of such changes in English are the 1st p. sing. nom. forms ME ic, ik, i, ich, with generalization of i, later i, and PresStdE I [ai] — see 6.2.1, also Wright/Sayce (1954: §259) and OED 'Γ. Such differences in development may result in loss or reduction of morphological parallel, compare for example in English: ME ModE

1st p. plural obj. ûs, ous us [AS]

1st p. plural gen./poss. ür(e), our(e) etc. our[au9]

The parallel between the Middle English 1st p. plural obj. and gen./poss. forms üs, ous and ur(e), our(e) has been lost or reduced in Modern (Standard) English as a result of generalization of a short form as obj. pronoun (contrast for example house, louse < hüs, lüs). Although regular phonological developments also take place in the personal pronouns (e.g. in English changes of vowel quality in I, mine in the Great Vowel Shift), accent variation, sandhi (see below), and generalization of originally -(-accented or -accented forms can result in different developments to nonpronoun forms. As illustration compare the following examples, e.g. again the 1st p. singular T: OE ModE

1st p. sing. ic I [ai]

'tar' pic pitch [pit/]

The initial [3] of the pronouns (and a number of other forms such as then, there, though — cf. chapter 1 above) occurs mostly in words which are frequently medial and unaccented (see Gimson/Ramsaran 1989: 184f., cf. also 2.5.2 below), contrast for example: thou [Sau] thee [ai:]

thou (one thousandth) [6au] thief [6i:f]

88

Change in the personal pronouns

thy [3ai] that [5aet]

thigh [9ai] thatch [BaetJ]

These forms also show special development in other Germanic languages. The variation between for example the English and High German cognate pronouns: me thee he we ye

mir dir er wir ihr

where final -r is absent in the English forms but generally retained in the cognate High German pronouns is also probably connected with accent variation — for discussion and references see Klein (1979: 437-444) and (Frisian) 7.1.3. On the significance of loss of -r as a dative case marker in the 1st and 2nd p. sing, pronouns in accusative-dative levelling in a number of the Germanic languages see 3.1.1. In some cases unaccented forms of the pronouns retain forms lost in the full forms. Both Seebold (1984: 60) for the early Germanic languages and Nübling (1992: 267) for Berndeutsch also remark on this. Possible examples in the Germanic languages are Frisian 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural unaccented forms with s (see 7.1.2), and Continental West Germanic 3rd p. sing. masc. and neuter genitive where replacement of is, es by sin may have been earlier as a full form, with the older forms retained longer as unaccented forms. Further examples are given in the individual chapters. Leaving aside here examples where + and - accented forms have undergone separate phonological development — see above — a possible explanation for retention of forms in unaccented pronouns may be that replacement took place first, or in some cases solely, in the full pronoun, the unaccented form thus a survival rather than actively retained. 2.5.2 Sandhi A specific type of generalization of a -accented pronoun are new sandhi forms resulting from clitic usage. Many of these sandhi forms illustrate that not only can a -accented form derive from an orthotone pronoun as in e.g. English [im] from him, or [3:, a] from her, but that also the opposite development of an orthotone pronoun from a clitic form can occur (cf. Nübling below). Phonological modification of host 14 and clitic pronoun

14 Clitics do not necessarily attach solely to verbs, compare for example German es (from Nübling 1992: 22) Regnet's? (main verb), Hat's schon geregnet? (auxiliary), Wenn's regnet, . . . (conjunction), Wenn er's will, . . . (personal pronoun), . . . so gut's geht (adverb).

Phonological change in the personal pronouns

89

in connected speech is common, compare as illustration the following examples: English linking/intrusive /r/ I saw him yesterday — I saw-r-im [so:rim] yesterday I saw her yesterday — I saw-r-er [s3:ra] yesterday I saw them yesterday — Γ saw-r-em [so:ram] yesterday English coalescence of /t,d,s,z/ with / j/ What you w a n t . . . — What you [wDt/u ] w a n t . . . Would you? — Would you [wud3u] ? In case you need it — In case you [keiju] need it Has your letter come? — Has your [haego: ] letter come? (Gimson/Ramsaran 1989:299ff.) Swedish /d/ to / r / (parts of eastern Sweden including Stockholm) Jag lade dem pá bordet — ja' la'rom [la:rom] pâ borde' Vad har du pâ dej? — va' har'u pâ're(j) (Elert 1970:163) These examples occur only in their conditioning environment and do not represent the development of new separate pronoun forms as such. However, quite a number of examples occur in the Germanic languages which represent generalization of sandhi forms also outside their original conditioning environment, resulting in new forms of a pronoun. 15 Nübling (1992:254) in a study of clitics in German, including Alemannic dialects, notes that in speech SVO order is by no means the norm: in most instances a sentence-initial adverbial results in inversion, i.e. positioning of the (nominal or pronominal) subject after the finite verb. Similarly frequently the personal pronoun follows a subordinating conjunction. Niibling's (1992: 254-257) statistics for a sample of modern Berndeutsch record 65-5% of nominative personal pronouns postverbally or after a subordinating conjunction. 16 Nübling (1992:257) concludes that this sample

15 That this development to separate pronouns may be a gradual process is illustrated perhaps by the pronoun forms with intrusive / n / in Swiss German (see 11.7.4). Note also that although occurrence outside the original conditioning environment does of course mean some generalization in use, a sandhi form can be extended from its original conditioning environment without necessarily becoming an accented form, cf. for example West Frisian 2nd p. sing. subj. Τ enclitic -sto, -ste etc. (see 7.2.1). 16 Included in this figure is the indefinite pronoun man. Niibling's corpus is the Berndeutsch novel 'Ter Fögi ische souhung' by Martin Frank (1979). Nübling points out that although the novel is written in a highly spoken style, it is not spontaneously spoken dialect; for this reason Nübling assumes that SVO order will be somewhat more frequent in the corpus than in speech.

90

Change in the personal pronouns

supports the assumption that the form of the orthotone pronoun is influenced by the clitic form, in particular by the enclitic form. Nübling's statistics may also further suggest a comparable distribution in other Germanic verb-second languages, and the relatively widespread occurrence of new personal pronoun subj. forms from sandhi in the Germanic languages — see below — may support this. Niibling (1992: 254) states that such developments presuppose a clearly higher frequency of the clitic than the full form — as has already been pointed out, in the personal pronouns generally in connected speech the unaccented form is usual. Other contributing factors may also be possible, however, such as a CV(C) correspondence with other pronouns in reanalysis of a consonantal verb ending as part of the pronoun in (some) German and Scandinavian vowel-initial 2nd p. plural and dual forms (e.g. Swedish η + i possibly to some extent influenced by analogy with CV- 1st and 3rd person plural nom. vi and de/di etc.), see [3a] and [3b] below and also 2.4 [3] above. Also in initial TO- and initial dental forms in the 1st and 2nd p. (dual and) plural analogy with the 1st and 2nd person singular has been suggested (see German 11.7.3 and 2.4 [lb]). And Ahlgren (1978) for Swedish ni suggests obsolescence of the verb ending as a factor in reanalysis (see 14.3.1). Sandhi: types of development in the personal pronouns [1] Assimilation [2] Linking/Intrusion [3] Reanalysis [1] Assimilation Assimilation of verb ending (or conjunction) and enclitic pronoun [la] 1st p. plural and dual nom. τη- forms Examples:

— Some German mir etc., also Yiddish mir — see 11.7.3 & 12.1.4 Some Dutch me etc. — see 8.3.5 Old Norwegian mit, mér, (Nynorsk me) — see 16.1.1 [2] Linking/Intrusion Examples:

— Possibly western German 3rd p. sing. masc. hien, en etc. — see 11.6.4 Swiss German 1st p. plural nis, 2nd p. plural nech etc. — see 11.7.4 [3] Reanalysis Verb ending (or conjunction) is reanalysed as part of the pronoun [3a] 2nd p. plural and dual dental forms

Phonological change in the personal pronouns

91

Examples:

— Some German dii see 11.7.3 Some German des, dëds — see 11.7.3 Old Norwegian pit, pér, (Nynorsk de) — see 16.1.1 Old Icelandic pit, piò, pér, (Modle pió, pér) — see 18.1.1 Faroese tit, (taer) — see 17.3.1 Possibly Norwegian and Faroese 2nd person dual/plural oblique dental forms Norwegian dykk-dykkar, pydr-pyddher, Faroese tykkum-tykkara, tygum-tygara — see 16.1.2 & 17.3.1 [3b] 2nd p. plural/sing. V subj. — Swedish ni — see 14.3.1 [3c] 2nd p. sing, -stu etc. forms Examples:

— Middle Dutch and some Modern Dutch dialect 2nd p. sing. subj. enclitic -stu etc. — see 8.1.2 West Frisian 2nd p. sing. subj. enclitic -sto, -ste etc. — see 7.2.1

2.5.3 Phonological merger Phonological merger is a common feature of change in the personal pronouns. Personal pronouns frequently occur unaccented, and merger may be full or partial — i.e. all distinction between two or more pronouns may be levelled, or levelling may be only in unaccented forms, with distinction maintained in accented forms. Levelling may also occur only in some phonological environments. Levelling in unaccented forms may result in functional merger of the corresponding full forms of the pronouns even where the full forms remain formally distinct given also loss or obsolescence of the category/property distinction outside the personal pronouns or distinction by other means as discussed in Change Types [A] and [B] above. For example in English 2nd person subj. ye-obj. you where (also influenced by the contrasting pattern of thou-thee) the obj. form you was generalized (though note that the Dutch cognate accented forms subj. jij-obj. jou, unaccented subj./obj. je, remain distinct). Similarly levelling of gender distinction in the 3rd person plural nom. and acc. pronouns can show phonological merger of unaccented forms and loss of parallel noun phrase inflection, see for example High German 11.2.8. A further example is 1st and 2nd person singular accusative-dative levelling in many of the Germanic languages where loss or merger of final consonant(s) was a factor in levelling — see further 3.1.1.

92

Change in the personal pronouns

Merger of forms and Change Types [A]/[B] and [0]/[D] can be illustrated by a number of the Germanic languages with merger in nominative (sometimes also oblique) CV(C) personal pronoun forms — German sie-sie, Dutch zij-zij, English hV- forms, Frisian jV- forms, and some Scandinavian initial dental forms — where vocalic (and sometimes also consonantal) differences were reduced or lost, particularly in unaccented forms, resulting in homonymy, but only in some in ambiguity and subsequent change. (For full discussion of these developments see the individual language chapters.) In several of the Germanic languages these homophonous pronouns may be differentiated by verb distinction, for example: German

sie macht sie machen

sie machte sie machten

Dutch

zij helpt zij helpe(n)

zij hielp zij hielpe(n)

though preterite of 'weak' and 'mixed' verbs in speech:

zij woonde zij woonde(n)

West Frisian

hja/sy miende hja/sy mienden

hja/sy mient hja/sy miene

These contrast with for example: Swedish

det (nt. sing.) är dom är

det var dom var

Afrikaans

sy is hulle is

sy was hulle was

and to some extent English

she loves they love

she loved they loved

she sang they sang

where a distinction is made pronominally. German and Standard Dutch show no subsequent therapeutic change or restoration of the pronominal distinction because, as accounted for by [B], the morphological distinctions levelled in the personal pronouns (here 3rd p. sing. fem.-3rd p. plural) are distinguished adequately by other means (i.e. here through verbal sing.-plural distinction). This contrasts with the other Germanic languages here where subsequent restoration of pronominal distinction is accounted for by Change Type [CJ: here a number of developments are found which may be explained as a result of homonymie clash or ambiguity of the merged forms not disambiguated adequately by other means.

Socially-motivated change in the personal pronouns

93

In English, she and the Borrowing of they (them, their) replaced the homonymie hV- forms in the feminine singular and 3rd person plural respectively. Many Middle English dialects show loss or reduction of number distinction in verb morphology. — For further discussion see English 6.5. In West Frisian ambiguity or partial ambiguity between the 2nd person and the 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural which could become je is a factor in the (likely) borrowing of the Dutch 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural pronoun (ModWFris sy) and the development of the 2nd person oblique form jo as a subj. form, replacing the earlier 2nd person nom. pronoun. Unlike the 3rd p. sing, and 3rd p. plural where (number) ambiguity is distinguished through verb morphology (ModWFris e.g. hja mienthja miene 'she thinks'-'they think'), the 2nd person etymologically plural pronoun is conjugated with the plural verb form, e.g. jo binne-hja binne ('you are'-'they are'). — See further Frisian 7.2.2 and 7.2.3. In nonstandard/dialectal Dutch a number of developments are also found which distinguish the plural pronoun from the singular: Addition of a lexical element 'liede' (also in other plural pronouns) zullie, zulder, Afrikaans earlier also sulle, and oblique pronouns as subj. forms, hun, hullie, hulder, cf. also Afrikaans hulle. — See further the discussion in 8.1.9, 8.2.2 and 9.1.5. Continental Scandinavian similarly shows Case form change of oblique pronouns as subj. forms (3rd p. plural dom, dem etc., 2nd person dere, d0kk etc.), and/or Generalization of a distinct variant (3rd p. plural di, also dom) as a result of phonological merger between the 3rd person singular neuter and 3rd person plural, and in Norwegian also the initial dental 2nd person dual and plural nom. forms. Note also that verbal person/number distinction has been lost generally in Continental Scandinavian. — See further 16.2.2 and 16.3.2.

2.6 Socially-motivated change in the personal pronouns It is perhaps not surprising that pragmatic factors are important in change in the personal pronouns. Because of their use in address, the 2nd person pronouns have been termed the most personal pronoun, and the importance of social factors in the changes outlined below is demonstrated by the fact that many involve forms of address. However, T / V is just one aspect of pragmatic variation in pronominal usage. Such variation is not central to this study — see the Introduction — here only change is discussed in greater detail.

94

Change in the personal pronouns

Socially-motivated change: possible types of development in the personal pronouns [1] Loss of form(s) [2] 2nd p. plural form singular (only) [3] New plural form [3a] New plural form from dual [4] Title as personal pronoun [1] Loss of form(s) Examples: — English thou (thee-thine, thy) — see 6.6.2 Dutch du (di-dijns) — see 8.4.1 The loss of the English and Dutch original 2nd person singular pronouns (from most domains) represents the extreme of changes in domain discussed at the beginning of this chapter. This loss of the Τ forms compares with changes in domain of Τ and V forms also witnessed in other languages, but which have not resulted in loss — for example the widespread generalization of the Τ form of address in Scandinavia, and for example in Swedish to some extent a recent reversed tendency particularly in younger speakers to the V form ni (see Mârtensson 1986), or the widening of the Τ domain in German since the late 1960s, and to some extent a subsequent reversal in favour of the V form (see Clyne 1984: 126-128). [2] 2nd p. plural form —» singular (only) Examples: — Standard Dutch jij (jou-jouw) — see 8.4 West Frisian jo (jowes) — see 7.2.3 & 7.5.2 [3] New plural form Examples: . — Dutch jullie — see 8.1.9 h 8.4 Frisian jimme, jam, jam — see 7.5.2 English regional y'all — see 6.6.2 English regional yous(e) — see 6.6.2 [3a] New plural form from dual Examples: — Icelandic 2nd p. plural piÔ-ykkur-ykkar, 1st p. plural viâ-okkur-okkar Faroese 2nd p. plural tit-tykkum-tykkara, 1st p. plural vit-okkum-okkara Some Norwegian 2nd p. plural d0kk etc., 1st p. plural oblique okko(n), àkkân etc.

Functional reinterpretation

95

Some High German 2nd p. plural es-enk/eng etc. Some Low German 2nd p. plural (g)it-ink etc. See further chapter 3 [4] Title as personal pronoun — Possibly Dutch 2nd person V it — see 8.4.4

2.7 Functional reinterpretation A major feature of change in the personal pronouns is functional reinterpretation of personal pronoun forms to a new use.17 Functional reinterpretation in the pronouns can be grouped under a number of different types. Note also that functional reinterpretation does not necessarily involve loss of the original meaning. As the examples show, some examples are reinterpretation according to more than one category/ property, e.g. person and number in the case of German 3rd person plural Sie {-Ihnen etc.) as 2nd person sing ./plural V. Functional reinterpretation: types of development in the personal pronouns [1] According to number [2] According to case [3] According to gender [4] According to person [5] According to accent [6] According to T/V [7] According to position [1] According to number [la] Dual forms as plural Many of the Germanic languages show to some extent functional reinterpretation of dual pronouns as plural forms

17 Cf. on this term Bynon (1977: 101-104). Here are included only 'permanent' reinterpretations, i.e. those where the personal pronoun becomes conventionalized in its new use, and not examples such as 'How are we today?' etc. which represent variation on the core or formal meaning (see the Introduction). This distinction is not always clear-cut, however — contrast in English for example the common colloquial use of us as singular in requests, such as Do us a favour, Lend us a tenner, and the more general use of us as singular in the northeast of England.

96

Change in the personal pronouns

Examples: — Icelandic 1st p. plural vid-okkur-okkar, 2nd p. plural piâ-ykkut—ykkar Faroese 1st p. plural vit-okkum-okkara, 2nd p. plural tit-tykkum-tykkara Some Norwegian 1st p. plural oblique okko(n), âkkân etc., 2nd p. plural d0kk etc. Comparatively rarely Swedish 1st p. plural wiâ, 2nd p. plural iâ-ikkikkä etc. Some Low German 2nd p. plural (g)it-ink etc. Some High German 2nd p. plural es-enk/eng etc. Some Yiddish 2nd p. plural ets-enk-enker See further chapter 3 [lb] Plural forms as singular Examples: — Plural forms as sing. V (= reinterpretation according to T/V) — see [6] below — English they-them-theirs, their as sex-indefinite 3rd p. singular (attested in English since the fourteenth century — see OED 'their') (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 342) Nobody should go rock climbing unless they can stand heights Can you see that person in the distance? No, I can't see them Not every drug addict can solve their problem so easily [2] According to case Reinterpretation of case forms in levelling. Compare the following types of change: Examples: — Nom./acc. form —» nom./acc./dat., e.g. English 3rd p. sing, neuter it Acc. form -» acc./dat., e.g. Continental Scandinavian 1st & 2nd p. sing. mig/meg, dig/deg Dat. form·—» acc./dat., e.g. English 3rd p. sing. masc. htm Dat. form -» acc./dat. -» nom./acc./dat., e.g. Swedish 3rd p. plural dom Obj. form —» subj./obj., e.g. English 2nd person you Further examples (also including genitive forms or genitive-influenced forms as obj., also as subj.) are discussed in the individual language chapters [3] According to gender Grammatical gender 3rd person forms according to natural gender Examples: — English he, she, it (him, her etc.) To varying extents also in other Germanic languages

Functional reinterpretation

97

[4] According to person 3rd person forms as 2nd person (= reinterpretation according to T/V) — see [6] below Examples: — German earlier (C17-) 3rd person singular Er, sie as 2nd person forms of address German 3rd person plural Sie etc. as 2nd person V [5] According to accent The original (case) function of the pronouns is lost or obsolescent, and the pronoun forms are reinterpreted according to accent Examples: — Much accusative-dative levelling is functional reinterpretation according to accent — see further chapter 3 — English dialectal stress-governed subj.-obj. usage — see 6.6.3 — Much of the case levelling in the Norwegian 3rd p. sing. masc. and 3rd p. sing. fem. pronouns can be explained as functional reinterpretation of forms according to accent — see Papazian (1978) [6] According to T / V Numerous examples in the Germanic languages. The pronouns may also retain their original use. Compare the following types of change [6a] 2nd p. sing, as 2nd p. sing. Τ From solely singular to connotations of inferior (versus superior), familiarity etc. Examples: — English thou (thee etc.) — see 6.6.2 German du (dich etc.) [6b] 2nd p. plural as 2nd p. sing. V (= number reinterpretation of plural as singular) Examples: — English ye/you (etc.) — see 6.6.2 Swedish ni (er etc.) — see 14.3.1 Earlier German Ihr, Swiss German Berndeutsch dir, Luxemburgish dir [6c] 3rd person sing, as 2nd person V (= person reinterpretation of 3rd person as 2nd person) Examples: — Earlier (C17-) German Er, sie — see e.g. Ljungerud (1979)

98

Change in the personal pronouns

[6d] 3rd person plural as 2nd person V (= person and, as singular, also number reinterpretation of 3rd person as 2nd person, plural as singular) Examples: — German Sie (Ihnen etc.) — see e.g. Ljungerud (1979) Danish De (Dem. etc.) — see 2.3.1 Norwegian Bokmâl De (Dem etc.) — see 2.3.1 The honorific or V-ness of such usage can be explained by indirectness — such pronominal honorific or V usage thus parallels politeness patterns found elsewhere in language (e.g. Get out! - Would you mind leaving? Is that the time? etc.) — and in the pronouns results from variation on the core or formal meaning of the pronoun. The use of the 2nd p. plural as 2nd p. singular has the effect of referring less specifically to the addressee — note the group reference of the 2nd person plural discussed in the Introduction and illustrated in figure 0.1.3. Using the 3rd p. sing, for 2nd p. sing, reference is more indirect than using the 2nd p. plural as the 3rd person formally excludes reference to the addressee — compare again figure 0.1.3 — this usage, then, formally does not refer at all to the addressee. Using the 3rd p. plural as 2nd p. sing, is more indirect still: not only as with the 3rd p. sing, is there no formal reference to the addressee, but reference is further reduced by the use of the plural to one person.18 Τ and V forms differ from more ad hoc pragmatic variants in that they are codified as polite pronouns and their synchronic usage is then less explained by the formal change in person and/or number, but rather as specific Τ and V pronouns. Indeed, V usage in many cases derives from foreign (e.g. French) influence, and the use of 3rd person pronouns in address from titles (Herr - Er, Frau - sie). Note also the possible devaluation or loss in status of some forms of address, such as German Er. [7] According to position [7a] Objective forms become increasingly excluded from preverbal position, nominative form becomes increasingly obligatory preverbally (in inversion postverbally) Examples:19 — Passive constructions Icelandic: Mér var gefin bókin af Jóni Faroese: Henni var givin bókin

18 For similar patterns in some non-Germanic and non-Indo-European languages see the study by Head (1978). 19 Haugen (1976: 310, 371, 379, 439 with references), Einarsson (1945: 149, 170), Lockwood (1955:103), Bynon (1977:153f.).

Functional «interpretation

99

German: Ihm wurde v o n jemand ein Buch gegeben English: He was given a book by someone Norwegian: Han ble gitt boken a v min bror — Impersonal constructions Icelandic: mér er kalt German: mir ist kalt Swedish Bible: migh törster Present Swedish: jag törstar English Chaucer: me were levere hym oghte [7b] Nominative form becomes increasingly restricted to preverbal position (in inversion postverbal), objective form is increasingly generalized in other positions 2 0 Examples:21 — Present English: 22 It's me She's older than me Me and Mary are going abroad for a holiday It was them that did it Us girls can always take a joke W h y couldn't he take m y car, or me his To varying extents also in other Germanic languages: Nynorsk and Swedish use the subj. form after a copula, e.g. Det er eg Det är jag Danish and Norwegian Bokmâl use the obj. form, e.g.

20 Note that in examples such as Him I really can't stand the nominative form is still (relatively) preverbal. 21 See Quirk et al. (1985: 336-339), Jespersen (1894: 249 & 276), Fries (1940), Spies (1897: 97-100), Trudgill (1984: 43), Haugen (1976: 79, 371), Kristensen (1986: 113f.), Ringgaard (1969: 31), Saltveit (1983: 308). 22 Note that even in relatively formal English comparatively widespread hypercorrection such as from John and I etc. also indicates a disparity between (perceived) prescribed use and the natural use of many speakers, though note also an analysis of ε and I as a polite sequence (Quirk et al. 1985: 338) — compare Ponelis' (1979: 616-618) analysis of Afrikaans coordinate noun phrases such as i Ek en Jan se metode werk die beste', 'Huile het ek en Koos vermy' etc. as [[ek en Jan] se metode], [vermy [ek en Koos]]. Such a syntactic analysis would also for example account for nonstandard English preverbal coordinate noun phrases such as 'Me and Mary are going abroad for a holiday' etc. For Danish Kristensen (1986:113) states that the objective form is used as subj. if the pronoun has obligatory stress, which may also suggest Functional reinterpretation according to accent, see [5] above.

100

Change in the personal pronouns

Det er mig Det er meg Compare the following Danish examples: Du er st0rre end mig Jeg er lige sâ god som ham Rende med de bla, 0jne er svensker Mig og Peter In Low German ick bün dat (Schleswig-Holstein) is usual, but dai is mi also occurs These developments — [7b] is of course a continuation of the development in [7a] — represent a major drift in the Germanic languages,23 carried through most in for example English and least in Icelandic, Faroese and New High German — though without here suggesting that all Germanic languages will undergo the same development. The result of [7a] and [7b] in much of Present English is that the choice of (subjective or objective) pronoun is governed not primarily by its role in the sentence but by position, and, as formal expressions of subject and object case, the subjective and objective forms of the personal pronouns are no longer real integral parts of the system of subject-object distinction.

2.8 Sources of new personal pronoun forms [1] From demonstrative [2] From reflexive [3] Borrowing, loan translation [4] Compounds - blends [5] From a title In some of these categories forms can occur in place of personal pronouns — for example reflexives, cf. English My sister and I/myself went sailing yesterday (example from Quirk et al. 1985: 360). Titles in place of personal pronouns are or have been common in the Germanic languages, for example Swedish Ear professorn last min uppsats?, or (West) Frisian Dominy hat in moaie wein kocht (You bought (pastor bought) a nice car, pastor) (example from Tiersma 1985: 63), or in English Would madam prefer a larger size? etc. Compounds such as in English you two, you pair, you lot. And demonstratives, for example in German Was macht Peter?

23 Compare also some similarities in pronoun usage in French.

Sources of new personal pronoun forms

101

Der/er schläft noch (see Bellmann 1989), or Dutch Is Hans thuis? Nee, hij/ die is niet thuis (cf. ANS 1984:168f., 215, 219-221, De Rooy & Wikén Bonde 1971: 73-75). However, here only 'permanent' new personal pronoun forms are discussed in detail, although, as already noted, a distinction between ad hoc and 'permanent' use is not always clear cut, and the diachronic development of some ad hoc usages to 'permanent' new personal pronoun forms below should also be noted. [1] From demonstrative Many if not all of the Germanic languages show demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use to some extent, and demonstratives as personal pronouns are also found outside the Germanic languages. As 'permanent' forms, the most obvious examples of new personal pronouns from demonstratives are the Scandinavian 3rd p. sing, neuter and 3rd p. plural forms (see chapter 13), and probably at least to some extent Continental Scandinavian den (see 16.3.1). Further examples in the Germanic languages are English regional nonstandard/dialectal that, some Frisian dät, dat, dât etc., and Afrikaans dit (cf. e.g. English regional that's raining, Saterlandic Frisian dit rient, Afrikaans dit reën). The origin of demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use seems often to be as stronger forms, and perhaps it is best to view the demonstrative and personal pronouns as stronger and weaker 3rd person forms respectively. — The closeness of definite article/anaphoric pronoun and demonstrative has already been mentioned in chapter 1 above. — A demonstrative can be said to have stronger reference than a corresponding personal pronoun, and often also a stronger phonetic form. The terms 'stronger' and 'weaker' are used here specifically to distinguish from 'accented' and 'unaccented' with which they can, but must not necessarily be, equivalent.24 [2] From reflexive25 Replacement of masc. and neuter sing, genitive is, es, (cf. retained English his) by sin in Continental West Germanic languages: — Old Frisian sin, -fejs, Modern West Frisian sin-, Modern East Frisian sin-, Modern North Frisian sin etc. Middle Dutch sijns, -(e)s, Modern Dutch zijn-, Afrikaans syne Old Saxon is (es), Middle Low German sîn etc. Old High German sîn, es, New High German sein-

24 Note here the problem of defining 'personal pronoun use' in a cross-linguistic study. This use of personal pronoun and demonstrative forms could be termed an extended paradigm (cf. Bellmann 1990: 210). 25 Whether or not, or to what extent reflexive pronouns are separate from personal pronouns is not discussed here.

102

Change in the personal pronouns

The examples here are abbreviated somewhat as for example es is still found as neuter in Early New High German, as well as in Modern German as a reflex of the old genitive (perceived as nom./acc.) in fixed expressions such as 'ich bin es zufrieden, satt' etc. (cf. Walch & Häckel 1988: 85 & 122f.). And in Dutch according to Van Halteren (1906: §28) -(e)s is still very common in the sixteenth century. Replacement seems often to have been earlier in the masculine than in the neuter.26 [3] Borrowing, loan translation Examples: — English 3rd p. plural they (them-their) from Scandinavian — see 6.4 Probably West Frisian 3rd p. sing, fem./3rd p. plural sy from Dutch — see 7.2.2 Swiss German south Valais 1st p. plural endsch andre, 2nd p. plural ter andre, Südbairisch Zimbrisch 'ihr andere' — loan translations from Italian noi altri, voi altri [4] Compounds — blends Definition of a compound or blend in the personal pronouns overlaps with addition of formatives such as English 2nd person plural yousfe) < you + regular noun plural allomorph [z], or 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative forms such as Old High German unsih and iuuih from uns, iu + -ih. A special type of compound/blend are the examples of sandhi forms discussed in 2.5.2 above. These and similar examples are not included here under sources of new personal pronouns. A development which illustrates well this overlapping is Old Frisian 2nd p. plural jemma(n) which has been explained as either addition of (originally dative plural) inflection, or addition of man, men, though whichever development the result is a new simplex form. A definition which can be used here of a new personal pronoun from compounding/blending is (a) if it is regularly and obligatorily combined and/or (b) if it has merged to become a simplex form. Thus by this definition for example English you + two, you + both, or you + lot would not be regarded as new pronouns as combination is not consistent — i.e. ad hoc addition of an element such as two or lot does not constitute a new personal pronoun form; Southern American English y'all, on the other hand, would be regarded as a new pronoun by virtue of its consistent combination and development to a simplex form.

26 As stated in the Introduction, genitive/possessive and reflexive pronouns are not discussed specifically in this study, however, a few additional references are given here: Mausser (1933: 765 & 769), Franck (1971: §171), Lasch (1914a: 216), Holthausen (1921:115).

Sources of new personal pronoun forms

103

Examples: — English + 'all' you + all > y'all (addition of -all may also be found, though to a lesser extent, in forms such as we-all, we-all's, who-all, whatall) — see 6.6.2 English + 'ones' you + ones > you-uns — see 6.6.2 — Dutch + liede 'people' > Modern Standard Dutch 2nd p. plural jullie, nonstandard/dialectal 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person, subj., obj. and gen./poss. forms, e.g. wullie, gullie, julder, zullie, hullie etc., Afrikaans julle, hulle also earlier sulle — see 8.1.9 These new personal pronoun forms show the addition of lexical elements such as 'people', 'all' and 'ones'. As already discussed, one reason for the addition of a lexical element rather than a pronominal formative is the frequent lack of consistent morphological pattern in the personal pronouns.27 A further reason is semantic, in that personal pronouns frequently refer to people, which may thus also make lexical plurals such as 'people' etc. more likely.28 In English y'all fusion of the two elements 'you' and 'all' shows that this form has gone beyond the stage of a simple ad hoc lexical addition. There also exists a colloquial y'all's [jo:lz] as in Ί really like y'all's new car' ('your family's new car') (Quirk et al. 1985: 344). Fusion of elements to a new personal pronoun form can be illustrated schematically as follows:29 Ju:

o:l

»

jo:l

The Dutch and Afrikaans plural forms jullie, wullie, gullie, hullie, zullie, Afrikaans julle, sulle, haarle, hulle with the addition of 'people' (liede) are semantically comparable to English you -I- guys, though as with English 27 Lack of morphological pattern as a factor in lexical addition can be illustrated by pidgins where much of the original inflection is lost: in Melanesian Pidgin none of the bound forms of English are attested, and the plural pronoun forms mifete and jufeh with addition of -feh are found (cf. mi ('I', 'me') and ju ('you') singular) (data cited in Lehmann 1992: 270f.). 28 Compare here the proposed development of the French negator (ne) . . . pas and parallel forms with semantically-linked verbs discussed by Hopper & Traugott (1993: 114-16): (ne) . . . pas 'step' 'he hasn't gone a step', mie 'crumb' 'he hasn't eaten a crumb', goutte 'drop' 'he hasn't drunk a drop'. 29 Without here entering into discussion of reconstruction, the development of a compound to a new personal pronoun form — attested here in e.g. y'all, jullie etc. — is given as an etymology of the nominative dual personal pronouns *wit, *jit, i.e. 'we' + 'two', 'ye' + t w o ' (see further Seebold 1984: 25f.) — i.e. here we have in the attested Germanic personal pronouns examples of a process put forward for preliterary developments. Parallel forms are also attested outside the Germanic languages, e.g. Spanish 'we' nosotros, -as, 'you (plural)' vosotros, -as.

104

Change in the personal pronouns

;y'all, fusion in the Dutch and Afrikaans pronouns shows that they have become separate forms in their own right. The development of the pronoun plus liede etc. forms in Dutch shows as with English y'all that the added element came to be perceived as part of the pronoun: Duinhoven (1988:24) considers that this was the case already in Middle Dutch — this is also indicated by the pronominal inflection of the genitive as lieder with -r, e.g. uwerlieder, haerre lieder (where liede would be expected for an independent noun — Franck 1910: §174). Modern Dutch jullie, wullie, judder, zullie etc. (and even more so forms such as wijr, gijr, zijr etc. deriving from [wVldar] etc.) show that here too the original combination of pronoun plus noun has gone beyond the stages of simple ad hoc lexical addition. [5] From a title — Possibly Dutch 2nd person V u (on possible non-Germanic parallels see 8.4.4)

Chapter 3: Pan-Germanic 3.1 Accusative-dative 3.1.1 1st and 2nd p. singular accusative-dative The table below illustrates accusative-dative levelling and distinction in the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns in the Germanic languages.1 English me (thee)

Gothic mik-mis J)uk-J)us

(W)Frisian my

dy

Dutch mij (di)

MLG mi, mik di, dik

Swedish mig dig

Danish mig dig

Norwegian meg deg

NHG mich-mir dich-dir

Yiddish mix-mir dix-dir

Icelandic mig-mér t>ig-t>ér

NE Yiddish mir dir

Faroese meg-maer teg-tser

Levelling of the 1st and 2nd person singular accusative-dative distinction to the originally dative pronouns is characteristic of North Sea Germanic and common to the majority of West Germanic dialects that underwent levelling (which, generally speaking, excludes High German and (Standard) Yiddish). Accusative forms are characteristic of Ostfälisch, and are also found to some extent in other German dialects, as well as in small enclaves in Schleswig-Holstein and around Bamberg (see further German 11.6.1). They are also found in southeastern Dutch and a bordering area of Germany (on these forms see 8.1.8). Continental Scandinavian has levelled to the accusative pronouns, at least in the orthotone forms (see further below) (on isolated dialectal distinction see 16.1.6). A contributory factor in accusative-dative levelling in the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns may in many cases have been the loss of final -r in the dative pronoun (also lost in several other pronoun forms).2 In the 1st 1 Here generally the modern standard forms are given as illustration. For further detail see the individual language chapters. 2 For discussion of loss of -r see further Klein (1979: 437-444) with references.

106

Pan-Germanic

and 2nd p. singular pronouns final -r had been the dative case formative (cf. Gothic mis, pus, OHG mir, dir, Ole mér, per). In spite of the fact that the accusative was still formally distinct from the dative by the formative -k (OE -c) (e.g. OE mec, dec, OSax mik, thik), the specific accusative form was lost in the West Germanic dialects mentioned above; Seebold (1984: 32) believes that this was not due to phonological merger, stating, on the basis of a comparison with the 1st p. sing. nom. forms in the affected languages (e.g. OE ic, OFris ik, OSax ik), that -k was not lost when final, though at least for Continental Scandinavian this is not so — final -k could be lost — see further below. Generally speaking, the West Germanic and Continental Scandinavian languages with loss of final - r in pronoun forms and loss of the 1st and 2nd p. sing, accusative-dative distinction contrast with those Germanic languages which retain final - r in the pronoun forms and maintain the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns. English me (thee) he we (ye) (they)

(W)Fris my dy hy, er wy (y,jy)

Gothic mis J)US is weis jus

Dutch mij (di) hij wij jij

NHG mir dir er wir ihr

MLG mi thi he wi gi

Swedish

Danish

Norwegian

vi ni (de)

vi I de

vi/me 3 de de/dei

Icelandic mér J)ér -

ver J)ér {jeir Jsaer

Faroese masr taer -

(vaer) (taer) teir taer

Seebold (1984: 35) states that it can hardly be a coincidence that the area in which the North Sea Germanic short general objective pronoun occurs coincides 'ziemlich genau' with the area where -r was lost. The same seems to be true of the Continental Scandinavian languages which also show loss of final - r and levelling of the 1st and 2nd person singular accusativedative distinction. The significance of - r loss as a factor in levelling of the

3 The Norwegian 1st and 2nd p. plural subj. pronouns may derive from originally dual (with final -t, -â) and/or originally plural forms.

Accusative-dative

107

1st and 2nd p. singular accusative-dative distinction in these languages may further be suggested by the fact that in a number of them levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. singular pronouns was earlier than in the 3rd person pronouns. In addition, phonological factors have also been cited for the levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person singular in much of the north of Eastern Yiddish, where in 'a significant area' (Wolf 1969:144) final / x / and / r / and the contrast between (e.g.) mix and mir could merge in many phonological contexts (see 12.1.2). However, the importance of noun phrase distinction as discussed in chapter 2 in levelling in the pronouns should also be stressed, and may to some extent be illustrated by German Oberdeutsch dialects which also show loss of final consonant (the accusative -ch — see further 11.6.1) but no subsequent functional merger and loss of distinction in these forms because of a greater maintenance of accusative-dative distinction in noun phrases in these dialects. Faroese similarly shows loss of the final consonant in the accusative forms meg, teg [me:, me, te:, te] (dat. mœr, tœr [mear, mar, tear, tar]) but no subsequent levelling of the distinction. Heltveit (1952: 380-382) believes that the reason in English the accusative forms were lost and the former datives became general objective pronouns was that the accusative formative -c weis not an integral part of the (Old English) pronominal inflection system, and, after the loss of the -r in the dative, the pronunciation of the accusative meant the pronunciation of the 'new' dative plus the accusative suffix (i.e. dative + c, e.g. OE Mercian 1st p. sing. dat. me, acc. mec, 2nd p. sing. dat. âe, acc. dec), that is the accusative with -c had become the marked form. This explanation would appear to be supported by the development cited by Heltveit in the High German 1st p. plural where the former dative uns became the general objective form while the acc. unsih was lost (uns + accusative formative -ih)\ but conversely it is contradicted by the 2nd p. plural NHG euch from the former accusative OHG iuuih, where the dative OHG iu was lost (which Heltveit 1952: 383 believes was too 'weak'). However, -c/-k was or had indeed been at least at some stage part of the pronominal inflection system — compare Old English 1st and 2nd p. plural Mercian ûsic, ëowic, Northumbrian üsih, ìuih and the Low German 1st and 2nd p. plural forms ûsik, unsik, jük, jüch (see further English 6.1.1, German 11.4.3, and also 3.1.2 below) — where the accusative pronoun formative -c/-k etc. had been extended by analogy to the 1st and 2nd p. plural. Analogical extension, as already discussed in chapters 1 and 2, indicates that a formative is part of an inflectional system. Seebold (1984: 35f.) proposes a different solution. He suggests that there already existed in Indo-European and Germanic general 1st and 2nd person objective pronouns IE *me and *te which were probably used only

108

Pan-Germanic

or mostly enclitically. These pronouns were then specified by suffixes as either accusative (IE *me-ge, Gmc *mik) or dative (IE *me-s, Gmc *mis) where necessary, while still also retaining the unspecific forms. He believes that when the specific dative was lost due to loss of -r, the specific accusative was also given up, leaving just the original undifferentiated forms (Gmc *me and *pe). Seebold, however, himself admits that this hypothesis is 'nicht unproblematisch', particularly, he points out, as the differentiation of accusative and dative in the Indo-European languages is an old and well-attested feature, also in enclitic forms. He sees, however, a 'sicher älteren' stage in Hittite where accusative and dative were not differentiated in the personal pronouns, in enclitic or orthotone forms, and it is from this (rather remote) stage that he derives his explanation. Jespersen (1894:183), following Kock (see 1900: 273), believes that levelling was to the dative in the English person-indicating pronouns (i.e. excluding it, that and what) because 'these pronouns are used as indirect objects more often than either nouns or adjectives'. None of these explanations, however, accounts for the fact that in other Germanic languages or dialects the accusative forms were generalized as 1st and 2nd p. sing, objective pronouns (on the survival of dative forms as unaccented pronouns see further below). Heltveit (1952: 380-383) compares the retention of the dative forms in English with the retention of the accusative in the Continental Scandinavian languages, and believes that both were due to their 'structural superiority' over the other forms; but this 'structural superiority' surely cannot explain the differences in levelling in dialects as close as Ost- and Westfälisch for example, nor is Heltveit's explanation for the accusative forms in Continental Scandinavian convincing. As already stated, accusative forms are characteristic of Ostfälisch and occur to some extent in other German and southeastern Dutch dialects. And further, as noted, accusative forms occur in the Continental Scandinavian languages. Continental Scandinavian developments are discussed below. In Swedish the accusative reflexive pronoun sik is found in dative use as early as Runsvenskan (c. 825-1225) (Noreen 1904: §501), and over the Aldre Fornsvenska period (1225-1375) the dative singular personal pronoun forms mi (r), J>â (r) (and the reflexive sœ(rj) become less and less common and are replaced by the accusatives (Wessén 1968: §142) (see also below). In Danish the accusatives mie and thic (mik, thik) have almost completely replaced the dative forms already in the oldest manuscripts (second half of the thirteenth century) (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 13 & 22). The datives, found sporadically as me and the, merged phonologically with the accusatives with loss of the final consonant, so that Modern Danish unaccented 2nd p. sing. obj. de for example can derive from dat. thë (< thœfr)) or from acc. the (< theek < thik) (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 22 & 65).

Accusative-dative

109

For Norwegian, Seip/Saltveit (1971: 219 & 351) state that in the fourteenth century the accusatives mik, pik occasionally occurred as datives, cis the accusative and dative could merge phonologically with loss of the final consonants. In the Middle Norwegian period (c. 137.0-1530) the accusatives became the general objective pronouns in the 1st and 2nd person singular (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 397). Teleman (1975: 700f.) explains the developments in the Continental Scandinavian 1st and 2nd person singular as an avoidance of homophony. He states that personal pronouns are 'phonologically light' and some of the pronouns in the Scandinavian languages 'are dangerously like other form words with high frequency'. According to Teleman (using Old Swedish examples) the 1st p. sing, dative form mœr would, after the loss of -r, have been homonymous with mœp ('with') which also had an 'unstable' final consonant. In the 2nd p. singular Teleman (1975: 701) states that the dative peer would have been homonymous with peer (ModSw dar), or, after the loss of final -r, with the 3rd p. sing, neuter pronoun pœ(p), 'obviously with very inconvenient consequences'. A criticism of this explanation, however, is that it is perhaps too specific for a change which occurred in the 1st and 2nd person singular and the 3rd person reflexive (sik-sœr), as well as further in (only) some dialects outside Continental Scandinavian. Furthermore, as already discussed in chapters 1 and 2, it is important to distinguish between homonymy and ambiguity. These examples, although homophonic, are unlikely to be syntactically or semantically ambiguous — i.e. '(to) me' is unlikely to be syntactically or semantically confused with 'with'; nor is '(to) thee' likely to be confused syntactically or semantically with either 'there' or 'that'. To give a comparison from English — although they're, their and there may be confused in spelling by some writers, syntactically and semantically they are of course distinct. Hansen (1956:191f.) explains the winning out of the accusatives over the datives in the Danish 1st and 2nd p. singular pronouns (plus the reflexive sik) as due to a higher frequency of the accusatives through a greater use as reflexive pronouns. Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 64), however, points out that in West Germanic languages which had similar reflexive use, the datives generally became the 1st and 2nd person singular general objective pronouns. And, in addition, at least from the evidence of West Scandinavian concordances and the Old Swedish older West Gotaland Law (thirteenth century),4 it seems that the dative, and not the accusative, was more frequent in the 1st and 2nd p. singular. Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 65) concludes from the data that according to frequency it would have been

4 Larsson (1891), Holtsmark (1955) and Pipping (1913) — quoted from Br0ndumNielsen (1965: 64).

110

Pan-Germanic

expected that the dative would win out in the 1st and 2nd p. singular and the 3rd person reflexive pronoun. 5 Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 65f.) suggests instead that the most likely explanation lies in the development of the accented and unaccented forms of the accusative and dative pronouns. He rightly points out that the full forms are generally more common in writing than the unaccented forms and are supported by literary tradition — compare here 0.1.2 — whereas the unaccented forms are generally more common in speech. The accented forms of the 1st and 2nd p. singular objective pronouns were, using Danish examples (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 65), acc. mik, thik, dat. mœ, thœ (më, the), and the unaccented forms acc. me, the (also mœ, thœ), dat. mœ, thœ (also më, the). The unaccented forms show phonological merger, or a clear possibility of merger, between the two cases; Br0ndum-Nielsen believes that where there were identical or almost identical unaccented forms for accusative and dative, of which the accusatives had the accented forms mik and thik, it was obviously possible that the datives mœ and thœ could be perceived as reduced forms (corresponding to the unaccented accusatives). Therefore, those dative forms which were perceived as unaccented forms could be replaced by mik and thik when accented. On present-day weak forms me, de, (se) (ma, da, sa) in Danish dialects which can derive from both accusative and dative, similarly in Norwegian and Swedish, see Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 65f.) with references. According to Br0ndum-Nielsen this development was supported by analogy with the 1st p. sing. nom. œk/iak, and may also have been connected with (O/MDa) ok (ModDa og — 'and') and its rarely-written unaccented variant o. An advantage of this explanation is that it can also account for the levelling to the accusative of the cognate and formally parallel 3rd person reflexive pronoun sik (sœ, se). Furthermore, levelling in the 1st and 2nd person singular accusative and dative pronouns in the Continental Scandinavian languages may represent, then, not a simple loss of the dative forms, but a Functional reinterpretation of the forms according to accent — a development also found in case syncretism in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages, as well as, to some extent, in levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the 3rd person pronouns in the Continental Scandinavian languages — cf. further chapter 2 above and 3.1.3 below. Thus some Germanic dialects have levelled the 1st and 2nd p. sing. obj. pronouns to the dative, while others generalized the accusative pronouns, though also with some survival of the datives as unaccented forms. A satisfactory explanation — as Br0ndum-Nielsen's for Continental Scandinavian — should account for both these directions of levelling — either 5 Note here again the criticism of Jespersen above.

Accusât i ve- dative

111

in the same variety as + and - accent forms, and/or, if similar conditions, dialectally such as in Ost- and Westfälisch, rather than the single direction explanations discussed earlier above. In view of the occurrence of both directions of levelling perhaps the best conclusion to be made is that generalization was possible either way and that no theory is at present able to account fully satisfactorily for both these directions, at least not Pan-Germanically. Particularly with the absence of early records of accusative forms in a number of the West Germanic dialects, evidence for whether functional reinterpretation according to accent was also possible in any of the West Germanic 1st and 2nd p. sing, pronouns is lacking. 3.1.2 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural accusative-dative It is probable that at an earlier stage in Germanic in the 1st and 2nd person separate accusative and dative pronouns existed only in the singular, while in the dual and plural one form was used for both cases. This would agree with the fact that although cognate forms for separate accusative and dative pronouns are attested in many Germanic languages in the 1st and 2nd p. singular, in the dual and plural traces of earlier differentiation are relatively few, and among those languages where some kind of differentiation is found distinction is not uniform: Gothic and West Scandinavian for example may show distinction or traces of distinction in the dative, while some Old English, Old High German and probably Low German show differentiation in the accusative. All this points to earlier 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural obj. pronouns which were later distinguished secondarily in some of the Germanic languages. — On innovatory acc.-dat. distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. plural (and less so dual) see further Gothic 4.1.1 on possible dative distinction, 16.1.6 on a possible trace of earlier distinction in the 1st person plural in West Scandinavian, and German 11.2.3 on possible 1st p. plural dative unsis, unses attested once each in Middle High German. Faroese, with a different formative deriving from noun phrase inflection, shows some earlier differentiation of the dative in the (etymologically) dual and plural pronouns, see Faroese 17.2.1 and also 16.1.5 and 16.1.6. On innovatory distinction of the 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative in some Old English, also to some extent (with a different formative) in the dual, see 6.1.1. On High German see 11.1.3, 11.2.4, 11.2.7 & 11.6.2, and on Low German forms see 11.4.3, 11.5.3 h 11.6.2, and further see also 8.1.8. Although innovatory accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. plural (and less so dual) is attested in a number of the Germanic languages, in the Germanic languages as a whole accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. plural (and dual) pronouns is by no means general, even in those languages or stages which otherwise generally differentiate accusative and dative — compare for example Rune Swedish/early Old Swedish,

112

Pan-Germanic

Old Gutnish, Old Norwegian, Icelandic, Present Faroese and also, to a large degree, Gothic. Virtually all the languages or dialects with innovatory distinction listed above show subsequent levelling (some of course show a general loss of accusative-dative distinction). The question why accusative-dative distinction is frequently absent in the 1st and 2nd person plural (and dual) pronouns even where accusativedative remain otherwise distinct in noun phrase inflection and other personal pronouns appears to have no simple explanation. The occurrence of innovatory distinction referred to above does testify however that there are no absolute factors explaining the absence of accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person dual and plural pronouns, though again, as noted, innovatory distinction was nearly always followed by levelling, even in those languages where accusative-dative remain distinct in noun phrase inflection. Perhaps it could be suggested that lack of accusativedative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person plural and dual pronouns in contrast to the 1st and 2nd p. singular has a deeper explanation — for example a lesser distinction of plural and dual forms — though this does not hold for the 3rd person plural, nor does it hold for the German 2nd person (singular and plural) V pronouns Sie-Ihnen, and in subjectiveobjective distinction in later stages of the Germanic languages although the 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns do show more levelling than the 1st and 2nd person singular, distinct 1st and 2nd person plural subj.-obj. forms remain relatively widespread and do not show the same extent of nondistinction found in the 1st and 2nd person dual and plural accusativedative pronouns in earlier (and some modern) stages of the Germanic languages. 3.1.3 3rd person singular and plural accusative-dative Few studies on accusative-dative syncretism in the 3rd person pronouns consider all the Germanic languages in spite of significant parallels in levelling (though the West Germanic and Scandinavian 3rd person pronouns do differ considerably in form), and many authors base their explanations on the standard and/or written forms only. 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd person sing. masc. accusative-dative levelling has taken place in the majority of the Germanic languages, excluding generally-speaking only Icelandic, Faroese and Standard New High German (levelling is also widespread dialectally in much of German, including Mittel- and Oberdeutsch areas). Most of the standard languages have as objective pronoun the originally dative form, e.g. English him, West Frisian him, Dutch hem, Swedish honom, Danish ham, (Norwegian han and ham/honom), but — frequently overlooked by other authors in discussion of case levelling —

Accusative- dative

113

retention of the originally accusative form as a -accented pronoun is widespread, see further English 6.2.7, Frisian 7.6.1, Dutch 8.1.8 & 8.2.1, German 11.6.3, Yiddish 12.1.2, Swedish 14.1.2, Danish 15.1.2 and Norwegian 16.1.6. In some cases it is possible that a masc. sing, form with [n] could be an old accusative pronoun, or a weakened form of the dative with a change [m] > [n], in such case then not representing a reflex of the old accusative, but rather a form of the originally dative pronoun. The feminine singular and plural unaccented obj. forms in West Germanic with s, ζ cannot, however, represent weakened dative forms, which may support the assumption that the masc. sing, η form does in many instances derive from the accusative. On originally accusative +accented forms — generally-speaking the exception — see further German 11.6.3, Dutch 8.1.8, Yiddish 12.1.2, and Swedish 14.1.2, Danish 15.1.2 and Norwegian 16.1.6. 3rd person sing. fem. In both West Germanic and Continental Scandinavian, languages and dialects which show levelling in the 3rd p. sing. fem. most usually generalized the original dative, at least as a +accented form, but originally accusative forms frequently occur as -accented pronouns. As in the masculine singular, the standard languages generally have the originally dative as objective pronoun, e.g. English her, West Frisian har, Dutch haar, Swedish henne, Danish hende, Norwegian Bokmâl henne, cf. also East Frisian (Saterlandic) hier, North Frisian har etc., Northeastern Yiddish ir, but originally accusative -accented forms also occur in some as standard and in nonstandard and dialect, e.g. West Frisian se, East Frisian (Saterlandic) ze, North Frisian (e)s, Dutch ze, Swedish -na, Norwegian a. See further Dutch 8.1.8, Frisian 7.6.1, German 11.6.3, Yiddish 12.1.2, Swedish 14.1.2, Danish 15.1.2, and Norwegian 16.1.6. 3rd p. sing, neuter Levelling in the 3rd p. sing, neuter was in the majority of languages or dialects showing syncretism to the nom./acc. form. This is true for both West Germanic and Continental Scandinavian languages and dialects showing levelling, for example English it, (Standard) West Frisian it, Dutch het, Swedish det, Danish det, Norwegian )it-yk(k)r-ykkar) and the frequency of patterning in many of the 1st and 2nd person pronouns (singular, dual and plural) in the Germanic languages, while explanation of the retention of 2nd person dual pronouns as clearer forms than the corresponding plurals does not account for replacement in some of the languages or dialects of the possibly less ambiguous 1st person plural forms — though of course a recourse to analogy can be made in either explanation. T o conclude the discussion of the dual, although we have two differing explanations for the retention of dual forms, their common denominator is that the (2nd p.) dual forms were used to make a distinction which the plural forms could no longer adequately make, and it is here that the key to their retention may in many cases be found, i.e. as unambiguous plural forms — either because of the marked honorific usage of the original plural(s), or because of phonological reduction — both are cases of ambiguity. As has already been noted, this Functional reinterpretation of dual forms as plurals should also be viewed in the context of the 'precarious' position of the dual number in the recorded stages of most of the Germanic languages — in all except Gothic and Sylt North Frisian a distinction made only in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns (see also Seppänen 1985 on the marginal status of the dual also in Gothic) — and can be compared with examples of Case form change also in Change Type [C] where oblique pronouns are used as subj. forms to create a clear person/number distinction within the context of decreased importance of morphological subj.obj. (or nom.-acc.-dat.) case distinction. Such developments illustrate grammatical therapeutic change in the personal pronouns in the remaking of category/property distinctions still valid, and, as discussed Change Type [ C ] in chapter 2, have many parallels in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages as a whole.

Chapter 4: Gothic 'Crimean Gothic' forms, recorded in the sixteenth century, have also been added to the paradigm below in brackets (from Seebold 1984), though Braune/Ebbinghaus (1981) advise extreme caution in the judgement of Crimean Gothic. 4.1.1 1st p. plural acc. and dat. uns, unsis The 1st person plural, unlike the 2nd p. plural and the 1st and 2nd p. dual, has two obj. forms uns and unsis, both of which occur as accusative and dative, but which show to some extent a difference in distribution in Gothic records according to case (on various other possible factors see further Dickhoff 1913). Of the certain examples in the Gospels and Epistles, the Old Testament records, and in the Skeireins,1 uns is recorded 121 times, and unsis 66 times; looking at the forms by case, the distributions are as follows (from Dickhoff 1913):2 as dative

unsis uns

50x 44x

as accusative

unsis uns

16x 77x

As dative, then, taking the total number of certain forms in the above texts, there is only a relatively small difference (c. 53%:47%) between unsis and uns; as accusative, however, uns is significantly more common, and unsis considerably less common (c. 82% and 18% respectively, or a ratio of about 4-6:1). Whether or not -is in some or all of the Gothic 1st and 2nd person dual and plural forms derives from extension by analogy with mis, pus, sis is uncertain and is essentially a task of reconstruction (see for example Seebold's difficult discussion in 1984: 39-46); however, the fact that uns and unsis do show some kind of acc.-dat. distribution could reflect an earlier accusative-dative distinction, and Gothic does here show parallels with attested developments in some of the other Germanic languages, which do show innovatory accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and

1 On the uncertain forms see Dickhoff (1913: 468). 2 For a further breakdown of the figures (e.g. by text) see Dickhoff.

126

Gothic

ΝΟΜ.

AGG.

l

ik (Cr. Got. ich)

2

s

S 3 S M 3 S F 3 S Ν

Gothic

DAT.

GEN.

mik

mis

meina

bu (Cr. Got. tzo)

J)uk

{)US

Jjeina

is (Cr. Got. ies)

ina

imma

is

si

ija

izai

izô s

ita

ita (Cr. Got. -ta)

imma

is

wit

ugkis, also uggkis

ugkis, also uggkis

*

*

igqis, also iggqis

igqis, also iggqis

igqara

1 Ρ

weis

uns, unsis

unsis, uns

unsara

2

jus

izwis

izwis

izwara

eis

ins

im

izê

*

ijôs

im

izô

ij a

*

im

*

1 D

2 D

Ρ 3 Ρ M 3 Ρ F 3 Ρ

Ν Cr. Got. = 'Crimean Gothic' C16

Gothic

127

2nd p. plural (less often also dual) through extension of formatives from other pronoun forms, as well as later levelling of this distinction, e.g. High German uns and euch, and Old English Northumbrian üsih, iuih etc. (see further 3.1.2). 4.1.2 Dual On the use of the dual in Gothic, which occurs in the Gothic translation against the Greek original without dual,3 though also with quite a number of examples of the plural used for two, both in the verb and in the pronouns, see the recent study by Seppänen (1985).

3 None of the smaller documents, not even the Skeireins, contains any examples of dual reference or of dual forms (Seppänen 1985: 33).

Chapter 5: Older runic inscriptions The forms and language/dialect division here are from Antonsen (1975) (cf. also Haugen 1976: 91f. & 123-127). Antonsen's chronology (1975: 27f.) of the older inscriptions is as follows: AD Northwest Germanic East Germanic West Germanic North Germanic West Nordic East Nordic

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

129

Older runic inscriptions

ΝΟΜ. 1 S

Nw ek, ik,-eka, -ika; iVek, ik, eka,-ka, EN -aeka, -ask

Older runic inscriptions ACC.

DAT.

GEN.

Nw mêz

2 S

3

S M

EN sa, saz

3

S F

3

S Ν

Nw it EN)> at

1 D 2 D 1 Ρ

Nw wîz

3

Ρ M

3

Ρ F

3

Ρ Ν Nw = Northwest Germanie, Ν = North Germanie, EN = East Nordic

Chapter 6: English Old English The oldest surviving records in English date from about 700, and the end of the Old English period is usually put at approximately 1100. Four main dialects of Old English are found: West Saxon, Kentish, Mercian and Northumbrian, the most important of which is West Saxon, whose forms may also be found in other dialects. Mercian and Northumbrian are sometimes collectively termed Anglian. 6.1.1 Accusative-dative 1st and 2nd person The extent of accusative-dative syncretism in the Old English personal pronouns varies according to person, number, gender, dialect and date. Levelling of the 3rd person accusative and dative pronouns is first seen in the tenth century (Gericke 1934: 89f.), but was not fully complete until the Middle period and will be dealt with in 6.2.7. In the 1st and 2nd persons, on the other hand, general obj. pronouns are found in the oldest records in West Saxon, and the 1st and 2nd p. accusative and dative pronouns are discussed below. For Pan-Germanic discussion of accusative-dative levelling see chapter 3 (3.1). It is probable t h a t at an earlier stage in Germanic in the 1st and 2nd person separate accusative and dative pronouns existed only in the singular, while in the dual and plural one form was used for both cases (see 3.1.2). In Old English there is a contrast between West Saxon which shows no accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns, and Mercian and Northumbrian which not only have or had singular accusative and dative forms, but also show extension of the distinction to the plural. Some innovatory dual accusative forms (with a different formative) are also found. Zeuner (1881: §67) in a dialect which he regards as Kentish (see 1881: 7) also records accusative forms with -c, both in the 1st and 2nd person singular, and in the 1st and 2nd person plural. West Saxon In West Saxon, as later in all English dialects, the 1st and 2nd p. singular accusative and dative were levelled to the former dative pronouns (roe and âe). Nielsen (1981: 226) says the lack of separate accusative forms in

Old English

131

Old English: West Saxon ΝΟΜ. 1

AGG.

DAT.

GEN.

s

ic

me

me

•min

2 S

au

3e

3e

3ln

3 S M

he

hine, hiene (to end CIO) late also h y n e

him (late also h y m )

his (late also h y s )

hire + to end CIO hiere

3 S F

earlier hlo from mid-Cll

3 S Ν

hit

hit

him

his

late h y t

late h y t

late also h y m

late also hys

1 D

wit

une

une

uncer

2 D

git

ine

ine

incer

1 Ρ

we

üs

us

üre

low, êow

lower, ëower

2

hëo

ge

hl + to mid-Cll h!e late hy

low, êow

Ρ

(late also occas. gie)

3

hie (to C12), hi,

hie (to CIS), hi,

also late hy h ë o (esp. late)

also late hy hëo (esp. late)

Ρ

to end CIO hire, & also hiere; late hyre

from end CIO

hyre

early hiera, heora him, later heom

hiora, hira late hyra, heora

132

English

Old English: Mercian NOM.

ACC.

DAT.

GEN.

1 s

ic

mec (me, mie)

me

mîn

2 S

3u

9ec (ôe, ôaec)

3e

3ïn

3 S M

he

hine, hinae

him (heom)

his

3 S F

hëo, hïu, hïo (hie, hïae)

hëo, hïe, hïae, h! (hire)

hire

hire (hirae)

3 S Ν

hit

hit

him (heom)

his

1 D

wit

une

une

*

2 D

git

*

ine

*

1 Ρ

we (wœ, wç)

üsic (üs)

üs

ür, üre

2 Ρ

ge

ëowic (ëow)

ëow (ëowic)

ëower

3 Ρ

hie, hëo, hïae hi, hîo

hîe, hëo, hïae hi, hîo

him, heom

heara, heora (hiora, hira)

Old English

133

Old English: Northumbrian ΝΟΜ.

AGG.

DAT.

GEN.

1 s

ic (ih, ich)

mec (meh, mech)

me

•min

2 S

3u

Sec (9eh, 9ech)

3e

3ïn

3 S M

he

hine

him

his

3 S F

hiu, hïo (hïa)

hla (hlae, hëa)

hir (hirae, hire)

hire (hirae, hir)

3 S Ν

hit

hit

him

his

*

*

*

*

üs (LG also üsic,

üser (üsra)

1 D

*

2 D

*

*

1 Ρ

we (woe, wae)

üsih, üsic, ÜS13 (üsich)

2 Ρ

gïe, ge (gee, gi, giae, gae)

ïuih, luh, ïow, îowih (îwih, louh, ÏW13I1, Iw)

ïuih, ïuh, low, Iowih (ïwih, louh, ÌWÌ3I1, ïw)

lower, îuer (îowera, îwer, ïowre, luerra)

3 Ρ

hïa, hlae (hie, hea)

hla, hlae (hîe, hea)

him

hiora (hiara, heora)

C8 unket

LG = Lindisfarne Gospels

ÜS13)

134

English

West Saxon and Kentish 1st and 2nd person pronouns fits in well with the analytic tendencies in these dialects; however, this overlooks that in the (later) levelling of accusative-dative distinctions in the 3rd person pronouns it is precisely the Southern and Kentish areas which retain the distinctions longest, in the case of Kentish into the middle of the fourteenth century. Note also the possible Kentish 1st and 2nd p. singular and plural accusative forms mentioned above. Anglian Both Mercian and Northumbrian show extension of the accusativedative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. singular to the plural by the addition of the accusative formative -(i)c etc. to give the innovatory accusative forms Mercian ûsic, ëowic and Northumbrian üsih, ïuih (in late Northumbrian final -c appears as -h in unstressed syllables). Parallel forms are also found in Old High German — 1st p. plural acc. unsih, dat. uns, 2nd p. plural acc. iuuih, dat. iu (see 11.1.3); and in Middle Low German (11.4.3) plural obj. forms such as 1st p. plural ûsik, unsik, 2nd p. plural jük, jüch also indicate earlier analogical extension. This type of distinction by Analogical extension (here extension of a pronominal formative) shows, as discussed in chapter 2, how Change Types [C] and [D] can be closely related and overlap. In the surviving Mercian and Northumbrian records there is a certain amount of functional merger of the two sets of forms: in Mercian the singular and plural -c, -ic pronouns mec, dec, usic and ëowic etc. are generally accusative only and are found only rarely in the dative, but the (shorter) forms me, Se, us and ëow may occur in the accusative as well as in the dative. In Northumbrian the -c, -h, -ch etc. forms are also generally limited to the accusative, except in the 2nd p. plural where confusion between low and ïowih is complete in the Rushworth Gospels (2), while in the Durham Ritual iuih is (as in NHG euch) the general form for both accusative and dative, which also seems to have been the original state of the dialect of the Lindisfarne gloss (Campbell 1959:288). 1st and 2nd person dual accusative-dative In the 1st and 2nd p. dual, innovatory accusative forms with -et, -it, 1st p. unket, uncit, 2nd p. incit are sometimes found. The 1st p. dual accusative occurs in the eighth century Northumbrian Ruthwell Cross inscription and in late prose, and the 2nd p. dual accusative is a poetic form (Campbell 1959: 288f.). These dual innovatory forms differ from those in the plural in that where the plural has a final formative -ic, -ih etc., the dual has -et, -it. Bahnick (1973:153) and Seebold (1984: 32) suggest that the accusative duals were created by extension of the final formative in the nomina-

Old English

135

tives wit, git to the obj. pronouns to create a specific accusative by analogy with the 1st p. singular mec, which they believe may have been analysed as me + ic, i.e. undifferentiated objective form + nominative form, though this analysis could not apply to the plural forms. Seebold sees a parallel in Bavarian where the modern Bavarian 2nd p. plural obj. form enk (originally a dual pronoun) has a regional variant enkß in the northwest Upper Palatinate (Oberpfalz) with -s which originates from the nominative eß, though it is perhaps questionable whether the Bavarian example is a very good parallel — on the Bavarian dual forms see further 11.7.2. 6.1.2 Dual The extent of the dual in Old English varies according to dialect. Duals are found fairly frequently in West Saxon, but in late West Saxon are by no means consistently used: .ffilfric is capable of mixing dual and plural in the same sentence (Ladd & Radice 1951/52: 2, see also Seppänen 1985: 15f.), for example in Lives of Saints: '{ja genam ure faeder une . and basr us wepende forä on his weg' ('then our father took us two [dual], and bare us [plural] forth weeping on his way') (quoted from Skeat 1900: 210, lines 326-7) — compare here the type of Functional merger in loss of distinctions discussed in chapter 2 in 2.2. In Mercian, although no duals are found in the Vespasian Psalter, in the Rushworth Gospels (1) duals are frequent, though not always consistently used (see further Seppänen 1985: 16-18). In addition, in Middle English duals are found in the Midlands. In Northumbrian, the Rushworth Gospels (2), Lindisfarne Gospels and the Durham Ritual show no dual forms, although the dual did exist in early Northumbrian as it occurs in the Ruth well Cross inscription from the eighth century. By the tenth century, however, it appears to have become obsolete (Ladd & Radice 1951/52: 2), and for example the Lindisfarne Gospels have plurals where the late West Saxon Gospels and Mercian Rushworth Gospels (1) have duals. 6.1.3 3rd p. plural gender distinction Of the early Germanic languages only Gothic attests any 3rd p. plural gender distinction in the genitive (but not in the dative), other languages show 3rd p. plural gender distinctions, if present, only in the nom. and acc. — this, as discussed in chapter 2, parallels or follows absence of dative and genitive plural gender distinction in noun phrase inflection. In the surviving Old English records gender is no longer distinguished in the 3rd p. plural pronouns. For example, in Northumbrian genders were retained in form, but not in function, the most common form being hta. In old West Saxon the most common forms were hi and hîe\ Mercian holds the middle

136

English

ground between the two, and Kentish shows a spread of hio (Gericke 1934: 66 & 68). For discussion of this type of Functional merger and Loss of distinction in the personal pronouns see chapter 2 Change Type [A] (2.2.1).

Middle English

137

Middle English

The Middle English period is generally put at 1100 to 1500. Five main dialectal areas can be distinguished: Kentish, Southern, East-Midland, West-Midland and Northern, although it must be stressed that these are only approximate. The paradigm below does not represent one specific dialect, but shows forms found in the Middle English period. 6.2.1 1st p. sing. nom. Initially in the Middle English period the Midlands and the South including Kentish had the form ich, while the North had ic, ik. Very early on ic, ik gave rise to an unaccented form i, y which was first used before consonants (Mossé 1952: 54f.). Gradually this form spread and became general in most parts of the country by the end of the Middle English period. The extent of i, y in southern England compared with the receding ich forms can be seen in LALME in figures 1034-1038. 1 Mossé (1952: 55) states that ich remained the usual form south of the Thames, but the LALME maps show that by later Middle English (c. 13501450) i, y was common also here. In fact, even in late Middle English ich was regarded as a provincial form, and was used for humorous or rustic effect on the Elizabethan stage (Wakelin 1972:112). ME i was short: it was only in late Middle English that i was lengthened when stressed to ι (which was subsequently diphthongized). In southwest British English dialects ich, utch, eh-, che or utchy remained until the eighteenth century or the first half of the nineteenth century (OED Ί'), but by the time of the Survey of English Dialects the form uch was recorded (but unpublished) only in south Somerset (Wakelin 1972: 112). Wakelin (1984: 81) believes that there may still be traces of this form in some very old Somerset dialect, perhaps sometimes as us (see 6.6.3 below), though Ihalainen (1991:106) disputes this. 6.2.2 2nd person dual and plural The 2nd p. plural oblique pronouns with initial 3-, y- developed either from a shift of accent ('eow > e'ow) or by extension of the initial formative of the nominative to the oblique forms, or by a combination of the two (Mossé 1952:55). In late Old English and early Middle English 2nd p. dual oblique forms are also found with initial 3-, y-, e.g. 3ine, 3inker. This 3- cannot be from a shift of accent but is by analogy with the other 2nd p. dual and plural

1

On the layout of the LALME maps in general see LALME (I, 298f.).

English

138

Middle English ACC.

ΝΟΜ. 1 S

S & Midi, ich Nie, ik, i, y; later generally i, j, y

2 S

J)u, J)ou, thou, yu, you -tu, -tow (-te)

3 S M

3 S F

3 S Ν

he, hee, ha, a

ATs(c)ho, chô, 3hö Midi. s(c)he; S &

me

me

1 D

early some

2 D

early some

areas

wit

t>e, the(e), ye (-te)

early hin(e), hene

him, hym(e), (hem)

his, hise, hies, hys; hisen

hir(e), hur(e), her(e)

hir(e), later her(e); hires, heres, hiren

him, hym(e), hit, hyt, it

his, hise, hies, hys

later most areas as dat. early h ë o , hi, h a ; Midi., S & Kent, also

3it

hit, hyt, it, ytt, a, -t

early some

areas

une

areas

early some areas ine, 3 ine, 3unc,

((h)unk)

1 Ρ

we

ÜS, ous

2 Ρ

3ë, yë

older eu, o u ; 30W, 30U, you

3 Ρ

min, mi

t>e, the(e), ye (-te)

WMidl. heo, hu(e), his(e), es, -s; later ho, he, ha, hi, 3(h)eo most areas as dat. hit, hyt, it, ytt, a, -t

GEN./POSS.

DAT.

early some

areas

une early some

early some

areas

unker areas

ine, 3Ìnc, 3unc, ((h)unk)

ÜS,

J)In, J)i, thy

ous

older eu, ou; 30W, 30U, you

early some areas inker, 3inker, 3unker ( u n k e r )

ür(e), our(e) owr(e); oures ouren 3ür(e), your(e), oure, 30wr(e); 30ures, 30uren

{sai, thay, yai yar, thair(e), J>er, tham, yam, J)aim, thaym, J>em, yem t>ei, thei, yei theyr, her(e), hor, heom, hem, hom, ham; hy, heo, ho, he, heore, hare, hir(e) Midi, S & Kent, also his(e), hys(e), es, -s ha, a {)eires,-n, heres,-n 2nd p. sing. & 3rd p. plural: in Middle English p, th could also be spelt y. Kent. = Kentish, S = Southern, Midi. = Midland, WMidl. = West-Midland, Ν = Northern

139

Middle English

forms which have initial 3- y-. In addition, 2nd p. dual oblique pronouns with -U-, most probably by analogy with the 1st p. dual obliques unc-unker also occur (Ladd & Radice 1951/52: 13), e.g. 3ine, yxng-^inker, junker in Vices and Virtues, gunc-gunker in Genesis and Exodus, and junnc-junnkerr in the Ormulum; in the Ormulum, for example, initial 3- is the only difference between the 1st and 2nd person dual oblique pronouns: 1st p. dual 2nd p. dual

nom. witt 3itt

obj. unnc 3unnc

poss. unnkerr 3unnkerr

In some texts, forms such as unker, hunke are found as 2nd p. duals, e.g. unker in Havelok the Dane, unker in La3amon's Brut, and hunke in The Owl and the Nightingale (Diehn 1901:48). North Frisian dialects show similar extension of initial j- and levelling of vowel distinctions between 1st and 2nd p. dual forms, compare Föhr and Amrum (Schmidt-Petersen & Craigie 1928:12f.): 1st p. dual 2nd p. dual

nom. wat jat

obj. onk jonk

gen./poss. onkens jonkens

For discussion of Analogical extension with further examples of Analogy with pronoun forms in the personal pronouns in Germanic languages see chapter 2 (2.4). 6.2.3 3rd p. sing. fem. obj. forms LALME maps 21-23 show the distribution of hir, heor and hur types in later Middle English; hir etc. is the most common form with hur and especially heor concentrated in the West. 6.2.4 3rd p. sing. fem. acc. and 3rd p. plural acc. his(e) type In the 3rd p. sing. fem. and the 3rd p. plural in the Midlands and South accusative pronouns, both full and clitic forms, are found with -s(e) such as his(e), hys(e), hes, hies, es, is, -s (see Greul 1934: 51). The OED ('his, hise') states that these forms appear in the twelfth century in the South and South-East and continue in use there for about two hundred years. However, Greul (1934: 51) quotes -s forms in both East and West Midland texts, as well as in the South and Kentish, and LALME maps 50 and 5 (2) show in later Middle English occasional forms with -s in Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, the area surrounding London, and Kent — i.e. in fact quite a wide geographical spread. Nielsen (1981:165) believes that the s- forms in English may be the result of contacts with the Continent. Indeed, Old Frisian has nom./acc. sing, fem. and plural nom./acc. s(e), Middle Dutch has both full and clitic forms

140

English

si, -se etc. in the fem. sing, and in the plural, and Old Saxon has fem. sing, nom. siu, acc. sia etc., masc. and fern, plural nom./acc. sia, neuter plural nom./acc. siu etc. Mörsbach (1897: 331), on the other hand, states that ME his(e), hys(e), es, -s, and also the fem. sing. nom. she, are indigenous English developments based on a survival of an older 3rd person s- stem corresponding to the s- forms in other Germanic languages, rather than a direct borrowing from them, though this does raise the question why the pronouns with s are not attested until a comparatively late date in English. According to Mörsbach the fem. sing. acc. and plural acc. s- forms developed as enclitic pronouns in English, which were then expanded as independent forms to es, is, hes, his etc. on the model of combinations such as 'madim' = 'made him'. 6.2.5 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. h- and h-less forms The h-less 3rd p. sing, neuter form it is found a few times in the twelfth century (Gericke 1934:59), and over the Middle English period became the more common form. Figures 24 & 25 in LALME show that there is a geographical difference in the dominance of h- and Α-less forms in the neuter singular in later Middle English (the h-less map excludes enclitic forms): although both it and hit are found in several areas, generally the h- form is dominant in the western side of England, while the h-less it covers the eastern side of the country. Such regional distribution could perhaps suggest dialectal /¡.-dropping, but another form 'hundred' surveyed by LALME (II: 291-296) does not show loss of h-, nor does the distribution of forms of 'it' with h- appear to match the modern pattern of /i-retention in English dialects (given by Anderson 1987: 140, cited in Britton 1991: 33 & 47). Furthermore, loss of initial h- in the neuter singular nom./acc. pronoun is also found in other Germanic languages, cf. Old Frisian hit, ModWFris it, ModEFris et, Middle Dutch het, Modern Dutch het [at, t], where, as in English, h- is retained in (e.g.) the masc. sing. nom. — ModE he, ModWFris hy, ModEFris hie etc., ModNl hij. A reason for the generalization of the /i-less form in the neuter pronoun is that it can only rarely be accented and in natural gender reference can occur less commonly as agent, and prop or empty it is also of course unaccented, while he and she for example are in comparison accented much more often, and that 'it' is likely to be replaced by a demonstrative form when accented — see for English Quirk et al. (1985: 348), Frisian 7.5.1 '{including on some North Frisian hat and also Luxemburgish hatt), for Dutch ANS (1984: 168f., 215, 219-221) and De Rooy & Wikén Bonde (1971:73-75), and further 1.1.2. In certain positions h- forms survive in modern dialects of Scotland and Ireland (Samuels 1972:101).

Middle English

141

6.2.6 Dual The situation of the dual in Old English survives into early Middle English, though the specific accusatives unket and incit are no longer found. The duals frequently occur with the addition of foims of 'both', sometimes of 'two' (Ladd L· Radice 1951/52:24) — i.e. lexical dual quantifiers (cf. 2.3). As seen in Old English, the extent of dual usage varied from area to area, and the same is also true in the Middle English period. As noted in 6.1.2, the use of the dual pronouns in English shows the kind of Functional merger and Loss of forms discussed in chapter 2 (see Change Type [A] in 2.2). In the North the dual had already disappeared in Old English times. In West Midland we still find duals in the first half of the thirteenth century: in Lagamon's Brut, for example, the older of the two manuscripts (Cotton Caligula A9), written in Worcestershire in about 1250, has frequent duals though not always consistently used, while the later manuscript, written further to the south in the Wessex area, uses plurals throughout (Ladd L· Radice 1951/52:7f.). The original was composed sometime between 1189 and 1205. The scribe of the later manuscript occasionally misunderstands a dual in the original, e.g. in line 5197 where he writes 'οηαφε' ('strange') for unker (Ladd & Radice 1951/52: 8). Similarly in the West Midland Katherine Group written in the early thirteenth century (ms. Bodley 34) duals were still in use, but obsolescent (d'Ardenne 1961: 223). In Southern Middle English some duals are found in The Owl and the Nightingale from the first half of the thirteenth century (original composed some time between 1189 and 1216), but in the great majority of instances in the poem the plural is used instead (Ladd L· Radice 1951/52:16). Ladd and Radice (1951/52:18 & 25) conclude that in the West and in the South the dual seems not to have survived much beyond the early part of the thirteenth century. Duals are best preserved, used more consistently, and survive longest in the East Midlands. The Ormulum, written about 1200 in Northeast Midland dialect (holograph) has duals throughout, although it should be noted that Old English evidence shows a frequent but not consistent use of the dual in the Midlands. Vices and Virtues, composed and written in Essex in the early part of the thirteenth century, attests all forms of the dual except unker, although the dual is not consistently used. Genesis and Exodus, an East Anglian text from about 1300 (originally composed around the middle of the thirteenth century) also has duals; and Havelok the Dane, an early fourteenth century text originally composed about 1270 in Northeast Midland dialect, has an occasional dual, though with some confusion (Ladd & Radice 1951/52:14 & 20ff.).

142

English

6.2.7 Accusative-dative 3rd person Middle English saw the continuation of a development which had begun in Old English: the loss of the accusative-dative distinction in the personal pronouns. The 1st and 2nd person pronouns have already been discussed in Old English above; levelling in the 3rd person took place somewhat later and will be dealt with below. For Pan-Germanic discussion of accusativedative distinction in the personal pronouns see chapter 3 (3.1), and for discussion of types of development in Change Type [B] — as in loss of accusative-dative distinction — here Functional merger, Loss of forms, and Functional reinterpretation — see chapter 2. Accusative-dative syncretism in the 3rd p. personal pronouns is first seen in the tenth century in Old English: in the Mercian Rushworth Gospels (1) for example the dative sing. fem. hire is found three times for the accusative, with the actual accusative form being used ten times (Gericke 1934: 89 h 64). Levelling proceeds at varying pace according to dialect, the old distinctions generally being retained longer in the South. In the 3rd person in some areas levelling seems to have taken place earlier in some forms than in others, rather than a synchronous development in all forms. Levelling in the 3rd person accusative and dative is discussed below by dialect, beginning with Northern and Scots. Northern and Scots In the 3rd person plural by the time of the appearance of the Scandinavian pronouns in Middle English the accusative and dative had already been levelled to the former dative. The details of this development are difficult to follow due to the sparseness of linguistic records from the period of language contact: it is not known whether levelling of the accusative and dative in the 3rd p. plural took place before or after the borrowing of the Scandinavian pronouns. However, what is clear is that the borrowed Scandinavian forms, as well as the native pronouns in Danish and Norwegian, levelled the 3rd p. plural to the dative, as also in those native English dialects where syncretism took place before borrowing of the new pronouns. In Scots accusative-dative syncretism was complete at least by the second half of the fourteenth century (Meyer 1907: 37). East Midland The early Middle English Peterborough Chronicle (c. 1154), written in the dialect of the Northeast Midlands, shows accusative-dative syncretism in the 3rd person pronouns well underway in the mid-twelfth century, as the following figures for forms occurring as accusative illustrate (Gericke 1934: 82):

143

Middle English

3rd p. sing. mase. acc. hine (< acc.) him (< dat.)

14x llx

3rd p. sing. fem. acc. hire only (< dat.) 3rd p. plural acc. hi (< acc.) heom, hem (< dat.)

2χ 13x

LALME shows a few (originally) accusative pronouns in later Middle English (c. 1350-1450) in the East Midland area, although it is not specified whether these forms were still used as accusative or as general objective pronouns: map 1130 shows one location point in East Anglia where the hene, hin form was dominant in the 3rd p. sing, masc., and map 50 shows a few locations in East Anglia where his-type pronouns were found as variants in the 3rd p. plural. However, these few examples are by far outnumbered by the (originally) dative forms. On some survival of the accusative masc. sing, pronoun as an unaccented obj. form [an] in modern dialect in the East Midland area see further below. West Midlands Accusative-dative syncretism in the 3rd person pronouns was underway in the first half of the thirteenth century at least in parts of the West Midlands, as shown by the language of the Ancrene Wisse and the Katherine Group (d'Ardenne 1961: 222f.): 3rd p. sing. masc. acc. him, occas. hine dat. him 3rd p. sing. fern, acc. hire, occas. ha dat. hire 3rd p. sing, neuter acc. and dat. hit 3rd p. plural acc. and dat. ham (heom) d'Ardenne (ibid.) believes the change in the 3rd person from distinct accusative and dative pronouns to objective forms was taking place between the time of the original composition in the last third of the twelfth century and the date of the manuscript copies in the first half of the thirteenth century.

English

144

In La3amon's Brut, however — oldest manuscript (Cotton Caligula A9) written in about 1250, original composed some time between 1189 and 1205 — separate accusative and dative forms do occur, though it is difficult to know whether this was merely due to the forms of the original or was still part of the language at the time of copying. LALME shows some 3rd person accusative forms in the masculine singular, feminine singular and plural in and around the Gloucestershire area in later Middle English (c. 1350-1450), although as above it is not specified whether these forms were used only as accusatives or as general objective pronouns. Map 1130 shows one location where hene, hin type forms were the main variant in the 3rd p. sing, masc.; map 5 (2) shows occasional is, as and also heo in the 3rd p. sing, fem., and map 50 shows occasional his type forms in the 3rd p. plural. However, as in the East Midlands, these few examples of accusatives are far outnumbered by (originally) dative forms, though, again, some survival of the masc. sing, acc. pronoun as unaccented obj. [gn] is recorded in modern dialect — see below. Southern In the Southern dialect dative forms are found alongside accusatives in the 3rd p. sing. masc. and fem. and 3rd p. plural accusative from the twelfth century (Gericke 1934: 85f.), but accusative-dative distinction is still found later in for example The Owl and^the Nightingale (ms. c. 1250, original composed late twelfth/early thirteenth century), and The Fox and the Wolf (ms. c. 1275). However, in the LALME survey (c. 1350-1450) almost all masc., fem., and plural accusatives have been replaced by datives (see maps 1130, 5 (4), 5 (5), 8 (4), 8 (5)), though especially in the Southwest the masc. sing, hine has survived up to modern times in the form [n] or [an] — see below. Kentish In Kentish 3rd person accusative-dative distinctions are retained into the fourteenth century: Dan Michel's Ayenbite of Inwyt, a holograph manuscript dated 1340, differentiates accusative and dative in all the 3rd p. pronouns, in the fem. sing, and plural with the -s forms his(e), hys(e) (Wallenberg 1923): 3rd p. sing. masc. 3rd p. sing. fem. 3rd p. sing. nt. 3rd p. plural

acc. acc. acc. acc.

hine, hyne his(e), hys(e) hit, hyt his(e), hyse

dat. him, hym dat. hire (hare) dat. him, hym dat. ham, hem

The accusative also survives in William of Shoreham's poems from the fourteenth century.

Middle English

145

LALME shows some accusative forms in Kentish in later Middle English (maps 1130,5 (6) and 8 (6)), but these are well outnumbered by forms of the originally dative pronouns. Modern dialect In the southwest of England the old masc. sing, accusative pronoun (OE Iline) has survived up to modern times as an objective pronoun in the form [n] or [an], often also for 'it', e.g. I seed 'n — Ί saw him/it' (Wakelin 1984: 81). Compare maps M70 and M71 in LAE of (ask) him and (weigh) it. Wright (1905: 272), about half a century earlier, records [an] as the regular unaccented form of the 3rd p. sing. masc. obj. in Leicestershire, Herefordshire, Pembrokeshire, Gloucestershire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. Paddock (1991: 43) also notes 'n in Newfoundland English. This survival of the masc. sing. acc. pronoun as an unaccented obj. form is paralleled by similar developments in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages and suggests Functional reinterpretation according to accent as discussed in chapters 2 and 3 above. For a possible further parallel in English dialectal subj.-obj. usage see 6.6.3 below.

6.3 Development of she The origin of Middle English sehe has been the subject of much discussion. It first appears as SCCE in early Middle English in the Peterborough Chronicle and, by the end of the fourteenth century, is met to the exclusion of all other forms in the common literary language (Mosse 1952: 56). However, regionally in Middle English and indeed up to modern times several other forms of the 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. are common, and these will be discussed below, followed by an examination of explanations put forward for the development of she. 6.3.1 Distribution of the 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. forms in Middle English Earlier, pre-LALME maps showing the distribution of fem. sing. nom. forms (e.g. Markey 1972: 391, Mossé 1952: 57) are generally too clear-cut in their assignment of the various forms to specific dialects, presenting an oversimplified view of the distribution. LALME, on the other hand, although representing a somewhat later date (c. 1350-1450), shows in much greater detail the extent of the variants. LALME maps 10,11,12 and 20 show the distribution of four forms — classified by their initial consonants — which are referred to in some or all of the explanations of the development of she.

146

English

5-type As can be seen from LALME map 10, the forms with initial s- are very much dominant in later Middle English, occurring in all parts of England as well as in Scots (Meyer 1907: 36), including those areas where forms with initial h-, j,(h)- and ch- are found. The forms with initial s- can be divided into a more northerly sc/io-variant, and the sehe-type found in the southern half of the country, as shown in the two maps 13 and 14 in LALME. h-type LALME map 11 shows the h- forms confined more or less to the West Midlands and the South, though as mentioned above they are not the sole forms in these areas. The h- forms are the direct descendants of the Old English pronoun héo etc. with no change in initial consonant. ch- and 3(h)- types The ch- and 3(h)- types (maps 12 & 20) are less common than the s- and hforms. The c/i-type seems not to be characteristic of any particular area in later Middle English, but rather of sporadic occurrence in several parts of the country. The 3(h)- spellings are somewhat more common, occurring mostly in the Southwest and parts of the East. 6.3.2 Modern dialect forms Maps M68 and M69 in LAE show the modern rural dialect forms of 'she' in 'she is' and 'is she married'. In considering this material it should not be forgotten that she, as the standard form, will be found in Standard English throughout the country — as already noted, even in the LALME survey of later Middle English s- forms are attested (as written forms) over the whole of the country. However, the fact remains that dialectally, particularly in the West and Southwest, several other forms are common. This means .the she was not the development in all dialects. Duncan (1972: 185) states that in the West Midlands and Southwest the vowel of the fem. sing, nom., with the late occurrence of unrounding, seems to have been sufficiently distinct to prevent confusion with forms of he. shoo

This form [J°u:] or [Ju] is confined fairly closely to southwest Yorkshire and most likely developed from ME s(c)ho (Duncan 1972:188). Indeed, LALME (maps 4 (2) & 4 (3)) shows scho, sho as the most common forms in this area in later Middle English. When not emphatic SED records [Ja] and [Ji] as well as [Ju] (Duncan ibid.).

Middle English

147

sha Duncan (1972:188f.) states that sha [Ja] probably derives from a reduced or unaccented shoo, although synchronically it appears to be an alternative unaccented form of [Ji:]. The area of possible [Ja] forms divideß the northern she area from the East Midlands and Southeast, and this seems to confirm Duncan's derivation of [Ja] from shoo — compare the later Middle English distribution of 'sho' and 'she' forms in LALME 13 and 14. hoo This form occurs in the northwest Midlands. The spelling here is misleading as hoo represents phonetically a number of forms [u:], [ü:], [Y:], [uu:], but is never recorded, even in the accented form, with initial [h]. Duncan (1972: 189) presumes that this form represents a straightforward development from ME hoo where ME δ > ModE û, cf. ME s(c)ho > ModE shoo. LALME 4 (2) and 4 (1) does record some ho forms in the northwest Midlands, but also often s(c)ho and a few times she. he he in the Southeast, which does not appear to occur as an accented form, seems to represent a direct development from hy, hi, he forms attested, along with s(c)he forms, in the Southeast in later Middle English (see LALME 4 (6)); compare also hi, hy in Dan Michel's Ayenbite of Inwyt from the middle of the fourteenth century. her Again, the spelling is misleading as initial [h] occurs hardly at all, even when accented. The forms usually have a long schwa plus r-colouring or r (Duncan 1972:191). Instances of objective pronouns used where the subjective pronoun would be used in Standard English do occur in the West Midlands and Southwest (see 6.6.3 below), but Duncan (1972:190f.) suggests that her 'she' may not in fact be the oblique form but a development 'from a regular ME form of the nominative'. She points out that unlike the use of for example them and us as subject, which is always in unstressed conditions, her is used consistently as subject whether stressed or unstressed. Furthermore, the area of occurrence of her as subject does not coincide exactly with the distribution of these forms. Duncan postulates that the Middle English form of the nominative [h0] was eventually realized by [a:], which may have merged with the very similar form of the objective her [a:] which developed towards the end of the eighteenth century. This does not, however, as Duncan admits, account for the r-colouring or r recorded in the her area for the subj. form, but Wakelin (1972: 113 & 164) points out

148

English

that in the Southwest r is often attached to final unstressed [a], and may in fact also be added to the masculine sing, he when unstressed. 6.3.3 Explanations of the origin of she Below are summarized explanations put forward for the origin of she. Although there is a large number of wide-ranging theories, they can be grouped into a few types: [1] Development from English or Scandinavian demonstratives [2] Cognate form with s- personal pronouns in other Germanic languages [3] Development from the Old English personal pronoun [4] Blending of demonstrative -I- personal pronoun verb ending + personal pronoun enclitic pronoun + proclitic pronoun [5] Arbitrary shift to / J / The first theory (e.g. Baugh & Cable 1978:162, Mosse 1952: 56) is that sehe, scho developed from the Old English feminine sing, demonstrative sëo, sto with a shift of accent s'io > si'o > sj'o. Indeed, according to Flom (1908: 122f.) sceE is used as a demonstrative in three of the four occurrences in the annal for 1140. In the Scandinavian languages demonstratives were and are used as personal pronouns in the neuter singular and in the plural all genders, and the common occurrence of demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use in the Germanic languages as a whole means that there are parallels here — see 2.8. However, Lindkvist (1921) for example has pointed out that by the end of the Old English period the demonstrative sëo had become obsolete and was replaced by the form pêo, at which time hëo was still the usual feminine personal pronoun. Duncan (1972: 183) concludes that it is unlikely that the fem. sing, personal pronoun would have been replaced by an obsolete demonstrative, and according to Markey (1972: 393) there is little evidence to suggest that the fem. demonstrative seo was ever used anaphorically anyway. On the other hand, OED ('she') notes that instances of sio are found in the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Durham Ritual and that the extant remains of the dialect represent only a very small proportion of the Northumbrian area. Furthermore, the current study produces significant empirical evidence from a number of the Germanic languages (including English) for the use of redundant forms in therapeutic change in the personal pronouns — in oblique pronouns as subj. forms, in dual pronouns as plural forms, in generalization of distinct variant forms, and in the borrowing of foreign or dialect forms — see 2.3 — and thus this explanation cannot be excluded on a priori grounds. Rather than from the demonstrative sëo, Mörsbach (1897: 331), as mentioned in 6.2.4 above, states that scho, sehe derives from an unattested Old

Middle English

149

English anaphonc pronoun *sêo, related to the initial s- forms found in other Germanic personal pronouns, e.g. Old Saxon 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. siu, acc. sia etc., mase, and fem. nom./acc. plural sia, neuter plural nom./ acc. siu etc. Mörsbach believes scho represents an unaccented form of *sëo and that sehe developed either by analogy with the vowel in he or from *se (< *seo) with initial sch- by. analogy with scho. Morsbach connects these nominative forms with the fem. acc. sing, and acc. plural -s, his(e), hys(e), es, is forms also found in Middle English. Markey (1972: 395) also believes that the fem. sing. nom. scho, sehe may be connected with an anaphoric *sëo, although he does not believe that scho, sehe was a direct development, but resulted from a blending with h(j)e, h(j)o (see below). The fact that so many of the Germanic languages have fem. sing, (and often also plural) personal pronouns with s~ suggests that parallel forms in English would not be unusual, but the absence of these forms in Old English records is problematic. Another explanation, noted by Bradley (1908: 55), suggests that sehe, scho may be derived not from the Old English demonstrative, but from the Scandinavian feminine demonstratives sü, siä. This argument is supported by the modern dialect forms Shetland su/sha, and the shoo, sha mentioned above; however, Markey (1972: 393f.) replies that the normal development would have been shu, sha and not sehe, scho, and that furthermore sü, siä were not prevalent forms in formerly Scandinavian areas of Britain. Several explanations have been put forward which, rather than assuming the influence of a demonstrative, derive sehe, scho directly from the Old English fem. sing, personal pronoun. These explanations presume a development hj > [ç] > [/], with the intermediate stage [ç]. They differ in how this change in pronunciation came about. Stevick 2 believes that the change in pronunciation would have arisen quite naturally in the Northumbrian and Mercian 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. forms hîo, hïu, hie etc., where the phonetic realization of h- before the -iwould result in [ç]. This [ç] was then reassigned to the / J / rather than to the / h / phoneme. Stevick links this with the argument that after the monophthongization of OE ëo to ë in the East and a rounded o elsewhere the fem. sing. nom. was liable to be confused with the 3rd p. sing. masc. nom. he. This, he believes, favoured the selection of / / / and/or ö in the feminine to differentiate it from the masculine — in the case of scho both seem to have been used. Such a development would represent, in Change Type [C], Generalization of a distinct variant (see 2.3.3 [3]), compare also Samuels below. A weak point in this explanation, however, is whether the

2 Quoted in Duncan (1972:184f.).

150

English

new rounded monophthong in the fem. sing. nom. still maintained the conditioning for h- to be realized as [ç] (cf. Duncan 1972:185). Britton (1991) cites as evidence for the possibility of a native phonetic change hj- to [J] the Modern Scottish English variants [Jud3] (etc.) 'huge' and [jAk] (etc.) hook 'sickle', and the (nick)name 'Hugh(ie)' - Shoo(ey), Shewey (also noted for Ν Ireland). — The rarity of this change in English is ascribed by Britton to the rarity of hj-, the relative lateness of ME [iu] > [ju:], and to the influence of written standard forms in hindering [hj-] or [ς-] to [J-]. — Many of the forms such as huge, human, humour etc. — with the possible realization [çu:] and which Britton (see 1991: 26f.) cites from Glasgow (and Edinburgh) speech with shuge, shuman etc. — are of French (Latin) origin and the h- probably a spelling pronunciation sounded from late Middle English and in some cases as late as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (note the retention of the h-less pronunciation in e.g. hour, heir, honour, and AmE herb) — see Gimson/Ramsaran (1989: 122, 193 & 213f.). Samuels (1972: 114-116) believes that hjo and hje were originally rare, stress-shifted variants which were selected to differentiate better the feminine pronoun from the masculine singular. He postulates an intermediate stage attested, he believes, by spellings such as j,he(o), ghe, 3ho. According to Samuels (1972: 115f.), in Middle English this intermediate stage always occurred in border areas between the newer sehe, scho forms and the older h- forms and 'can be shown to have moved southwards across the country in advance of ///', though it is not certain whether the original phonetic process was always repeated exactly in later stages of the spread. Samuels believes the change to / / / may have taken place first in the heavily Scandinavian-influenced Cumberland- Yorkshire belt. Others, such as Flom (1908) and Dieth (1955), have also assumed that the change in pronunciation which led to the sehe, scho forms was due to Scandinavian influence. As evidence Dieth cites examples of the modern dialect forms of (rose)hip (OE hëôpe), shoops, choops, chowps, found in the old county areas of Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire and North Lancashire formerly settled by Norwegians. Normally OE hëôpe became ME h5pe, hëpe\ however, according to Dieth, if the diphthong êô as a result of Norwegian influence became rising, the initial hj- was likely to be assimilated to [ç] or to [J]. As further proof, Dieth (1955: 211f.) gives evidence from place names, including the often quoted Shetland, known in Icelandic sagas as Hjaltland. He cites four place names which are based on the elements heap (ModE 'heap', 'pile of stones') or hëôpe ('rosehip'), but which now have initial [J]: Shap (Westmorland), Shaps (Yorkshire), Shipton ("farmstead where hips grew') (Yorkshire East Riding) and Shipton (Yorkshire North Riding). These four, all of which lie in the same area as shoop for '(rose)hip',

Middle English

151

are contrasted with several places e.g. Hepworth in Suffolk and Heapham in Lincolnshire, which retain the initial h-. According to Dieth (1955: 212) changes in spelling of these four place names illustrate the development [he] > [hj] > [ç] > [J], e.g. in Shipton (North Riding): Hipton Hepeton Hyepton Yheptona Yhupton Supton Schupton

1086 1167 1176 1176 1231 1244 1301

The conclusion drawn by Dieth (1955: 214) is that the Norwegians living in the Northwest pronounced English hèo as hjô, which was heard by the English as [ço:] or [Jo:] and was in turn adopted by them as their own form. A development of a new pronoun through language contact would have some parallel in the Scandinavian forms of the 3rd person plural borrowed into English (see below); however, several objections have been raised against this explanation: Dieth himself admits the he 'may have assumed a somewhat advanced stage of Norwegian' (1955: 215) and that the change hj > [J] is dialectal and somewhat sporadic in Norwegian. A general point to be made is that changes in for example homeland Norwegian do not necessarily mean identical changes in the language of emigrant Norwegian settlers (note the development of Icelandic and Faroese), although this could be used both for and against the argument. Stevick (1964: 382)3 criticizes the explanation on the grounds that it assumes a complex sociolinguistic sequence, which is not inconceivable but not entirely credible. Britton (1991: 14f.) makes the point that Shaps and one of the Shipton place names are located in the East Riding of Yorkshire — an area settled principally by Danes, speakers of East Norse in which no hj- to [J-] occurs, and that place name evidence for Norwegian settlement in the East Riding is negligible, meaning that West Norse influence in Shaps and Shipton cannot be taken for granted. In addition, Britton doubts whether [J-] forms of she could have spread as far south as Peterborough from the Norwegian-settled areas, given that the two Yorkshire Shipton place names and the antecedents of Shap and Shaps were still spelt Hyj Yh- after the Peterborough Chronicle record of scœ from the mid-twelfth century (when the annals for 1140 and 1141 were written).

3

Quoted in Duncan (1972:184).

152

English

Partial influence of the demonstrative sëo on the personal pronoun has been suggested (e.g. Baugh & Cable 1978: 162), creating a hybrid or blend form sheo of sëo and hëo: sëo + hëo > sheo > sche/scho The forms sheo and scheo are fairly common in the southwest Midlands (see LALME map 4 (2)), but this explanation has been rejected (e.g. by Markey 1972: 393) on the same grounds as the explanation above which also involved the demonstrative: i.e. sëo had become obsolete and was replaced by pëo while hëo was still the usual personal pronoun form, though note also again the points on redundant forms made above based on the evidence of this study. Another explanation (Lindkvist 1921) suggests that the new form of the feminine pronoun developed from reanalysis of verb ending and pronoun in inversion, e.g. in combinations such as *does hio, *haefes hio, *cymes hio, *is hio, *waes hio. Lindkvist (1921: 30-50) believes that the development originated in the North where the 3rd p. sing, present ending -(e)â was replaced by -(e)s. He reasons that in Northumbrian and at least the eastern part of Mercian hio > [hjo] or [jo]; and, as i in hio began to be consonantized, the final -s of the preceding verb was gradually shifted onto the pronoun e.g. *hœfes-hio > *hœfes-shio to give *shio, of which [Jo] became the natural ME continuation. Lindkvist believes that the new form scho was probably in existence around 1100; the sehe form with e then arose from a compromise blend of Midlands he and 3e and the Northern scho, although Ofverberg (1924:153) doubts the chronology of this development. The development of new pronoun forms from sandhi is, as has already been shown in chapter 2, well attested in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages, and thus a similar development in English would not be without parallel — indeed, compare 2.5.2 on the coalescence of / s / and / z / with / j / to [J] and [3] in Modern English in connected speech (e.g. In case you [keiju] need it, Has your [hae3D:] letter come). Duncan (1972:184) criticizes Lindkvist's explanation, stating that reversed word order was not very common, even in old Northumbrian, but Lindkvist (1921: 33) is aware of such an objection and maintains that inversion was much more frequent in general than in Present English, compare also here the points made by Niibling for spoken German — see 2.5.2, and also Van Kemenade (1987) (cited in Hopper & Traugott 1993: 55 & 223) on V2 in English. As an additional reason for reanalysis, Lindkvist (1921: 34-38) states that the majority of English speakers at the time were illiterate and therefore unfamiliar with the written form; he also gives other examples of reanalysis in English such as ME addre (ModE adder) from OE nœdre (cf. NHG

Middle English

153

Natter), and ME tother (e.g. pe tother syde) (ModE tother, t'other) from thet other. Markey (1972: 396) objects to Lindkvist's explanation on the grounds that all dialects had -s forms of the verb in is and wass and, given their high frequency, we might expect the development of she/sho from is heo, WIES heo in any dialect; however, even with the high frequency of these two forms the -s would still be much less common than in dialects where all verbs had final -s in the present indicative as well as in the forms is and W she did not occur in the masculine, believing that scho with -o in the feminine would have averted homonymy. Markey himself (1972: 404) believes that sehe, scho derived from conflation of an enclitic form -se plus a proclitic form (h)je/(h)jo: se + (h)je/(h)jo > sehe, scho He cites a similar change in the form for 'she' in a small area of the West Frisian North Klei dialect, where Markey believes the enclitic -se blended with the proclitic pronoun jö to give sö (on West Frisian 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural subj. forms see 7.2.2). According to Markey, conflation of the enclitic and proclitic forms in English avoided homonymy between the masc. sing. nom. and the fem. sing. nom. An explanation put forward by Awedyk (1974) suggests that the new form developed to differentiate it more clearly from the masculine with which it had fused as hë in the Northern and East Midland area; s(c)he was coined by an (almost arbitrary) change in initial consonant to ///, rather than to e.g. /b/, /d/ or /f/, because these were blocked by already existing forms such as bë(n) ('to be'), dë ('die') and fë ('cattle', 'money'). Of the other consonants such as /I/ and /r/ which were also 'free', /// was chosen 'because it required the least articulatory effort' and was 'less complex in terms of distinctive features' (1974: 126). A change in vowel rather than a change in consonant was also blocked because of possible homonymy with existing forms such as hei ('high'), hew ('hew'), howe ('thought') and hawe ('dark grey'), and because of the pattern with other personal pronoun forms hë, wë, yë, thee and më, although Awedyk himself points out the common scho form with -o. This rather ad hoc explanation takes no account, however, of the relative infrequency of some of these potential homonyms, nor of the fact that few of them would be likely to occur syntactically and/or semantically where homonymie clash with the personal pronoun would result (cf. here the discussion in chapters 1 & 2). As has already been noted, quite a number of the English personal pronouns have nonpronominal equivalents (disregarding here accent variation), compare eye, aye, (the letter) I, mi, mine, yew, ewe, (the letter) U, hymn, wee, hours.

154

English

The wide range of theories above show the difficulty in reaching an incontestable conclusion for the origin of she. I do not wish here to put forward yet another explanation, but rather to concentrate on the possible reasons behind the changes in not only the feminine singular pronoun but also in other 3rd person forms. A discussion of the developments in the 3rd p. plural follows below.

6.4

they - them - their

The origins of the 3rd person plural pronouns they-them-their are much less disputed than those of the feminine singular she: although it is possible that developments may have been influenced by the native English demonstratives OE Sâ-ôœm-dâra which are found in personal pronoun use in Old English and early Middle English, it is widely accepted that the new forms were borrowed from the Scandinavian settlers in Britain. These new forms of the personal pronoun are first attested in about 1200 and spread to varying extents southwards from the main areas of Scandinavian settlement in the North. LALME maps 28 & 29, 39 & 40, and 51 & 52 show the extent of the new forms with initial th-4 and the native English h- forms in laterMiddle English (c. 1350-1450). In the Scandinavian languages the 3rd p. plural pronouns are demonstrative forms also used as personal pronouns (see further chapter 13). The Scandinavian pronouns borrowed into English are thus cognate with the native English demonstrative pronoun OE ââ-âiR, t>eR, t>aR

*

fern.

*

Swedish runic

neuter

]aau, Jjaun

J)au, Jjaun

dat. gen. Swedish runic JjaiRa, J>eRa J>aim

JjaRa

Jjar

It is from forms of this period — spoken in Britain — that the new English 3rd person plural pronouns derive. T h e Middle English forms of the 3rd p. plural pronouns we have from about 1200, and those of Old Norse, the normalized literary form of Old Icelandic and Norwegian from about the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, do not represent exactly the pronouns of the native English and predominantly Danish settlers at the time of contact. Although the first record of the Scandinavian 3rd person plural forms used as personal pronouns in English dates from around 1200, according to Förster the Scandinavian nominative pronoun is found in English in the Southwest as a demonstrative as early as about 1000 in the form paeje·, it is also found as a relative pronoun, possibly due to influence of Old English pä, in the mid-eleventh century (see 1941: 274f. & 278f. and 1942). Förster concludes (1941: 280) that if the Scandinavian form was found in the Southwest already at the end of the tenth century, it must have been found considerably earlier in the Danelaw area, even though not attested there until 1200. T h e new English 3rd p. plural personal pronouns show no gender distinction, which is not surprising considering that gender distinction in the 3rd p. plural weis no longer made since the earliest Old English records (see 6.1.3 above). T h e nominative form borrowed into English derives from the Scandinavian masculine plural (cf. Runic Danish paiR, peiR), as the feminine and neuter would not have resulted in ME thai, thei (Werner 1991: 387). However, what is not certain is whether gender distinctions were levelled after the pronoun had been borrowed into English, whether only the masc. form was borrowed, or whether gender had already been levelled in the language of the Scandinavian settlers before borrowing. In the Runic Danish records from Scandinavia gender was still differentiated in the plural, at least between the masculine paiR, peiR and the neuter pau, paun (fem. nom. and acc. plural are unattested), though by the time of the oldest surviving manuscripts in the second half of the thirteenth century gender distinctions had been lost here too, with the former

Middle English

157

masculine becoming the general pronoun for the nominative plural (acc. plural forms were replaced by the non-gender-specific dative) (Br0ndumNielsen 1965:167f.). In Norwegian spoken in the homeland gender distinctions in the 3rd p. plural were retained up to the fifteenth century, when, as in Danish and in the English loans, levelling in the nominative was to the former masculine pronoun peir (see 16.1.7). However, although in the Scandinavian homeland gender distinctions in the 3rd p. plural were retained longer than in the native English forms, it is conceivable that the language-contact situation in Britain may have resulted in an earlier levelling of plural gender differentiation in the language of the Scandinavian emigrants. As with the levelling of gender distinctions, the accusative-dative case distinction had also been levelled (to the dative) in the new forms of the 3rd person plural by the time they appear in Middle English. The OED's assumption ('them') that English underwent a 'peculiar' change in levelling to the dative is certainly not true and may be based on comparison with Old Norse forms where accusative and dative were still differentiated: that Old Norse forms were not the basis for the borrowing has already been pointed out above. It is not certain whether levelling took place before or after borrowing, but, as already noted, the borrowed Scandinavian pronouns in English, the native pronouns in Danish and Norwegian, and the native English forms all eventually levelled to the former dative. 6.4.1 Nominative th- forms Three forms of the Middle English 3rd p. plural nom. pronoun with initial th- are found: a 'they' type with -ei(-) or -ey(e), a 'thay' type with -ai(e) or -ay(e), and a 'tha' type with final -a(a). Their distribution in later Middle English (c. 1350-1450) is shown in LALME in figures 30, 31 and 38. The rather uncommon 'tha' type looks similar to the native English demonstrative. In Old English the nominative plural demonstrative pä can be found in the function of the personal pronoun, and as Werner (1991: 384) points out, bilinguals would certainly have felt the close relationship of OE ôâ-ôœm-ôâra to their Scandinavian equivalents. With the 'they' and 'thay' types, on the other hand, there is little doubt that they represent loan forms from Scandinavian. Their distribution in later Middle English, as can be seen in LALME 30 and 31, is very approximately south of the Wash versus north of the Wash, though considerable numbers of each are found both above and below this line. This distribution matches roughly that of for example say (LALME 504-5), (a)way (690-91), or the French loan word pray (868-69), and may therefore be more dependent on a general Middle English pattern than on the two variants paiR, peiR seen in runic inscriptions from Denmark: it cannot be

158

English

certain whether it was pai or pei, or possibly both, which was borrowed into Old English, but it does seem sure that it was a diphthong rather than a monophthongized form (cf. Danish runic piR, peR) (Werner 1991: 388). In addition, it seems likely that an r-less pronoun was the basis for the borrowing rather than forms corresponding to Danish runic with -R/-r (paiR, peiR, peir) (Werner 1991: 387), although Meyer (1907: 36) does mention a Scottish document with frequent thar for 'they'. 6.4.2 Objective th- forms The first point to note about the 3rd p. plural objective pronoun is that the native English forms with initial h- are much more common here (and in the possessive) than in the nominative. LALME 39 and 40 show that in later Middle English (c. 1350-1450) the majority of 3rd p. plural obj. forms in the Midlands and the South were still native English h- pronouns (for further discussion see below). In fact, even in Modern English it is often assumed (e.g. Mossé 1952: 58, Bourcier 1978:194) that the 3rd p. plural obj. form 'em [am] represents a survival of the native English h- form (cf. 1.1.2 and 2.5.1 in chapters 1 and 2 on + and - accent forms). Of the forms with initial th-, figures 41-44 in LALME record the 'tham' and 'thaim' types predominantly in the North and North Midlands, with a scattering in other parts of the country, while the 'them' type is the most common th- form in the Midlands and the South; the 'theim' type is very sporadic, occurring in several parts of the country. As with the nominative 'tha' type, it has been suggested (OED 'them') that tham may derive from the Old English demonstrative poem, found already in the Rushworth Gospels (1) as a personal pronoun where the Lindisfarne Gospels have him (Gericke 1934: 84), though this usage itself may be the result of Scandinavian influence. Gericke suggests that pœm may be the source of ModE them: he states that in the North Scandinavian influence was strongest and 'Die Nachbarschaft der an. Formen des Personalpronomens . . . hat sicherlich auf die Bedeutung des Demonstrativums wegen dessen lautlicher Ähnlichkeit eingewirkt' (ibid.). On the other hand, Brunner (1948: 63) and Werner (1991: 388) suggest that the 'tham' and the 'them' types could be unaccented forms. 6.4.3 Possessive th- forms The distribution of the Scandinavian th- forms and the native English hforms in the possessive is similar to that of the objective pronoun (compare LALME 39, 40 and 51, 52),7 and contrasts with the much greater extent of th- forms in the nominative. 7 The ME distribution of hem (etc.) as against her (etc.) (their') may be more significant than indicated here (A. Mcintosh, personal communication).

Middle English

159

Figures 53-56 in LALME show that the 'thar' and 'thair' types cover approximately the same area as their objective equivalents 'tham' and 'thaim'; 'ther' is found scattered in all parts of the country, but especially in the East Midlands, and 'their' occurs sporadically in several areas, with a concentration in the Nottinghamshire-South Lincolnshire area. The final -e in Middle English forms such as thaire, thayre, yeire, pere may represent a regular Middle English weakening of the original -a of the Scandinavian form (cf. Da runic paiRa, peRa), but complete loss of the final vowel is also very common (Werner 1991: 389f.). It is uncertain whether ModE their derives from a form with diphthong, or a monophthongized form, as both would yield [òsa] (Werner 1991: 390). 6.4.4 Difference in the spread of th- forms in nominative, objective and possessive As mentioned above, there was considerable difference between the spread of the th- forms in the nominative and the spread of the th- forms in the objective and possessive pronouns. LALME maps 28 & 29, 39 & 40, and 51 & 52 show clearly the situation in later Middle English: in the nominative the th- type had spread to all parts of the country and outnumbers by far the native English h- forms; in the objective and possessive pronouns, on the other hand, in the southern half of the country the native English htypes are still very much more common, far outnumbering the th- forms. This difference in the extent of the nominative and the objective and possessive clearly indicates that outside the main areas of Scandinavian settlement initially only the nominative 'they' was borrowed. This means, as Werner (1991: 388) points out, that several generations of Middle English language-users had a system of 3rd person pronouns with a nominative form 'they", objective 'hem' and possessive 'her(e)\ Chaucer, for example, has they-hem-hir(e), her(e). This raises the question whether in the South the objective and possessive pronouns are loan forms at all, or whether in fact they represent a later indigenous development, created by Analogical extension of the informative from the nominative (cf. Werner 1991: 388-391). Such a development would not be without precedent in English (nor for that matter in other Germanic languages), for example the earlier preliterary extension of the h- formative to all 3rd p. pronouns (cf. Old Saxon where, with a few exceptions, only the masc. sing. nom. has initial h-) — see the discussion of analogical extension with further examples in chapter 2 (2.4). As already discussed, such developments can be seen as an increase in morphological patterning between forms connected in meaning, in the case of th- of 3rd person plural. The eventual th- objective and possessive forms in the South could thus be interpreted not as immediate loans from Scandin-

160

English

avian, but rather as later developments based on the borrowed nominative (cf. Werner 1991: 391). However, as Werner mentions (1991: 389), the possible influence of the northern forms must also be recognized, and it is by no means impossible that the eventual southern th- forms are simply later borrowings from the North, where the pattern of the 3rd person pronouns all with the same initial th- would itself have been an important analogical factor. The result of the borrowing of the Scandinavian pronouns, together with the developments in s(c)he, s(c)ho and (h)it, was morphologically an increase in suppletion between 3rd person pronouns, in particular nominative forms, and is in considerable contrast to the situation in Old English with the uniform pattern of initial h- in all 3rd person forms. The possible reasons behind these changes in the 3rd person pronouns are discussed below.

6.5 Changes in the 3rd person pronouns The extent of the changes in the 3rd person can be seen in a comparison of the Old English personal pronouns in the paradigms at the beginning of this chapter with those in Modern English. Many authors (e.g. Mossé 1952: 56, Samuels 1972: 114-116) in discussing the development of she and the borrowing of the Scandinavian plural pronouns, have pointed to the fact that in Middle English the 3rd person pronouns could often be ambiguous. Even in Old English ambiguities in the 3rd person pronouns occur, and in late Old English in some 3rd person pronouns monophthongization of diphthongs is found earlier than elsewhere in the language, probably as a result of their frequent unaccented occurrence (Gericke 1934: 61, 69 & 73f.). Reduction of the vowels in many of the 3rd person pronouns meant that in large parts of the country in Middle English distinctions between some forms were either obscured or lost completely. The extensive changes in the English 3rd person pronouns can be explained by the fact that in Old English all 3rd person pronouns had initial h-, and with phonological reduction particularly the nominative CV forms were vulnerable to ambiguity. Also important was the loss or reduction of number distinction in verb morphology in many Middle English dialects, and the absence of verbal gender distinction, meaning that homophonous forms were not disambiguated by verb morphology — compare here the discussion of similar change in other Germanic languages in chapter 2. As Bourcier (1978:193) points out, even in Old English the distinctions between masculine, feminine, and plural in the nominative forms of the 3rd person pronoun rested solely on the vowels:

Middle English

161

hê hëo hïe In Middle English, the reduction of the feminine and plural in many areas to forms such as fem. he, ho, ha, hi, plural hy, ho, he, ha, meant that ambiguity between the pronouns was more likely. This, coupled with the loss or reduction of number distinction in verb morphology in many Middle English dialects, especially in the North, left particularly the nominative forms with little or no distinction. In the oblique pronouns accusative-dative syncretism in many dialects meant that some oblique forms, such as the fem. sing, accusative and the acc. plural, had been lost. The Old English masc. and neuter sing, dative and plural dative him was replaced in the neuter by (h)it and by a new plural form heom (probably by analogy with the nom. plural hëo — d'Ardenne 1961: 156), though reduction of the diphthong in heom to hem was common in the twelfth century (Gericke 1934: 74), and heom is also recorded as masc./neuter dat. singular, see the Old English Mercian paradigm. In the Southwest, the form hymen, hemen 'them' is sometimes found, deriving according to Wright (EDD 'mun') from hym, hem plus the nominal ending -en added to differentiate hym, hem 'them' from hym, hem sing.8 Similar forms are also possible in Frisian — see 7.5.2. Both of these types of development — vowel change and addition of a formative by analogy with other pronoun forms and with noun phrase inflection — are also discussed in Change Types [C] and [Dj in chapter 2. The changes in the 3rd person pronouns leading to she and they-themtheir concerned mainly distinctions between nominative forms. Possible ambiguity also remained, however, between the masc. sing. obj. and native plural obj., and the feminine singular and plural possessive pronouns. she Both Lindkvist (1921: 25-28) and Werner (1991: 391f.) mention the variety of 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. forms found prior to sehe, scho as an indication of attempts by language-users to find a solution to the ambiguity of the 3rd person pronoun. As seen in the discussion of she above, a conclusive explanation of the origin of sehe, scho is far from straightforward. Whichever path of development led to the new forms, the end result was,

8

An unaccented form mun occurs for t h e m ' in modern dialect in parts of Cornwall; Wakelin (1972: 164) believes mun may derive from phrases such as [bein + am] hain't 'em ('aren't they?') > [bei + nam], with subsequent metathesis of [n] and [m]. But Wright (EDD 'mun'), recording mun from Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, suggests the more likely explanation that it arose by the dropping of hy from ME hymen t h e m ' found in the Southwest.

162

English

however, that a new suppletive form emerged which was clearly distinguished from the other 3rd person pronouns. they (-them-their) In they (-them-their) we see a different development, but the same result of distinction between the 3rd p. sing, and plural pronouns where before there had been patterning with initial h- and ambiguity between final vowels. Here, as discussed in chapter 2, cf. Werner (1991: 385),9 ambiguity is repaired through Borrowing. Heltveit (1952: 380) states that the Scandinavian forms ousted the native English pronouns owing to what he calls their 'structural superiority', though he does not define what makes one pronoun structurally superior to another. Baugh L· Cable (1978:101) comment that Scandinavian-English language contact must have been so intimate that even personal pronouns were borrowed, rather than solely lexical items. Indeed, language contact must have been reasonably close for borrowing to take place, but, as Werner (ibid.) points out, it was not merely the pressure or even prestige of Scandinavian that led to the borrowing of the new pronouns, but circumstances in English itself — i.e. ambiguity in the English 3rd person pronouns — and Scandinavian offered pronoun forms which were clearly distinct. — Compare, as discussed in chapter 2 (2.3), the use of redundant forms in other therapeutic change in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages — in oblique pronouns as subj. forms, in dual pronouns as plural forms, and in generalization of distinct variant forms. That ambiguity in the English 3rd person pronouns was a major factor in their replacement by the Scandinavian forms is supported by the fact that south of the Danelaw it was initially only the nominative which was borrowed into English: here homonymies were more extensive and possibly also more marked than in the oblique forms. This is borne out by Samuels' comment (1972: 71) that south of the Danelaw they, pei etc. was adopted first in stressed positions only, i.e. the Scandinavian pronoun was first used where a clearly distinct form was required. It should also be noted, however, that in the areas of main Scandinavian settlement all three pronouns were borrowed, and later elsewhere in the country the them and their forms were taken from Northern dialects and/or were created by analogical extension of the initial th- from the nominative,

9 Note though that developments in the pronouns such as the borrowing of they (-them-their) and the development of she do not represent suppletion as an aim or goal in itself, but rather distinction of ambiguity — e.g. in this example although they (-them-their) and she do result in a suppletive he-she-they distinction, the same does not hold for the 2nd person singular-3rd person plural thou-thee-thine, thy—they-them-their(s).

163

Middle English

though note again the widespread unaccented [gm] as a possible survival of the native English obj. pronoun. Possible survivals of the native English nominative and possessive pronouns seem to be rarer: Wright (1905: 274f.) records in Lincolnshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire an unaccented 3rd p. plural nom. pronoun [a] which he believes derives from OE hie, and in northeast Lancashire he notes a form her used for 'their'. (h)it The Old English patterning in the 3rd person pronouns with initial h- was also lost in the neuter singular. In contrast to the pie-she and they pronouns, hit was not liable to be confused with the masc., fem. or plural forms, and an explanation on the basis of ambiguity is thus unlikely here. However, what it does have in common with she and they-them-their is that, with the dropping of the h-, the formal correspondence with the other 3rd person pronouns was lost. The loss of h- in hit and the she and they (-them-their) developments share, pace Werner (1991: 395), a deeper 'goal of producing suppletion', though, as already stated above in 6.2.5, h- in the 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. is also lost in other Germanic languages, and is more likely explained as a generalization of the A-less form as a result of the neuter 'it' only rarely occurring accented. he The masculine sing. nom. he did not undergo any of the changes seen in she, it or they. However, Werner (1991: 395) points out that changes in the other 3rd person pronouns have meant that the former parallels of he have been lost, particularly in the nominative — the initial h- being found now only in the masculine forms he, him and his and the fem. obj. and gen./poss. her, hers. Although he itself has not changed, other 3rd p. pronouns have, thus altering the morphological status of he in the paradigm. Conclusion Changes in the morphological patterning in the 3rd person can be seen if we compare the 3rd person pronouns in late Old English with those in Modern English:

he heo hit hi

Late Old English (West Saxon)10 hine him hi hire hit him heom hi

his hire his heora

10 Dative forms as accusative have been omitted in this schematic diagram of the late OE pronouns — this does not affect the argument here.

164

English Modern

he she it they

English

him her it them

his her its their

In Old English all 3rd person pronouns share the same initial h-, in Modern English patterning of initial elements is more of an indicator of 'masculine', 'feminine', 'neuter' or 'plural', with suppletive gender and number distinction, particularly in the subj. forms. The inflectional situation of the personal pronouns in Old English was that the patterning of the initial element h- did not show the differences between the personal pronouns, but rather indicated the common factor of '3rd person personal pronoun'; the differences between each individual pronoun were shown by endings. Phonological reduction, seen in the pronouns from late Old English, did not remove the patterning of the initial element h-, but rather made many of these endings ambiguous. However, the changes that took place in the 3rd person pronouns outlined in the discussion above were on the whole in the initial elements, not in the endings. Compare the endings of the oblique pronouns below: obj.

gen./poss.

OE (WSax) ModE

him him

his his

OE ModE

hire her

hire her

OE ModE

hit it

hit it

OE ModE

heom them

heora their

Phonological reduction caused most ambiguity in the CV nominative (and now lost accusative) masc., fern, and plural forms, where reduction of the vowels reduced the distinction between forms. The question could be raised that, if it was the endings of the pronouns which became ambiguous, why were the major changes in initial elements, rather than to new, more distinct endings. With the reduction of noun phrase inflection, however — contrast figure 1.1.1c in chapter 1 — the pattern of inflection for an analogical change in the personal pronouns was reduced. The neuter sing. its does show, however, that where a pattern of inflection did remain in English, analogical extension to the pronouns could take place. This lack of analogical inflectional pattern was particularly true of the nominative

Middle English

165

forms of the personal pronouns, the forms which were affected most by phonological reduction, and in noun phrase inflection the case most often formally unmarked — compare here the discussion in chapter 2 (2.3.1). It is thus perhaps here that the reason for the borrowing of the Scandinavian pronouns and the development or generalization of she should be sought. The new 3rd person pronouns, rather than marking the connections between the 3rd person forms as in OE h-, emphasize the category/ property differences, particularly in the nominative, and the development of he-she-it-they from OE he-heo-hit-hi is a particularly striking example of how changes can indeed lead to greater suppletion and less conventional morphological regularity. As Werner (1991: 397) states, the developments in the English 3rd person pronouns are very disparate if considered from their various and sometimes problematic origins. If, however, they are viewed together and their common denominator considered, the rationale of these changes may be seen.

166

English

Modern English 6.6.1 ye-you and thou-thee subj.-obj. distinctions Originally a clear distinction was made between ye nominative and you objective, but as early as the middle of the fourteenth century you appears as a nominative form and, somewhat later, in the fifteenth century ye as an objective pronoun, though Spies (1897: 107) believes that it probably existed in the spoken language already in the fourteenth century. By the second half of the sixteenth century you had become the dominant form in the nominative, although ye remained common; and towards the end of the sixteenth century ye had become the more common objective form (Spies 1897:101-108). Compare here the Functional merger and Functional reinterpretation in Change Type [ΒJ discussed in chapter 2. In the seventeenth century the use of ye as objective pronoun decreased in the literary language, but was still found in more conversational style, for example in letters (Spies 1897: 108f.). In dialect ye has survived up to modern times, usually reduced to 'ee [i:] in the South of England, 11 and may function as subject or object, singular or plural (Wakelin 1984: 79). In the standard language, however, you has become the general form for both subject and object with no formal distinction between the two. As well as the changes in ye-you, functional shift may also be found in thou-thee where these have survived, though see also below. In dialects of the South and West, thee can also function as singular subject, and, very much more rarely, thou as singular object (Wakelin 1972:113, see also LAE map M67). In addition, in the language of the Quakers thee was the dominant subj. form already in the seventeenth century (Finkenstaedt 1963: 216). As well as of course change in morphological to syntactic subject and (direct, indirect) object case distinction in English — see chapter 2 — a number of other factors probably also contributed to these changes, though, as Heltveit (1952: 378f.) also points out, that the morphological distinction between nominative and objective was lost in ye-you and in some varieties in thou-thee, but not in I-me, we-us, he—him, she-her, they-them, suggests that a major reason for the changes lies in the form of the pronouns themselves — compare here the points made in 2.2.4. — As some of the distinctions between the 3rd person nominative pronouns discussed in 6.5 above, the formal distinction between ye and you and

11 Though Paddock (1991: 37) believes 'ee derives from thee rather than from ye, see (.1991: 43 with reference). See also Ihalainen (1991: 106 & 117) who seems to suggest both may be possible.

167

Modern English

SUBJ. Í s

1 Ρ

2

S S M

3 S F

3 S Ν

3 Ρ

Modern English OBJ.

mine

I

me

[ai, a]

[mi:, mi]

we

us, 'S

[wi:, wi]

[AS,

as, s]

you

[ju:, ju, ja]

[ju:, jo, ja]

he

him

[hi:, hi, i:, ι]

[him, im]

she

her [h3:, ha,

[main]

my

you

[íi:Ji]

GEN./POSS.

[mai, ma]

ours

[aoaz]

our

[aoa]

yours

[jo:z, joaz]

your

[jo:, jua, ja]

his

[hiz, iz]

hers 3:,

a]

it

it

[it, at]

[it, at]

they

them

[3ei]

[öem, 3am, am, m]

her

[h3:z]

[h3:, ha, 3:, a]

its

[its]

theirs

[3eaz]

their

[3ea]

Pronunciations are Standard English English (term from Trudgill 1984: 32-44)

168

English

between thou and thee was purely vocalic. Personal pronouns are frequently unaccented, and, unlike I-me, we-us etc., the distinction between ye and you and between thou and thee was likely to become obscured or lost when unaccented (cf. Jespersen 1894:256). With this confusion of forms and lack of noun phrase morphological parallel it may have been possible that to some extent you and ye were reinterpreted as + and - accent forms respectively; and this seems to be supported by Spies' statement (1897: 103) that ye was usually avoided in stressed position and replaced by you. In addition, Bourcier (1978: 202) states that in Shakespeare and Milton ye is often found in unemphatic position. Indeed, Functional reinterpretation according to accent is widely attested in case levelling in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages — compare chapter 3 (3.1) and chapter 2 (2.7). With thou-thee, the nominative thee may be an unstressed form of thou which was restressed to [3i:] — compare the definite article [Sa, 3i] which becomes [cii:] when stressed (Finkenstaedt 1963:217f.). A further factor may have been the contrasting pattern of the subjective and objective forms in thou-thee and ye-you; compare the following forms from the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries (Spies 1897:13f.): ηοτη. thou (t>ou, thu) ye, yee

obj. thee (the, J)e) you (yow)

The patterning of the final elements in thou and thee was the reverse of that in ye and you, which meant that formal likeness corresponded to a functional difference (Jespersen 1894:261). Added to this was the fact that in Old English the two sets of forms represented a number distinction of singular versus plural, but in Middle English, with the emergence of the 2nd person plural as a V form of address to one person, both thou-thee and ye-you could be used as 2nd p. singular pronouns, although thou and ye were contrasted as T - V forms. However, a question remains because in Present English thou [3au] and you [ju:] the final vowels are not in fact pronounced alike. Jespersen (1894: 258) believes, though, that in Middle English the 2nd person forms were pronounced as follows: obj. be ju And (1894:258f.) that this would have given the following modern forms: nom. 3u

obj. 3i: (3i) jau,ju

Modera English

169

According to Jespersen (1894: 259f.) the pronounciations du and jau did exist in the sixteenth century — indeed forms similar to jau can be heard in regional (British Midland) English today. The current standard pronunciation [ju:] of you can be explained as a lengthening and generalization of an originally short form. With thou Jespersen points out (1894: 260f.) that, apart from dialect, as thou is no longer part of everyday usage the weak form has been lost and only the citation form [3au] is heard — compare again 2.2.4 above. Jespersen concludes (1894: 261) that thou and you did rhyme, as did thee and ye, and that the cross-associations in the patterning of final elements are likely to have had some influence on the relationship between the forms — the relevance of such patterning in the pronouns for speakers-hearers has already been discussed in chapter 1. In addition, as well as possible confusion between the spoken forms, in writing both thou and you could be written with , as could thee and ye. Jespersen (1894: 263) also mentions the influence of the possessive your, which he believes would favour you rather than ye, though here too it should be noted that at least in Present English the two forms differ in vowel quality. A similar development has also taken place in the cognate forms in West Frisian where the subj. y/jy was replaced by the obj./poss. form jo(u), contrast for example the Modern (East Frisian) Saterlandic forms subj. jie, obj. jou — see further 7.2.3. And in Dutch an accented objective form jou, joe is relatively common in some Zeeuws dialects as a subjective form, and also occurs sporadically in Zaans, as well as in the cognate pronoun in Groningen, most likely under Frisian influence. The developments in ye-you as noted show clearly the types of change discussed in [B] in chapter 2: Functional merger of ye and you, Functional reinterpretation of you as a -faccent form, Phonological merger (when unaccented) and no subsequent therapeutic change, and Loss of form in ye. That there has been no secondary restoration of the subj.-obj. case distinction in 'you' is — as also discussed in chapter 2 — due to the lack of parallel noun phrase distinction in English, and the clear syntactic marking of subject and object by position, which has probably been the case in English since the middle of the fifteenth century (see 2.2.3). Apart from some of the personal pronouns and in some varieties who(m), English no longer has morphological subj.-obj. or nom.-acc.-dat. distinction. This lack of restoration of the morphological subj.-obj. distinction can be contrasted with the loss of number distinction in the 2nd person, where in several varieties of English a new formal singular-plural distinction has been created, for example yous(e) or y'all. These developments are discussed below.

170

English

6.6.2 Loss of thou-thee-thine, thy12 In contrast to the loss of subj.-obj. distinction above, the reasons for the general loss of the 2nd p. singular forms thou-thee-thine, thy and the generalization of the originally plural-only pronouns were above all due to their use as Τ and V forms of address — i.e. a socially-motivated change: thou-thee-thine, thy did not merge phonologically with ye/you-yours, your, and number distinction was not lost in I-we (me-us etc.) for example. The loss of thou-thee-thine, thy shows how T / V factors can result in substantial changes in the personal pronouns. From the evidence of surviving records it seems that Old English did not possess a superior or polite form of address (see for example Finkenstaedt 1963: 30ff.). The first definite examples of a V form of address in English date from the second half of the thirteenth century (Kennedy 1915: 85). For the period approximately 1325-1375, Stidston (1917: 49) states that the use of the plural pronoun is still in its experimental stage: 'Persons of all ranks naturally use the sing, still and it is only when a speaker — usually one of the higher classes who knows the fashions of the day . . . — desires to make a good impression upon some superior that he employs the plur. The common people do not show any very strong tendency to use the plur.' However, Finkenstaedt (1963: 91) states that at the time of Chaucer the plural was already 'vollkommen selbstverständlich' among the upper class. Finkenstaedt (1963: 92) believes that in the fifteenth century the use of the plural spreads among the middle class, and Spies (1897: 115-121) for the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries notes that thou is generally used by a superior to an inferior, and ye¡you by an inferior to a superior; parents generally use thou to their children, who in turn address their parents as yeI you. In the seventeenth century the use of thou in colloquial language decreased rapidly (Finkenstaedt 1963:120 & 172). Finkenstaedt points out (1963: 224-26) the influence of London and its surrounding area in the giving up of thou, and this seems to be confirmed by the distribution of 2nd p. sing. nom. forms mapped in the LAE in M67 which shows thou/thee forms retained in dialect in the North, West and Southwest, i.e. in areas furthest from London. In Northamptonshire, for example, thou was still used by old people in the middle of the nineteenth century (Finkenstaedt 1963:226). Since the data of the Survey of English Dialects, collected in the 1950s and early 1960s using older informants, the occurrence of thou/thee has

12 In the following discussion reference to thou/thee and ye/you should be taken to include all nom. and oblique forms.

Modera English

171

undoubtedly on the whole decreased. In Scotland the 2nd person singular is found in Shetland (as [du], [di]), in Orkney, and in parts of North Mainland Scotland (Aitken 1984:105). Several factors were probably involved in the changes .in the 2nd person. The spread of the use of the plural V form of address to the middle class has already been noted above, and it is possible that the rise of the middle class was an important factor in the increase in use of ye/you at the expense of thou/thee. As Wales (1983: 118f.) points out, the aspirations of the middle class towards the habits of the politest society would mean that patterns of speech would also be imitated; this may have been particularly true of women, judging by present-day studies which suggest that middle class women favour 'standard' forms more than men (see Wales 1983: 119). In addition, where a person's status was uncertain it is possible that ye/you would be used as the form of address rather than thou/thee to avoid possible insult to the addressee (Strang 1970: 139).13 Finkenstaedt (1963:224f.) also sees as a factor the formation of the modern parliament and the movement for equality and tolerance in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries; he states (1963: 225) 'Eine grundsätzliche Achtung des Mitmenschen verbietet eine herablassende Sprache ihm gegenüber, verbietet die unterordnende Sg. Anrede' — a parallel to this, though using the Τ pronoun, would be the more recent expansion of the du form of address in for example Sweden — see also further below. The development of the 2nd person pronouns in English is characterized by an increase in the domain of the V form ye/you and a narrowing of the domain of thou/thee. As the use of ye/you as a singular address become more common, the more it became the normal or unmarked form, while thou/thee on the other hand became the marked pronoun. This was a reversal of the early T / V situation in English where ye as singular had been the marked form. Thou/thee became restricted to certain spheres, one of which was the family: at least from Chaucer's time a husband could address his wife in the singular (while she used the plural), and this usage is very common in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries. The singular could also have a connotation of intimacy (Finkenstaedt 1963: 85f. & 120-128). However, the frequent use of thou/thee as a form of insult may have contributed to its loss as a form of address both in the family and also to servants; Finkenstaedt (1963:128ff.) gives examples from trials from the sixteenth to early seventeenth centuries where defendants were addressed as thou/thee in the heat of an argument — which may also be an expression of very

13 Or — in Swedish earlier — pronominal address avoided.

172

English

strong emotion (cf. Mühlhäusler & Harré 1990: 153) — the most famous being the 'for I thou thee, thou Traitor' to Walter Raleigh. 14 At the turn of the last century, Wright (1905: 272) records that the 2nd person singular was still used to express familiarity or contempt, and states that it could not be used to a 'superior' without conveying the idea of impertinence. Another factor contributing to the loss of the old singular may have been, as Brown and Gilman (1960: 266) state, a popular reaction against the radicalism of the Quakers, who adopted thou/thee as their form of address. The Quakers were founded in the mid-seventeenth century and, as Finkenstaedt (1963: 224) points out, 'Die Auseinandersetzungen über die Anrede wurden mit einer solchen Heftigkeit und auf so breiter Linie geführt, daß nicht daran zu zweifeln ist, daß man das thou auch deshalb vermied, damit man nicht als Quäker galt.' He believes that the Quakers thereby unintentionally themselves contributed to the disappearance of thou/thee from everyday language and created in thou/thee a Quaker shibboleth. The singular form of address came to be marked as a religious form and as a dialect form, and it is these connotations which thou retains today, together with a general feeling as an antiquated form. The sixteenth century translations of the Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer (first published 1549) used thou as the singular pronoun of address, and the Authorized Version (published 1611) preserved this usage. However, there is now a great deal of variation in religious practice, and modern Bible translations using you mean that the use of thou/thee is under threat even there. 15 The retention of thou/thee in dialect led to its marking as a dialect form. As already noted, Finkenstaedt (1963: 224) states that the fact that thou is found in dialects furthest from London shows 'daß die Entwicklung der Hauptstadt (und ihrer Umgebung) entscheidend ist, daß es sich um die Folge einer Entwicklung eines bestimmten Teils der Gesellschaft handelt, der das thou zuerst aufgibt'. Wales (1983:117) points out the importance of the growing notion of a standard language and standard speech and states that in drama from the middle of the sixteenth century onwards

14 This insulting use of thou/thee — which often occurred in trials — should not be confused with the convention of using the singular form of address in fixed expressions in court, found well into the eighteenth century, e.g. 'Hold up thy hand . . . thou standest indicted . . .' (Finkenstaedt 1963:141). 15 The biblical connotations of English thou can be compared with similar connotations of the Dutch 2nd person pronoun gij felt by speakers from the north of the Dutch-speaking area: gij (cognate with English ye) was used in the seventeenth-century state translation of the Bible (see 8.4).

Modem English

173

dialect speakers are portrayed as figures of fun — compare the use of the 1st person sing, form ich in 6.2.1 above. It is likely that the avoidance of overtly dialect features in speech would include the avoidance of thou/thee. What these developments show is that the 2nd p. singular pronouns were restricted to certain spheres. As Strang (1970: 139f.) notes, these spheres are to some extent the functions left over after you had become the ordinary or unmarked form — they are not so much connected with one another, rather by that which has been lost. T/V usage has led to a major change in the English personal pronoun paradigm. The developments in the 2nd person pronouns show an extension of the domain of V to the near complete exclusion of the Τ form. This, as already noted, is the opposite development to that in Swedish for example where the last decades have seen a considerable expansion of the Τ domain with du, though not to the loss of T - V distinction as in English (in fact recently there has been some movement in favour of the plural ni) — compare here 2.6. In Present Standard English the single you has no connotations of Τ or V. This does not mean, of course, that English no longer expresses social status and/or politeness/familiarity linguistically — on the contrary a major feature of British English is its social differentiation — however it does mean that a T - V distinction is no longer expressed through separate personal pronouns.16 In Dutch the 2nd person singular pronoun du-di-dijns (cognate with English thou) was also lost from the standard language and survives today only in some dialects, though subsequent developments differ (see chapter 8). West Frisian also shows similarity with English in that the 2nd person singular V pronoun jo is an originally plural form, though the singular do etc. has not been lost (see chapter 7). The loss of the singular-plural distinction in the 2nd person pronouns in English has meant that ambiguity is possible in pronominal reference — unlike the subj.-obj. distinction of you, number is not indicated by word order, and, although you was was common in the eighteenth century and 'keineswegs als vulgär empfunden' (Finkenstaedt 1963: 228), number distinction of the 2nd person through verb morphology has been lost (at least in Standard English). Whether a speaker or writer is addressing one or more people may be clear from context, and plural reference can be made clear by the addition of lexical quantifiers such as you lot and (especially AmE) you guys — compare chapter 2 (2.3). However, in several varieties of English a new singular-plural distinction in the 2nd person

16 Although of course personal pronoun usage can vary sociolinguistically, e.g. me and him, between you and I etc., as can also other forms of address, e.g. the oftenquoted title (Mr/Mrs/Dr etc.) + surname—first name distinction.

174

English

has been created by the addition of a pluralizing element. In Southern American English all has been added to you to give a new plural form: you + all > y'all [jo:l] As stated in 2.8, fusion of the two elements shows that this form has gone beyond the stage of a simple ad hoc lexical addition, and y'all is always used regularly by those to whom the form is native. It is widely used on all social levels in Southern American English and there also exists a colloquial y'all's [jo:lz] as in Ί really like y'all's new car' ('your family's new car') (Quirk et al. 1985: 344). The Dictionary of American Regional English (F. G. Cassidy — personal communication) has on file (as yet unpublished) for y'all (come back) examples from Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and general South. Addition of -all may also be found, though to a lesser extent, in forms such as we-all, we-all's, who-all, what-all. Secondary plural distinction is also found in the form yous, youse [ju:z] where the regular noun plural allomorph [z] has been extended to the personal pronoun you — compare here again 2.3 and 2.4 in chapter 2: you -I- [z] > yous(e) [ju:z]

This form is current in Northern American English, and in certain areas of Britain such as Liverpool and Glasgow (Quirk et al. 1985: 344); it also occurs in Australia, and in northern Hiberno-English (Harris 1984: 131). Trudgill (1990: 85) notes youse in Belfast and Dublin and in Merseyside dialect. He ascribes youse in Liverpool to Irish influence (which raises the question of Irish influence in youse in Northern American English). At the turn of the last century Wright (1905: 274) records yous in Norfolk, as well as yous and yees in Ireland. A further innovatory 2nd p. plural form is you-uns which is found in parts of the United States — here ones has been added to the 2nd person pronoun. Some traditional dialects in the Eastern Counties of England have plural you ... together, as in Are you comin' together (Trudgill 1990: 85). In all of these forms secondary plural distinction has been made by additions from outside the personal pronouns, not by analogy with number distinction in the personal pronouns. As can be seen in the table below — cf. chapter 1 (1.1.1) — number inflection in the personal pronouns shows no consistent pattern: singular - plural I me mine/my

we us ours/our

175

Modem English

he she it

they

him her it

them

his hers/her its

theirs/their

Similar secondary number distinction in the personal pronouns is also found in other Germanic languages. In Dutch already in the thirteenth century plural forms of the pronouns are recorded with the addition of liede ('people'). In present-day Dutch only the 2nd p. plural form jullie is standard, but in nonstandard or dialect forms such as wullie, welle(n), wijlder, gullie, julder, vider, zullie, zijlder, hullie etc. occur. Afrikaans has julle and hulle, and earlier also sulle etc. These plural forms are semantically comparable to English you guys, although as with English y'all, fusion in the Dutch and Afrikaans pronouns shows that they have become separate forms in their own right. Compare also possibly Old Frisian jemma(n) (and later forms), Modern German dialectal jüm, jim, jem and Danish dialectal (now extinct) im-irm/iem, and German dialectal endsch andre, ier andre, where possibly 'man', and 'others' have been added. Finally, as well as secondary differentiation in the English 2nd person pronoun by addition, Finkenstaedt (1963: 230) mentions two seventeenthcentury grammars where a distinction is made between you nom. sing, and ye nom. plural, but Finkensteadt states that there is little trace of such a differentiation, though Wright (1905: 273f.) does record in south Cheshire at the turn of the century a distinction between you singular and ye plural. 6.6.3 Dialectal stress-governed usage In the Midlands and the Southwest it is possible for the personal pronouns to reverse their historical roles as subject and object, being governed instead by stress, with the objective form used for the subject when the pronoun is unemphatic, and the subjective form used as the emphatic form of the object (Wakelin 1972:114f.). Trudgill (1990: 89-93) also notes similar usage in traditional Essex dialect. Compare the following data from Wakelin (1972) and Duncan (1972). I as emphatic object 'me' occurs in much of the Southwest as far east as west Berkshire, but not in Cornwall and only quite rarely in Devon and West Somerset (Wakelin 1972:112).

176

English

We, where Standard English would use 'us', was recorded by the SED in much of the Southwest including Cornwall, the southwest Midlands, and also in parts of East Anglia. Us as unemphatic 'we' is recorded throughout the whole of Devon, in east Cornwall, and in single localities in Warwickshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire (Wakelin ibid.). As has already been noted, in the 2nd person thee occurs for 'thou' in much of the Southwest and southwest Midlands (see LAE M67), and — very much more rarely — thou occurs as object (Wakelin 1972:113). In the 3rd person sing, masc., although there is not a great deal of evidence in the SED, Wakelin (ibid.) states that in the Southwest him and also en (see 6.2.7) can occur rarely for 'he' in expressions such as isn't he? etc. And he can occur emphatically for 'him', e.g. Ί knowed he by his voice'. As has been discussed in 6.3.2 above, in the feminine singular although it is possible that subjective her in the West and Southwest may not be an historical obj. form, synchronically it may be perceived as one, although it should be noted that the use of her as subject is not governed by stress (Duncan 1972: 190). The use of she as object is very much less widely attested, being recorded in one or two localities in northeast Somerset and once in Sussex (Duncan ibid.). In unstressed conditions them occurs for 'they' sporadically in the southern area west of Sussex, in much of the west Midlands, and in two east Midland localities west of Buckinghamshire, although it is not the invariable form in any of these localities (Duncan ibid.). It appears from Wright (1905: 271) that this usage was more widespread in dialect at around the turn of the century than is recorded in the Survey of English Dialects some fifty or sixty years later. Wright states that objective forms are often used as unemphatic subjects especially in the south midland, eastern, southern and southwestern counties, and conversely in all dialects of these areas the subject pronoun is used as the emphatic form of the object. Ihalainen· (1991) and Trudgill (1990: 89-93) term this usage 'pronoun exchange'. The use of these forms is in some cases complex (though note the homophony of the subj. and obj. forms of 'she' as her, and the thou/thee-ye/you developments already discussed in this chapter which may perhaps account for some of this complexity — see here also Ihalainen 1991: 106 & 117 and Paddock 1991: 36-38), and, as shown by the data from Wakelin (1972) and Duncan (1972) above, the usage is not uniform across all dialects. As further illustration see also the articles by Ihalainen (1991: 106f. & 114-117), Paddock (1991: 36-38), Harris (1991: 27f.) and Trudgill (1990: 90f.). Given these qualifications, however, this 'pronoun exchange' can to some extent be described as a Functional reinterpretation of the subjective and objective forms according to accent, i.e. the subjective and objective pronouns are reinterpreted as + and - accented forms

Modem English

177

respectively. (The use of the relative terms + and - accented may perhaps be preferred to the term 'emphatic' which is also criticized by Ihalainen 1991: 106f.) This 'pronoun exchange' in English dialect can thus be fitted into the Pan-Germanic framework discussed in chapter 2 of Functional reinterpretation. Furthermore, functional reinterpretation of case forms according to accent is widely attested in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages as a whole, see chapter 2 and the discussion of accusative-dative levelling in chapter 3. It has already been noted that the historical distinction of subject versus object case no longer adequately accounts for the usage of the personal pronouns in Present English, and that, as shown by subj.-obj. unspecific you and the importance of word order, subj.-obj. distinctions in the personal pronouns are a redundant feature for case. As already noted, the original (case) function of the pronouns is lost or obsolescent, and the pronoun forms (in this case subjective and objective forms) are reinterpreted according to accent. A possible factor in the reinterpretation in English dialect may be that in informal English the objective pronoun has become the unmarked case form, used in the absence of positive reasons for using the subjective form (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 337f.), and this may to some extent explain its use as a -accented pronoun. Conversely, the subjective pronoun has become marked, which may explain its use here as a -(-accented form.

Chapter 7: Frisian Old Frisian Surviving Old Frisian manuscripts are comparatively recent — the oldest complete texts dating from the thirteenth century — but frequently reflect an older stage of the language, so that the term 'Old Frisian' is in general acceptable (Sjölin 1969: 7). Nevertheless, the North Frisian settlement, of the islands and the mainland, predates the earliest surviving Old Frisian manuscripts. The division of Old Frisian used here is preclassical (up to 1100), classical (approx. 1100-1400), and postclassical (approx. 1400-1550) (dates cf. Dykstra 1977: 9); for discussion of the reasons for this subclassification see Sjölin (1969:15-18) and (1984). 7.1.1 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. In postclassical Old Frisian, and later West Frisian dialectally as well as in the standard (cf. also Japicx jtE (hya)), a 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. form ja, hja [ja:] occurs which, according to Siebs (1901: §163), later also Fokkema (1969:137f.) and Markey (1972: 403), derives from the fem. sing, originally accusative-only pronoun. Markey points out the parallel in (Anglian) Old English and Low German (see 11.5.4), though both here and in Frisian analogical influence of 3rd p. plural nom./acc. forms also seems likely. 7.1.2 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural s- forms The Old Frisian 3rd p. sing. fem. nominative and accusative and 3rd person plural nominative and accusative, like the full forms of the 3rd person personal pronouns generally, have initial h- (postclassical also j-1)] however, a probably older s- form is retained as s(e) — compare for example forms with initial s- in Middle ¡Dutch (si, sie, -se etc.) and Old Saxon (siu, sia, sie etc.). In Old Frisian s(e) only occurs unaccented; early examples of full forms with initial s- are-uncommon (on West Frisian sy see 7.2.2). Unaccented s forms are retained in Modern West, East and North

1

Compare for example Modern West Frisian hjoed [ju at] 'today', hjir [jir] 'here', hjeldei [jeldai] 'holy day'; see also Siebs (1901: §132, §163).

179

Old Frisian

Old Frisian ΝΟΜ.

1

s

2 S

3 S M

ACC.

ik

mi

mi

thu (du)

thi (di)

thi (di)

-ti

-ti

hiñe (hini, hin(n)a, hin), en(e),

him,

-tu

hi, hy, hij, (he) -(e)r, -(e)re, -e

also h i m , h e m

-ne 3 S F

3 S Ν

1 Ρ

2 Ρ

DAT.

hiu (hio), postcl. also j a , j o

h i a (v.occas. h i o ) , postcl. also j a , also hire, hir

8(e)

8(e)

hit, het

hit, het

GEN.

*

thin

sin

postcl. also h e m

-(e)s

-em

hire (hiri, hira, hir), her

hire (hiri, hira, here, hir) her(a)

him,

sin

postcl. also h e m

"(e)t

-(e)t

-em

-(e)s

wi

us

us

user

gi, ghi, ghy,

ju

ju

j, i, y

postcl. also jo, ioe,

postcl. also jo, ioe,

postcl.

jemma(n), jenne

jemma(n), jenne

jemma(n)

h i a (v. occas. h i o ) postcl. also j a ,

him(man), hiam,

hi(a)ra (hire),

hiarem, hiara, hemmen, him 8(e)

hemmen, hiarem, heren, hiara

posici,

also

juwer also

jemma(n)

3 Ρ

h i a (v. occas. h i o ) , postcl. also j a

s(e) postcl. = postclassical

postcl.

also

postcl.

also

hiarra, hierra, (hiaren)

180

Frisian

Frisian. Middle English may also show similar survival of earlier cognate forms in s- in the 3rd p. sing. fern, and 3rd p. plural accusative, see 6.2.4. 7.1.3 3rd p. sing. masc. enclitic -r forms Old Frisian has a 3rd p. sing. masc. nom. enclitic -(e)r etc. which contrasts with the full form hi (he) etc.; the enclitic form with -r is also found in the Modern Frisian dialects, its occurrence in North Frisian also in the island dialects suggesting at least that it may have been present already at the time of settlement around the beginning of the eighth century. Siebs (1901: 1354) suggests that the enclitic -r form may derive from a connection of the orthotone pronoun hi with enclitic Old Frisian ther (which in Modern Frisian is mostly pronounced [j] and 'sehr häufig eingeschaltet wird'), or — in his opinion less likely — that it derives directly from ther, where the development to a personal pronoun could have been supported by its use as a relative particle. Another explanation (Van Helten 1890: §97, WFT 'er') is that enclitic -r in the 3rd p. sing, masculine is a survival of the earlier -r lost in other personal pronoun forms, compare for example Old Frisian mi, thi, hi, -(e)r, wi, gi, j with the cognate forms with -r in Old High German mir, dir, er, unir, ir,2 or those with -s in Gothic mis, pus, is, weis, jus. The usual explanation for the loss of the -r (for references see Klein 1979: 437f.) — that it was lost when final when unstressed, with subsequent generalization of the originally unstressed form — appears to rule out an explanation of the 3rd p. sing. masc. enclitic - r as a survival of the earlier forms in -r\ Klein (1979: 437-444) offers the reverse explanation that - r was lost in stressed syllables with compensatory lengthening, and was originally retained enclitically, though this explanation does not appear to account for West Frisian dier ('animal'), English deer (cf. Gothic dius) which do not show a corresponding loss of -r. Seebold (1984: 62), cf. also Bremer (1928: 310), seems to suggest that as a clitic -r may have been retained internally — compare Old Frisian 3rd p. sing. fem. dat. and gen. hire etc. and 3rd p. plural gen. hi(a)ra etc. with no r loss — though it should be noted that - r is not retained enclitically in the 1st or 2nd p. plural pronouns in Old Frisian. 3rd p. sing. masc. clitic -r is also found in other areas which have an -r less full form: in western Groningen — though this is surely the result of Frisian influence — and in much of Limburgs, where Klein (1979: 438f.) argues that -r is not a southern import but an indigenous form. According to Weijnen (1966: 293) Limburgs has clitic [ar], with (see Zelissen 1969:177)

2 Some -r less forms also occur in High German (see the High German paradigms, chapter 11).

Old Frisian

181

a full form he (only the Maastricht area has the full form her). Compare figure 8.2.1a in chapter 8. Some difference in the extent of 'er' and the -r less 'he' according to stress is noted in the material of the DSA for the 3rd p. sing. masc. (cf. 11.7.1): unstressed 'er' occurs more frequently and further in the North than a more stressed form of 'er', and a more stressed 'he' is more common and frequent in the South than unstressed 'he'. As has already been pointed out, unaccented pronouns sometimes retain forms lost in the full pronouns — see chapter 2, and the retention of the 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural unaccented forms with s in Frisian (see 7.1.2 above) may also be mentioned here. On the other hand, however, neither Old English nor Old Saxon, nor (excepting Limburgs) Middle Dutch record any retention of -r in the 3rd p. sing. masc. 7.1.4 3rd p. plural gender distinction Gender distinction in the 3rd person plural is already lost in Old Frisian records.

182

Frisian

Middle West Frisian/Early Modern West Frisian Especially in the Netherlands the term 'Middle Frisian' is used of the writings of Gysbert Japicx (1603-1666) and other literature from the middle of the sixteenth century to the eighteenth century. Sjölin (1969: 7) states, however, that there is no agreement about the justification of this term, and at least in the 'äußeren Sprachform' 'Middle Frisian' does not differ from Modern West Frisian (i.e. post-1800) to such an extent that a separate classification is necessary. Some researchers term the period of West Frisian between 1550 and 1800 'early Modern West Frisian' (Sjölin ibid.). The personal pronouns in the writings of Gysbert Japicx are given in the paradigm below (from Epkema 1824: xlviii-xlix, also Campbell 1948: 125).

Middle West Frisian/Early Modern West Frisian

183

Gysbert Japicx 1

s

SUBJ.

OBJ.

GEN.

ick

my

mijns/mijner

2

du, y, jo, jy,

dy, y, jo, jy,

dijns, ys, jons,

S

je, ju, jou

je, ju, jou

jys, jins, jens

3 S M

hy

him

sijns/syner

her, har, jer, jerm, se

herres, harres jerms

it, et

sijns

uwz

uwser

jiemme

jiemme

(jiemmes)

jas

her, jer, jerm, harre, herre se

er

3 S F

jae (hya)

3 S Ν

it, et (dat)

1 Ρ

2 Ρ

3 Ρ

wy

herrer

184

Frisian

Modem West Frisian The Modern West Frisian standard is based largely on the Klaaifrysk dialects. With the exception of Hylpen/Hindeloopen and the island dialects of (West and East) Skylge/Terschelling and Skiermûntseach/ Schiermonnikoog, West Frisian dialects do not differ greatly from one another. Dialect variation in the personal pronouns is noted where relevant. 7.2.1 2nd p. sing. Τ enclitic -sto, -ste etc. As a result of reanalysis of the -st of the 2nd p. sing, verb ending and the enclitic pronoun, a new 2nd p. sing, enclitic form -sto, -ste etc. developed which occurs also outside its original environment immediately after the verb, e.g. datsto 'that you', dy'tst 'who you' etc. (see further Visser 1988: 199-206, Tiersma 1985: 62). For further examples of reanalysis in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages see 2.5.2. 7.2.2 3rd p. sing. fem. subj. and 3rd p. plural subj. sy As already noted, early examples of full forms with initial s- in Frisian are uncommon (though s(e) occurs as an unaccented form, see 7.1.2 above). Fokkema (1969: 139f.) notes a sie as accusative plural from about 1480 in the 'Aide Druk'. In the seventeenth century according to Fokkema Starter uses sy once; in the second edition, however, sy is replaced by jo — an indication, Fokkema points out, that sy was not accepted in writing. In T)e Burkerij' from 1774 written in "Volksfries' zij occurs, though less commonly than ja and je; Halbertsma uses zij in 1822, for example in 'Uut fen Hoes bij de Boer', but later editions have hja (Fokkema ibid.). Tiersma (1985: 65) states that in present-day West Frisian sy is often considered substandard 'because of its Dutch provenience' (see further below). The standard 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural full form hja does not reflect spoken usage. Hof (1933:179 & 180) in a study of West Frisian mainland dialects records j- (earlier h-) forms in only a relatively small portion of the Frisian area (only some of which with [a]) — and in the main j- area (part of the Waiden) full forms in s- can also occur (see also Hoekema 1984:92) — with elsewhere s- forms dominant. 3

3 According to Fokkema & Van der Hoek (1967: 75), in some places in the Waiden where both si and hja are known hja is sometimes used as (feminine) singular and si as plural; si as singular and hja as plural is also found. Incidentally, Hof (1933: 180) notes a fem. sing.-plural distinction for Hylpen/Hindeloopen (jo-jè), and Siebs (1901: §163) also gives separate fem. sing.-plural forms for Skiermûntseach/Schiermonnikoog.

Modem West Frisian

185

Modern West Frisian SUBJ.

ΟΒλ_

GEN./POSS.

my

mines/minen(t)

[mai, mi], Wâlden [mi]

myn

dy

dines/dinen(t)

[dei, di]

dyn

jo, je

jo, je

jowes (jinnes)

[jou, jo·, ja]

[jo-u, jo·, ja]

jo (jins)

HY

him

sines/sinen(t)

[him, hem, am]

syn

har [har]

harres

ik, 'k 1 s

[ik, ak, k ] emphatic ikke [ika ]

2 S Τ

2 S V

3 S M

3 S F

3 S Ν

1 Ρ

2 Ρ

do [do'u, do·, da] (ιalso dû [du]) -sto, (-stû), -ste, -st [sto-, (stu), sta, st]

[hei, hi ] er [ar, r, dj] hja [ja:] (also hju [JA, ja]) sy

[βεί, si]

se [sa, za]

it, 't

it, 't

sines/sinen(t)

[at, t]

[at,t]

syn

wy, we

us

uzes

[νεΐ, vi, va]

[y:s,ys]

us

jimme (jim)

jimme (jim)

jimmes

[jima, jim, jam]

[jima, jim, jam]

jimme

harren, also har [haran, har]

harres

hja [ja:] (also hja [jA, ja]) 3 Ρ

har

se [sa, za]

sy

[sei, si ]

se [sa, za]

se [sa, za]

har/harren

186

Frisian

Markey (1972: 402) — including the island dialects — gives a similar picture, see Markey's map 2 which, apart from the Waiden, is from his own field work carried out in 1970. His material for the Waiden — one of the areas retaining the j- forms — is taken from Fokkema & Van der Hoek (1967), a work criticized by Hoekema (1984: 92 & 95), however. Hoekema (1984: 91f.) from the Dialect-atlas van Friesland by Boelens & Van der Woude (1955), cf. also Fon Wearinga (1984: 106 & 108), gives (h)j- forms for the following: Ikkerwâld/Akkerwoude, Westerein/Zwaagwesteinde, Bûtenpost/Buitenpost, Feanwâlden/Veenwoude, Garyp/Garijp, Aldegea/ Oudega, De Wylp/De Wilp, Skylge/Terschelling, Skiermûntseach/Schiermonnikoog, Wierum, Moddergat and Hylpen/Hindeloopen. According to Fon Wearinga (1984: 107f.), the full s- form is not a loan from Dutch but an indigenous Frisian pronoun which remained virtually unrecorded up to the Modern period. Fon Wearinga (1984: 108) suggests that there was a 'geographical, complementary distribution' of the h-jjand s- forms, and states that it 'would seem most likely that in early Old Frisian times hiu/hia was the pronoun used in the terpen area and si in the woodlands, and that the present situation is the result of later expansion of one at the expense of the other, and vice versa, at first hja gaining ground, but in the end, through Dutch influence, sij, in company with the other diphthongized pronominal forms, being the winner'. However, as the Waiden is one of the few areas now retaining j- forms (in some cases alongside forms with s-) it seems less than straightforward to explain it as an original area of the full s- form from which, with Dutch influence, it should spread to most of the West Frisian area. Furthermore, Fokkema (1969: 138) reports that in the Wâlden some informants stated that in areas where the older generation use the j- forms, younger people use si; compare also Hof (1933:180) who sees si as a recent form. In addition, the fact that East and North Frisian dialects generally do not have full forms (though indeed unaccented forms) with s,4 and that full forms in s- are uncommon in Old and Middle West Frisian/early Modern West Frisian, does not support its explanation as an originally Frisian pronoun. It seems more likely that the full form in s- is a Dutch loan, and this seems to be supported by the retention of j- forms on the periphery of the West Frisian area, as well as by the fact that both East and North Frisian dialects generally have full forms with j-.s Note also that virtually all the

4 The East Frisian Harlinger dialect (recorded only from a text from the late seventeenth century) records zy, st etc. in enclitic position as 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural (see Miiller's 'Redensarten' in König 1911: 61-68). 5 Compare also the use by some speakers of the 3rd p. plural Dutch pronoun hun in West Frisian, though this is even more forcefully rejected from the standard language (Fokkema 1969:141, Tiersma 1985: 65).

Modem West Frisian

187

West Frisian locations with (h)j- forms listed above occur in dialects noted for their retention of older features or their 'Sonderentwicklung' — see Fokkema (1969:138) on the Wâlden and Àrhammar (1968: 271) on Hylpen/ Hindeloopen, Skylge/Terschelling and Skiermûntseach/Schiermonnikoog. Frisian already had an unaccented form with s-, though if the full form is a borrowing from Dutch; it is uncertain whether se is a continuation of the earlier unaccented form or a reduced form of the Dutch pronoun. But given — as far as texts permit — the continuum in record of the unaccented s- form, and also its occurrence alongside full forms with j-, it seems plausible t h a t se is a retention of the earlier form, and indeed t h a t the unaccented s- form was a factor in the (likely) borrowing of the Dutch pronoun. As a factor in the development of the 2nd person pronoun jo as a subj. form (see 7.2.3 below) and the (likely) borrowing of the Dutch 3rd p. sing, fem. and 3rd p. plural pronoun 'sy', Kloeke (1941: 26ff.) points to the ambiguity or partial ambiguity between the 2nd person and the 3rd p. sing, fem. and 3rd p. plural which could become je6 (cf. also Hof 1933: 180 and Hoekema 1984: 92f. for ModWFris dialectal [jA, ja] etc. nonclitic forms, clitically se). In addition, Kloeke (1941: 31ff.) notes the Frisian use of the 3rd person in address (i.e. as a de facto 2nd person). It should also be noted that unlike the 3rd p. sing, and 3rd p. plural where (number) ambiguity 7 is distinguished through verb morphology (ModWFris e.g. hja mient-hja miene 'she thinks'-'they think'), the 2nd person etymologically plural pronoun is (as English you) conjugated with the plural verb form, cf. ModWFris jo binne-hja binne ('you are'-'they are'). Such developments in the personal pronouns — both distinction through Borrowing and in jo through Case form change of an oblique pronoun as a distinct subj. form — are paralleled in other Germanic languages and have been discussed in chapter 2. 7.2.3 2nd p. sing. V jo Various explanations have been offered for the West Frisian 2nd person jo as a subjective form — Modern West Frisian has subj., obj. and determinative poss. jo.8 Fokkema (1944:108) and Kloeke (1941: 7, 13) and (1944: 124) state t h a t jo(u) appears in records as a subjective form in the eighteenth century. — However, jo, ju, jou are recorded as subjective pronouns earlier in Gysbert

6 A 3rd p. plural ie is recorded as early as 1578 (Kloeke 1941: 22). 7 On dialectal 3rd p. sing.-3rd p. plural distinction in the pronouns in West Frisian see footnote 3. 8 In the spelling changes of 1980 jou was respelt as jo. Jo is the usual determinative possessive form; jins is more literary (Tiersma 1985: 65).

188

Frisian

Japicx (1603-1666), who has both originally subjective forms as objective and originally objective pronouns as subjective (see the forms from Epkema 1824: xlviii-xlix in the paradigm above). A possible example of the objective form as subjective from 1511 is reported by Kloeke (1941:19). Tiersma states in a note (1985: 63) that jo is the originally objective pronoun which has replaced the now obsolete subjective y, jy, as also in the English cognate forms you and ye. The change to subj./obj./det. poss. jo in West Frisian should be viewed in the context of case distinction indicated syntactically rather than morphologically (which also holds for personal pronoun-determinative possessive, cf. e.g. English her) — see chapter 2. As also discussed in English ye-you (see 6.6.1), the fact that formal case distinction has been lost in y/jy-jo, but not in ik-my, hy-him, sy/hja-har, wy-ús, sy/hja-harren, suggests that an important factor lies in the morphology of the pronouns — compare here again the discussion in 2.2.4 on a tendency to longer retention of suppletive distinctions in the personal pronouns. Unlike ik-my, hy-him etc. where the formal distinction between the case forms is greater, the subj.-obj. distinction in y/jy-jo was likely to become obscured or even lost when unaccented. As in English, a factor may have been the contrasting pattern of the subjective and objective forms in do-dy and y/jy-jo, compare Old Frisian: nom. thu gi, j etc.

thi ju

The patterning of the vowels in thu-thi is the reverse of that in gi, j e t c ju — i.e., as was pointed out for English, formal likeness corresponded to a functional difference. In addition, with the development of the originally 2nd p. plural-only also as a V form of address to one person, both sets of forms could occur as 2nd person singular. Given the frequent occurrence of pronouns as unaccented forms, confusion in the full forms could have occurred — note the functional merger of the original subj.-obj. distinction in Gysbert Japicx mentioned above. In most dialects, then, jo(u) may have been reinterpreted as an accented rather than as the objective and/or possessive form — i.e. a Functional reinterpretation according to accent, compare also Kloeke (1941: 31) as well as possible parallels in the cognate forms in English and to some extent dialectally in Dutch (8.2). Functional reinterpretation according to accent has been shown to have taken place in many of the Germanic languages in merger of case distinction in the personal pronouns (see chapters 2 & 3). Furthermore, as stated in 7.2.2 above, a factor in the Case form change of jo as a distinct subj. form may have been ambiguity between the 2nd person and the 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural. It may also be added here that — as a result of a loss of

Modem West Frisian

189

initial j- before long i in an original nominative *ji (cf. ModWFris per [(j)i'ar] — 'year'), or an original j- less form — in most dialects the 2nd person (plural) nom. was or became y, which, given levelling and confusion of forms, meant that use oijo(u) in emphasis was perhaps more likely than vice versa. Compare in Hylpen/Hindeloopen and earlier also in Molkwar/ Molkwerum, both of which have or had an initial j- in 'jy', where levelling was to the subj. pronoun ji (Fokkema 1944:107f.). Jespersen (1894: 263) for English mentions influence of the possessive your, which he believes would have favoured you rather than ye. Fokkema (1944) and Kloeke (1941 L· 1944) also see influence of the possessive in West Frisian (though they dispute over the origin of the possessive form), although neither of them draws any parallel with the development in English ye-you. Fokkema (1944:114f.) states that the possessive and the objective form jo(u) occurred as subjective above all where je and y 'niet de gewenste nadruk kon geven' — i.e. he believes that jo was a more emphatic form — note the points made above. However, given the earlier examples of jo etc. as subjective forms in Gysbert Japicx mentioned above, Fokkema's argument postulates influence of the possessive form jo(u) before it becomes more widely attested in West Frisian texts from the eighteenth century, although he does believe it did also occur earlier despite the small number of recorded examples (see Fokkema 1944:113). As a further factor Fokkema also points to the fact that both jimme and the unaccented je were used as subjective/objective/possessive forms — compare here the points made on levelling in the pronouns in 2.2. Kloeke (1941 & 1944: 124f.) believes that jo(u) as a subjective form developed as a result of a frequent use of the possessive jou(w) by bilingual Frisians, reinforced by the use of jo(u) as an objective form. He also points to 'de aanzuigende kracht van het y-vacuum'. He believes — though disputed by Fokkema (1944) — that the possessive form is a loan from Hollands, via Stedfrysk,9 and suggests a parallel development with — what he believes was — the development of the Dutch 2nd person V pronoun u from Uwe Edelheid etc., envisaging in Frisian, initially in the speech of fashionable ('Town') Frisians (or officials or tradespeople), influence of jouw Edelheid and similar forms, though it must be added that Kloeke's assumption of the development of Dutch u is by no means undisputed (see Dutch 8.4.4). In addition, a problem with Kloeke's explanation, as with Fokkema's, is its relative chronology: if the development of jo(u) to a

9 Stedfrysk, or 'Town Frisian', a mixture of Dutch and Frisian spoken in the larger Frisian towns in the Netherlands, was maintained among higher social classes until well into the twentieth century, though has now diminished in status and is quickly losing ground (cf. Tiersma 1985: 4f., Boelens et al. 1990:11).

190

Frisian

subjective form was due to some extent to the possessive form jou(w), as Kloeke suggests, a question must be asked why jo, ju, jou occur as subjective in Gysbert Japicx before a possessive jov(w) is very commonly recorded (from the eighteenth century). In (East Frisian) Saterlandic — though this seems not to be relevant for West Frisian developments — Siebs (1901: §162) notes from the beginning of this century that the cognate 2nd person obj. pronomi jou was used in place of the subjective form jie as a sign of 'ganz besonderer Höflichkeit' in addressing old people.

Modem East Frisian

191

Modern East Frisian Apart from Saterlandic, the only remaining dialect of East Frisian spoken today, East Frisian was spoken in isolated villages up to the end of the eighteenth century; on Wangerooge it survived into the twentieth century (see Sjölin 1969: 3 & 8, Ârhammar 1968: 289f.). Records of a few Modern East Frisian dialects have survived, though in greater numbers only from Wangerooge and the Saterland. 10 7.3.1 Harlinger Frisian forms On the Harlinger Frisian personal pronouns listed by Müller (see König 1911: 57) in his section on pronouns and adverbs and given in the East Frisian paradigm here, the following comments can be made: in the 2nd p. singular as well as tu, a d-initial form du is also recorded in Miiller's 'Redensarten' (see König 1911: 61-68). The 2nd person jem, jum, jom occur as subj./obj. also as singular. Müller gives as 3rd p. sing, masculine as the equivalent to German 'er' the form jum, but in his 'Redensarten' hy, hi also occur. This jum is the masc. sing, objective form (see for example Müller's 'Redensarten' number 49) also used as subj. — compare also the feminine jar (alongside ju) given by Müller. In the feminine singular as well as in the 3rd person plural zy, zi, si also occur.

10 The East Frisian dialect forms in the paradigm below and in the text are taken from various sources, with the problem that different transcriptions were often used. Some variation in the forms cited may therefore be purely orthographic. The same also applies to North Frisian further below.

192

Frisian

Modern East Frisian SUB J. 1 s

2 S

Sat. iek Wg. ik Harl. ick Wu. ick Upg. yc, yck Sat. du Wg. du Harl. tu Wu. du

OBJ. Sat. mie Wg. mi

Upg. mi, my Sat. die Wg. di

GEN./POSS. Sat. minnen, mienen, earlier also minns; min, mien Wg. min, mins, minÍ3, minÍ3st Sat. dinnen, dienen; din, dien Wg. din, dins

Wu. di

Sat. hie, -er Wg. hi, -r Harl. jum Wu. hie Upg. hi

Sat. him, acc. also (-)(e)ne Wg. him

3 S F

Sat. ju, ze unstr. Wg. ju Harl. jar, ju Wu. ju

Sat. hier, ze unstr. Wg. hœrî

3 S Ν

Sat. dät, et, t Wg. et Wu. et Upg. t

Sat. dät, et, t, dat. also him

1 Ρ

Sat. wie Wg. wi Harl. wy Wu. wi

Sat. uus, uz Wg. uz, us

Sat. uzen; uus Wg. uz

2 Ρ

Sat. jie Wg. jum Harl. jem Wu. tjinn Upg. y

Sat. jou Wg. jo

Sat. jouen; jou Wg. jo(u)ns

Sat. jo, ze unstr. Wg. ja Harl. zy, zi Wu. tja

Sat. him, also ene, ze unstr.

3 S M

3 Ρ

Sat. sinnen, sienen; sin, sien Wg. sin, sins

Upg. em

Wg. et

Sat. hierens; hiere Wg. híríns

Sat. sinnen, sienen; sin, sien Wg. sin, sins

Upg. juw

Wg. jam

Sat. hierens; hiere Wg. jar(e)ns

Sat. = Saterlandic, Wg. = Wangerooge, Harl. = Harlingerland late C17, Wu. = Wursten late C17/early C18, Upg. = Upgant early C17

193

Modem North Frisian

Modern North Frisian

The oldest North Frisian records date from about the seventeenth century (Ârhammar 1968: 295, Sjölin 1969: 45). Markey (1976: 242) also mentions, apart from a few earlier legal terms, an inscription on the Biisum baptismal font from 1452. A ballad recorded on Föhr in the nineteenth century dates back, according to Sjölin, to at least the fifteenth century. The Modern North Frisian dialects, unlike West Frisian, do not have a standard variety. The major dialectal division is between the island dialects of Sylt, Föhr-Amrum and Heligoland, and the mainland dialects, including the Halligen. On the current status of North Frisian see for example Walker (1985) and (1990: 3-10, 26f.) with references. A summary of the forms of the personal pronouns in North Frisian dialects is given below (sources for this paradigm are listed in the Bibliography). 7.4.1 Dual Although no dual forms are recorded from Old Frisian,11 the dual was maintained in the personal pronouns in North Frisian, both in mainland and island dialects, on Sylt also with the creation of an analogical 3rd person dual subj. form. Comparison of North Frisian dual pronouns with dual forms in other Germanic languages shows clearly that the 1st and 2nd person duals — though not the 3rd p. dual form on Sylt — are Germanic in origin.12 On Sylt, on the basis of the 2nd p. dual subj. form at, a 3rd p. dual subj. jat was created by analogy with 3rd p. plural subj. ja (Siebs 1901:1353). Gothic 1st p. dual nom. wit obj. ugkis gen./poss. * 2nd p. dual nom. * obj. igqis gen./poss. igqara 3rd p. dual nom.

Old Swedish Old English Old Saxon vit wit wit oker une unk okar uncer unker(-) it * *

git ine incer

git ink (inka)

Ν Frisian wat unk unk(en(s)) jat, Sylt at junk junk(en(s)) Sylt jat

11 Sipma (1947: 71) refers to three documents with dual forms in his Oudfriesche oorkonden (1927) (numbers 28, 44 L· 48), though this work is to be used with some caution (B. Sjölin, personal communication) — Krogmann (1956: 157) states that these apparent wit forms are contractions of wi ('we') and hit ('it'). 12 On possible traces of an earlier 3rd p. dual in Germanic demonstrative pronouns see Seebold (1984: 58) and Braune/Eggers (1987: 245).

194

Frisian

Modern North Frisian 1

s

SUBJ.

OBJ.

GEN./POSS.

ik

mi, me

min, man, minen

di, de

din, dan, dinen

hi, he

ham (hem, höm),

sin, san, sinen

-(e)r

((e)n)

jü, jy, jö, ju,jo, (e)s

har, her, hœr

2

dû, dö

S

(Heligoland di)

3 S M 3 S F 3 S Ν 1 D

2 D

hat, also dât etc.,

(e)t

sin, san, sinen

(unk, onk)

(unken, onkens, unk)

(jat, jët, Sylt at)

(junk, jonk)

(junken, j onkens, junk)

1 Ρ

wi, we, wü

3 Ρ

also dât etc.,

(wat, wët)

(Sylt jat)

Ρ

ham (hem, höm), m

3 D

2

((e)»)

her, har, harren, her(e)n

jam, jam, Nds. jem(m);

·= 3rd p. plural

üs

üüs, iiüsen, iissens

jäm, jam, Nds. jem(m);

juu(en), jammens, jarring(e), djerrem(en)

svbj. Sylt i, Ndm. jae; obj. Sylt jû, also F.-A. jo Brk. also jae, Wied, also ym; earlier as Valso i, e etc. earlier as Valso j a u

jä, ja, jo, (e)s

= 3rd p. plural

jam, jam, (hamn), (jä, ja, jo, jar) ((e»

jar(e), jetaren, herrens, herrem(en)

Nds. = Nordstrand, Ndm. = Nordmarsch, Brk. = Brecklum, F.-A. = Föhr-Amrum, Wied. = Wiedingharde

Modem North Frisian

195

In a number of North Frisian dialects the dual forms have been lost completely, though often comparatively recently; in the remaining dialects although the dual forms may still be known, they are hardly used in everyday speech. Bendsen (1860: ΧΧΠΙ) writing in the nineteenth century states that while in the East Mooring dialect of Risum and Lindholm dual forms were used, in the neighbouring West Mooring dialect of Niebüll and Deezbiill no dual forms occurred. Siebs (1901: §162), writing at the beginning of the twentieth century, states that the dual was not used (and in fact is not recorded) on Heligoland, and was obsolescent for example on Gröde and Hooge (Hallig Frisian) and in the Boldixum dialect on Föhr, though Schmidt- Petersen & Craigie (1928:12) in a survey of the dialect of Föhr and Amrum give the dual as still usual. Lorenzen (1982: 17) for the Halligen, writing in the 1980s, states that the use of the dual had died out some fifty years previously. The dual in the Wiedingharde is recorded in 1927 as obsolescent (see Löfstedt 1971:10).

196

Frisian

Pan-Frisian 7.5.1 Demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use in Frisian Some Frisian dialects show replacement of the 3rd p. sing, neuter personal pronoun (cf. Old Frisian hit, het) by a corresponding demonstrative form, though an unaccented form of the personal pronoun may be retained. In East Frisian, Kramer (1982: 21) for Saterlandic gives as 3rd p. sing, neuter subj./obj. dät, t, for example dät or t rient ('it's raining'), dät snäit ('it's snowing'). Similarly in Harlinger Frisian, 'Dait thundert uhn leydet greslyck' (see König 1911: 62). In North Frisian replacement by the demonstrative forms occurs in some dialects (cf. Heligoland deät, Halligen dat, Bökingharde (Mooring) dát), while others retain the personal pronoun form with initial h-, Sylt hat, Föhr-Amrum hat. The use of the demonstrative form in constructions such as 'it's raining' is also found in Low German (A. Walker, personal communication). Nissen (1887: lllf.), writing in the nineteenth century, states that apart from Sylt, Föhr, Amrum and the Mooring dialect, North Frisian dialects had dat as a nonpersonal form. Bendsen (1860:214f.) in a study of the Mooring dialect states that 'hát' and 'dät' in personal pronoun use were differentiated semantically, dät 'nur unpersönlich und stellvertretend, für leblose Gegenstände oder Sachen', and hat 'bloss für lebende Wesen vom sächlichen Sprachgeschlechte'; in the Mooring dialect today the use of hat is more or less obsolete (Walker 1990:17). Perhaps it is possible that the retention of the initial h- form of 'it' on Sylt and Föhr-Amrum is connected with changes in the gender assignment of the neuter pronoun in these dialects — see on gender Ârhammar (1975: 55f.) and Walker (1985: 37f.) — where hat would then occur to a greater extent as a +accented form. Compare here a possible parallel in Luxemburgish where the originally neuter pronoun hatt, according to my information gathered from native speakers, can be used only for feminine — for 3rd p. sing, neuter only et, and not hatt is possible — and see also English 6.2.5. Demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use are also found in other 3rd person pronouns, as commonly in the Germanic languages as a whole — compare West Frisian dy (e.g. 'Wêr is Auke? Dy is yn de tun oan it wurk') (see Tiersma 1985:149), and do, dœ as 3rd p. plural in some North Frisian dialects (Siebs 1901: §163). 7.5.2 Developments in the 2nd and 3rd p. plural pronouns in Frisian According to Siebs (1901: §162-3), the 2nd p. plural forms ending in -m (-n) (see the paradigms above) result from a new 2nd p. plural dative formed by analogy with or taken over directly from the 3rd p. plural dative (cf.

Pan-Frisian

197

Old Frisian him, hiam etc.); Siebs (1901: §162) states that North Frisian Nordmarsch for example also shows the 2nd p. plural nom. } hi hoort-ten, and/or influence of the masc. sing. acc. demonstrative. For further discussion see Van Loey (1954). Koelmans (1968: 18-20) for the Bruinisse dialect suggests influence of voiceless forms of deze, die, dit, dat, de, daar etc. in examples such as 'heeft Dirk tat gedaan', 'vertel tat'. In modern dialect -ten and -tern, as well as ra, η occur, also as subjective forms (Weijnen 1966: 293, Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §117, Den Eerzamen 1937/38:135) — see also further 8.2.1 below.

206

Dutch

8.1.5 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. forms in thirteenth-century Dutch are shown in Berteloot (1984, map 121). Berteloot (1984: 89) states that zoejsoe appears to be such an exclusively Flemish form that the few exceptions which occur outside this area can be ascribed to Flemish influence. According to Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: 142), also Van Helten (1887: 437), soe derives from a demonstrative (*sô, cf. Gothic sô), compare in part some of the explanations for English 'she' (6.3). Heeroma (1964:123), on the other hand, proposes that Old West Flemish *siu > *sio > soe/su. Markey (1972: 400), 'given the well-established conservation of archaic Ingvaeonic features in OWF1. [Old West Flemish]', suggests that 'Continental Ingvaeonic' originally had nom. sing. *siu, acc. sing. *sia as in Old High German and Old Saxon (see chapter 11). That in Flemish soe occurs only in the singular and not in the plural (where both Old High German and Old Saxon also record siu in the neuter plural) may be ascribed to loss of the neuter plural form through levelling of the 3rd person plural masc.-fem.-neuter gender distinction. On the occurrence of zoe/soe etc. in later texts and in modern dialect see most recently Paardekooper (1991). 8.1.6 3rd p. plural obj. hem, hen The 3rd person plural obj. forms hem, hen are not separate accusative and dative forms (contrast the distinction sometimes made in writing in Modern Dutch between hen and hun), rather the -n in hen derives from -m (Van Bree 1987: 256). Franck (1910: 180) believes that although -m forms were originally present as 3rd p. plural datives, the Middle Dutch 3rd p. plural forms in -m are by analogy with the singular. The distribution of hem and hen varies to some extent dialectally; hun occurs in east Middle Dutch (see Van Loey 1960: §28). No forms with -m are recorded in De Rooij's material (1990:122-129) for modern dialect. 8.1.7 3rd p. plural obj. haer It is probable that the Middle Dutch 3rd p. plural objective variant haer etc. derives from the genitive plural and analogy with the 3rd p. sing, feminine forms si - haer, as it is first found in the plural for feminine; from the fifteenth century it began to be used for all genders (Franck 1910: 180).

As a hangover from an artificially-constructed 3rd person plural gender distinction (which the translators of the State Bible attempted to promote) (De Vooys/Schönfeld 1957: §35) in present-day Dutch haar occurs as a plural objective pronoun with specifically feminine meaning, but is very restricted, found only in somewhat archaic language (ANS 1984:171). In modern dialect, RND sentence 16 (without specifying gender) records haar (also d'r, V) in several areas, particularly in the East and a small area

Middle Dutch

207

in south East Flanders, but also scattered elsewhere — see De Rooij's (1990: 126) map. 2 West Frisian generally, and some East and North Frisian, record similar 3rd p. plural obj. forms (see 7.6.2), as do two large Low German areas (generally ër): Nordwestfälisch (iär) — Oldenburg — (Low German) Ostfriesland (hör), and the greater part of Holsteinisch and Ostniederdeutsch (excluding Niederpreußisch) (Foerste 1957:1818). 8.1.8 Accusative-dative 1st and 2nd person singular Middle Dutch shows levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns. Syncretism in the 1st and 2nd person singular accusative-dative occurs in many of the Germanic languages and is discussed in chapter 3. In Dutch levelling was generally to the dative to give the Middle Dutch objective pronouns mi and di etc. Limburgs, however, has the accusative forms mich and dich. Zelissen (1969:146), similarly Frings (1956: Π, 126 & 128f.), states that there were earlier 1st and 2nd person singular general objective forms from the dative in the Limburgish Meuse area as in the rest of Dutch, but that they were replaced by High German forms. Goossens (forthcoming b: If.) states that although the earlier forms which were replaced were possibly originally dative pronouns, this is not certain. In the south of modern-day Limburg mich and dich are found already before 1300 (Zelissen 1969:147), and by around 1600 reach further even than the Uerdinger Line (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §x & §110). Today mich and dich survive dialectally in the Southeast — compare De Schutter's (1989: 51 & 56) maps 4 and 5 — and in a bordering area of Germany (see Frings 1956: Π, map 30). 1st and 2nd person plural The Middle Dutch 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns do not distinguish accusative and dative. In modern southeastern areas 2nd person objective pronouns with -ch occur which derive from a 2nd p. plural accusative form. These forms are according to De Schutter (1989: 58) a southern import, as mich and dich; -ch forms are first attested in Limburg around 1200 (Zelissen 1968: 151). In the Wachtendonk Psalms a 1st p. plural objective variant unsig occurs which Cowan (1961: 42) ascribes to High German influence.

2 In this map De Rooij (1990: 124) includes under type d'r also V forms. Note also the problem of distinguishing between d'r and V here given the occurrence after 'met' in RND sentence 16.

208

Dutch

3rd person In comparison with the 1st and 2nd person (singular), levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the 3rd person pronouns is later. In the 3rd person sing, neuter the distinction between accusative and dative is not lost until after the Middle period; levelling in the neuter was eventually generally to the nominative/accusative form, though a few southeastern dialects levelled to the dative — see Panzer (1972: 164). Furthermore, in the other 3rd person pronouns the distinction between accusative and dative is lost generally in the orthotone forms in Middle Dutch, but is largely maintained enclitically. On isolated accusative-dative distinction in modern dialect see 8.2 below. In the masculine singular orthotone forms levelling was generally to the dative hem etc., although the northeastern form oen(e) may derive either from the accusative pronoun or from the dative with a change τη > η — compare Middle Low German which shows a development of final -m > -η in the masc./neuter sing, dative so that merger with the masc. sing, accusative was possible (see 11.6.3). Compare also the explanation of weakening of m > η plus possible influence of the accusative for the rare Middle Dutch hen, hin given by Franck (1910: 178). Similarly, the 3rd p. singular masculine enclitic forms with final -n may either be old accusatives or a result of m > n, i.e. from the dative pronoun. However, the fact that -em does occur enclitically and that the feminine singular and plural accusative enclitic -se cannot derive from the former datives haer, hare and hem, hen etc. supports the assumption that the masculine enclitic pronouns in -n may indeed be old accusative forms. Compare possible parallels in accusative-dative levelling in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages in chapter 3. Clitic forms with η survive regionally in Modern Dutch mainly in parts of the South, often with extension in use to a subjective form, see further 8.2.1. In the 3rd person singular feminine levelling in the orthotone forms was to the dative; however, accusative-dative distinction was still made in the enclitic forms. The old accusative was also retained in the rare eastern si, sie. In present-day Dutch the former nominative/accusative -se survives as subjective/objective ze. The unaccented 3rd p. sing. fem. objective forms V, d'r [ar, dar] can only be used personally; ze can be used both personally and nonpersonally. The preference of 'r/d'r or ze for female persons varies regionally (ANS 1984: 168). For further detail on Modern Dutch dialectal distribution see De Schutter (1989: 68-70). The 3rd person plural, like the 3rd person sing. masc. and 3rd person sing, fem., levelled in the orthotone forms to the dative in hem, hen, though as in the feminine singular the accusative-dative distinction was maintained enclitically. The old accusative was also retained in the rare e cistern si, sie. Again, as in the feminine singular, in present-day Dutch the former

Middle Dutch

209

nominative/accusative -se survives as subjective/objective ze. — Several other forms occur as 3rd p. plural obj. pronouns (cf. De Rooij's 1990: 126 map of Modern Dutch dialect forms), some of which derive from or show analogy with nominative or genitive and possessive forms; the 3rd p. plural haer (ModNl haar etc., cf. also haarluu etc.) — see 8.1.7 above; hulder etc. similarly shows genitive/possessive influence (< hunlieder) (cf. De Rooij 1990: 128). Zullie (see also De Rooij 1990: 126) shows probable influence of the nominative (cf. sixteenth-century nom. sijlieden etc., acc./ dat. sylieden etc. — Van Halteren 1906: §32) and zvlder also of the genitive/ possessive (+ -er). 8.1.9 Extended plural forms with liede etc. Extended forms of the plural pronouns with liede (lede, lieden, leden, lieder) — meaning 'people' — are recorded in Middle Dutch already in the thirteenth century, though with relatively low frequency, compare Mooijaart's (1990: 55) schematic figure.3 According to Van Loey (1958), extension with liede was a west Middle Dutch development. In present-day Dutch only the 2nd p. plural form jullie is standard, but in nonstandard or dialect forms such as wullie, welle(n), wijlder, gullie, julder, ulder, zullie, zijlder, hullie etc. occur. Maps of RND sentences 44, 114 and 16 for the 1st p. plural subj. and the 3rd p. plural subj. and obj. forms in dialect (Van Keymeulen; De Rooij 1990:134 & 126) show, generally speaking, 'liede' forms common in much of the South (though less so in the Southeast), but less common in the North, though Gelderland and the south of Overijssel for the 1st p. plural subj., and the North west of the IJssel for the 3rd p. plural obj. also record quite a few 'liede' forms. 4 These extended pronouns in Dutch with 'people' compare with developments in several of the other Germanic languages such as southern American English y'all, regional American English you-uns, possibly Old Frisian jemma(n) (and later forms), German dialectal jiim, jim, jem and Danish dialectal (now extinct) im-irm/iem, and German dialectal endsch andre, ier andre, where elements such as 'all', 'ones', possibly 'man', and 'others' have been added — see further chapter 2 (2.8) above.

3 In thirteenth-century official texts forms with liede are recorded most commonly in the oblique pronouns, above all in the 3rd p. plural (Mooijaart 1992: 255f.), though how much this is due to the chance survival of documents or the nature of the texts is uncertain — Mooijaart (1992: 3) points out in the introduction to her atlas of early Middle Dutch variants in official texts that the 2nd person is rarely recorded. 4 '-liede' forms are also found in a small area of Germany east of Cleves bordering the Netherlands, see Frings (1956: II, map 30).

210

Dutch

The addition of liede to a pronoun serves as a strengthening of its plural meaning. 5 This seems to be particularly the case in the 2nd person — though difficult to substantiate in view of the poor record of 2nd person forms in early texts noted above — where a possible factor in the specification of the plural may lie in the use of the 2nd person plural ghi6 also as a singular V form of address — a usage found already in the earliest Dutch texts (see 8.4). Singular/plural ambiguity seems a likely factor in addition of a quantifier 'people' - 'liede' — compare for example English pluralizing additions to non-number-specific you such as you lot, you guys — and see further chapter 2 (2.3). By around the end of the sixteenth century the original singular pronoun du had been lost in most areas (8.4.1), with in the literature from the twelfth to fifteenth century generally a gradual increase in ghi and a proportional decrease in the use of du (Vor der Hake 1908:226)7 Although similar use of the originally 2nd person plural-only pronouns as V forms of address has taken place in other Germanic languages without leading to the development of a new 2nd person plural form, such a development as above for Dutch would have parallels in a number of the Germanic languages where replacement of the plural forms by duals — not recorded in Dutch — may have been to create an unambiguous 2nd person plural as a result of the use of the original 2nd person plural pronouns as V forms — see chapters 2 and 3 (3.2) above. Also in the 3rd person addition of liede etc. clearly distinguished between the partially homonymie 3rd person plural and 3rd person singular personal (and possessive) pronouns — compare the masculine and feminine singular (plus dative neuter) forms with those of the 3rd person plural in the Middle Dutch paradigm above. Possibly addition of liede etc. in the 1st person plural was by analogy with the 2nd and 3rd person forms (cf. below). Distinction in the 2nd and the 3rd person pronouns as a reason for the addition in the plural may be supported by the extent of -lieden etc. recorded in the plural pronouns in early Modern (sixteenth century) Dutch: in the 1st person plural extended forms were comparatively uncommon, while in the 2nd person plural they were almost general and in the 3rd person plural very much in use (Van Halteren 1906: §15 & §32). Compare also julle and hulle (earlier also sulle) but not 'wulle' in Afrikaans

5 Michels (1967) points out one example of ulieden as singular from the seventeenth century, but it seems doubtful that this (rhymed with 'bespieden') reflects contemporary usage. 6 Reference here to the nominative forms should be taken to include the oblique forms. 7 Quoted from Stoett (1923: §27).

Middle Dutch

211

— there is no reliable evidence that extended 1st p. plural forms such as wijlui, wvllie ever existed at the Cape (Scholtz 1963e: 116). The development of the pronoun plus liede etc. forms in Dutch shows that the added element came to be perceived as part of the pronoun: Duinhoven (1988: 24) considers that the combination with liede was so frequent that this was the case already in Middle Dutch — this is indicated by the pronominal inflection of the genitive as lieder with -r, e.g. uwerlieder, haerre lieder, where liede would be expected for an independent noun (Franck 1910: §174).8 Furthermore, in Modern Dutch forms such as jullie, wullie, julder, zullie etc. (and even more so in wijr, gijr, zijr etc. < [wVldar] etc. in the southeast of East Flanders — see for example Goossens forthcoming a: 2f.) fusion of the two elements shows that the original combination of pronoun plus noun has gone beyond the stages of simple ad hoc lexical addition and a pronominally inflected lieder. On compound and simplex forms see further 1.5 in chapter 1. Some dialects show considerable regularity of plural marking in the personal pronouns through addition of derivatives of 'liede',9 compare the following Oostvlaams dialect (J. Taeldeman — personal communication) wulder guider zulder

ons ulder ulder

though unaccented forms without -Ider also occur. These forms in Dutch, as well as others in the Germanic languages, show, as has already been discussed in chapter 2, how new pronoun forms can develop from personal pronouns plus elements from outside the personal pronoun paradigm. One reason for the strengthening of the plural distinction by addition of a lexical quantifier — liede etc. — from outside the personal pronouns rather than by extension of a formative with plural meaning from within the paradigm is that the personal pronouns showed no consistent pattern in plural marking, as comparison of the personal pronoun forms in the Middle Dutch paradigm above clearly shows. A further reason as already noted is semantic, in that personal pronouns obviously frequently refer to people, which may thus also make lexical plurals such as 'people' etc. more likely.

8 Later, forms in -r are also found in the other cases. 9 Cf. also Afrikaans julle-hulle.

212

Dutch

Modern Dutch The dating of the Modern Dutch period is usually taken as approximately from the sixteenth century onwards. The modern standard is not based on the South as the weight of Middle Dutch records, but predominantly on the northern Hollands, though with considerable southern (Brabants) influence.

8.2 Morphological case distinction in the Modern Dutch personal pronouns siibj.

obj.

ik

mij

wij

ons

hij

hem

zij zij jij

ze ze

haar hun jou

je jullie je u het

The schematic figure above illustrates morphological case distinction in the Standard Dutch personal pronouns. (As already noted, genitive/ possessive forms are not discussed here.) Accusative-dative distinction has been lost in all forms (though see dialects and hen-hun below). And, as the figure shows, it is by no means the case that subjective-objective distinction is made throughout the personal pronouns — only the 1st p. singular, the 1st p. plural and the 3rd p. sing. masc. always differentiate subjective and objective in the standard language; jtdlie, u and het make no subjectiveobjective distinction, nor do the — very frequent — unaccented ze and je.

Modern Dutch

213

M o d e r n Dutch

1

s

2 S T

3 S M

3 S F

3 S Ν

2 V

1

Ρ

2

Ρ Τ

3

Ρ

SUB].

OBJ.

ik [ik, ak, k ]

mij, me

mijn, m'n

(stressed also ikke, rarely written)

[ms'i, m a ]

(de/het) mijne

jij, je

jou, je

jouw, j e

[je-i, j a ]

[ja'u, j a ]

(de/het) jouwe

hij [he-i, i· ]

hem

zijn, z'n

(-ie, -die/-tie rarely written)

[hem, am]

(de/het) zijne

zij, ze [ζε'ί, za]

haar ('r, d'r rarely written) ze [ha:r, ar, dar; z a ]

GEN./POSS.

haar, 'r, d'r (de/het) hare

het

het

zijn, z'n

[st, t ]

[at, t ]

(de/het) zijne

u

u

uw

[y]

[y]

(de/het) uwe

wij, we

ons

ons, onze

[w8'i, W9 ]

[ans]

(de/het) onze

jullie

jullie

jullie

(je)

(je)

(je)

['jAli.ja]

['jAli, ja]

zij, ze

hun, hen ze

[ζε·ί, za]

[hAn, An, hen, an; z a ]

hun (de/het) hunne

214

Dutch

Outside the standard language levelling of the subjective-objective distinction can also be found in pronouns which maintain a distinction in Standard Dutch. The examples below illustrate the types of development — such as Functional merger and Functional reinterpretation — discussed in Change Type [B] in chapter 2 (2.2). In the 1st person singular, as already noted in 8.1.1, mijn can occur as a subjective form. In the 2nd person singular an accented originally objective-only form jou, joe is relatively common in some Zeeuws dialects as a subjective form, and also occurs sporadically in Zaans (Scholtz 1963c: 103 & 105), as well as in the cognate pronoun in Groningen, most likely under Frisian influence (see Kloeke 1941:55-58). In parts of the Southeast dich occurs as a stressed subjective pronoun in an area covering virtually the whole eastern half of Belgian Limburg as well as the areas of Maastricht and Weert in the Netherlands, and a second, small area around Venlo. It is further also recorded in a few isolated locations in the southeast of Dutch Limburg (Goossens forthcoming b: 4). Goossens (forthcoming b: 5) also mentions 'dich' as a clitic subj. form, cf. also De Schutter (1989:23 & 81). For the 3rd p. sing, mase., Den Eerzamen (1937/38: 135) for the Goerees (Zeeuws) dialect notes as well as [an] as subj. (see below) also hie 'hij' as an objective form, e.g. ik zag hie ook, van hie. De Schutter (1989: 63) records in three places in the Zuidbrabants-Limburgs border area the 3rd p. sing. masc. enclitic subjective pronoun [ΘΓ] also as an objective form. Hem (hum) as subjective is noted by Scholtz (1963c: 103) for Zaans, Culemborgs, Antwerps and elsewhere in the South. The clitic forms [am] and [an] etc. as subjective forms are discussed further below. On zijn as a subjective form see 8.1.1. For the 3rd p. sing, fem., Kuijper (1971-72: 200) states, without further specification, that haar occurs in the 'volkstaal' as a subjective form; Scholtz (1963c: 103) notes haar (heur) as a subjective form in places in Zuidhollands and Zeeuws. The 1st p. plural 'ons' 10 occurs also as a subjective form in Zeeuws and a number of French- and West Flanders dialects (De Schütter 1990: 33), though clitically a subj. form me etc. occurs (see 8.3.5); compare also Paardekooper (1969). A native speaker informant also notes ons as subj. for his Brabants dialect, e.g. 'Dat hebben ons gedaan'. Levelling in the 3rd person plural is discussed further below. A few scattered dialects record a (nominative/)accusative-dative distinction in some 3rd person forms comparatively recently, though elsewhere the distinction has been lost generally (see for example Panzer 1972:163-166).

10 There are several variants for 'ons', including in West and French Flanders nuns with initial n- through reanalysis, cf. in the 3rd p. plural milder.

Modem Dutch

215

8.2.1 3rd p. sing. mase, clitic forms [am], [an], [ana] The distributions of the 3rd p. sing. masc. subj. and obj. enclitic forms recorded in RND sentences 43 and 53 are shown in figures 8.2.1a and 8.2.1b.11 De Schutter (1989:63) also notes — not shown in figure 8.2.1b — some ne forms in Overijssel. Proclitically, [am] occurs as a subjective form in De Schutter's material (1989: 84) (from RND sentence 13 — 'Hij dreigde naar mij met een knuppel') only twice in the east of Flemish Brabant; [an] is not recorded proclitically by De Schutter, but De Bo at the end of the last century (1892: 265) does record it for French Flanders (e.g. Έη is zeker te zijn broers'), and De Schutter records [na] as a proclitic subjective form once in West Flanders and four times in the Oostvlaamse Meetjesland. This small number of examples from RND sentence 13 may show — as J. Taeldeman points out (personal communication) — that [am] etc. as a proclitic form is generally restricted to verbs beginning with a vowel. As the figures illustrate, the clitic forms [am] and [an] (including [na]) — earlier objective only — show in several areas of the South extension in use to subjective forms. (Compare a possible parallel in hien, en, hen, hän etc. in the west of the German-speaking area — see 11.6.4.) As an objective enclitic pronoun [am] remains widespread in a great deal of the Dutchspeaking area, but [an] has become in some areas purely a subjective form, compare in greater detail (using several RND sentences) Koelmans' (1968: 21) map of -en. The south of East Flanders and neighbouring southeastern West Flanders form the only area where -en forms occur as objective pronoun only in any number, elsewhere -en occurs solely as objective pronoun only in isolation. In the remaining areas where it occurs, it is as a subjective/objective clitic form for 3rd p. sing, masculine, or as a subjectiveonly pronoun. As Koelmans (1968: 23) points out, where en occurs as subjective only, it is likely that it earlier also occurred as an objective form. 8.2.2 3rd p. plural oblique forms as subj. De Rooij's (1990: 134) map shows the distribution of 3rd p. plural subj. forms in Dutch dialects recorded in RND sentence 114.12 'Hun', 'hullie' and 'hulder' (for variants included under these types see De Rooij 1990: 124f.) are originally oblique pronouns which have been extended to subjective

11 Koelmans (1968: 22) makes the point that the RND sentences generally make it impossible to test for the occurrence of forms with t (see Middle Dutch 8.1.4) because the pronoun (hij, hem) occurs time after time in the sentences after a dental (e.g. bakten 'bakt hij', heeften 'heeft hem' etc.). 12 '... boden zij ook?' — according to De Rooij (1990:133) the majority of pronouns recorded (about 83%) were 'ongereduceerde' forms.

216

Dutch

Figures 8.2.1a & 8.2.1b 3rd p. sing. masc. subj. & obj. end. From De Schutter, G. (1989) Pronominale clitica in de Nederlandse dialecten, Universiteit Antwerpen (= Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 58), 29 L· 62

218

Dutch

use. For a discussion of the etymology of 'hullie' (< 'haar' + 'liede' or 'hun' + 'liede') see Goossens (forthcoming a). Van der Horst (1988: 82) finds the earliest record of hun as subjective from 1911. — In texts from the Cape, however, huile as a subjective pronoun is recorded from 1772, and may have been in use even earlier; heurlui, haarluij are attested once from 1744 as subjective forms, with one uncertain example from 1713 (see 9.1.5). Although hun as a subjective form is generally not regarded as standard, it is not a truely dialect form either, as its sparse occurrence in De Rooij's map indicates (see 1990: 129ff.). From a survey of other material and the literature, De Rooij (1990:135) concludes that hun as a subjective pronoun probably originates in (the province) Holland, in particular in urban areas, and has spread into rural areas of Holland as well as to other parts of the Netherlands. He has found no record of it in Belgium. De Rooij (1990: 132) characterizes the use of hun as subjective as follows: 'het is (vrijwel) beperkt tot gesproken taal en komt minder voor naarmate sprekers een hoger sociaal en intellectueel [sic] niveau hebben'. De Rooij (1990:137ff.) explains the origin of hun as a subjective form as a result of attempts by nonstandard speakers, particularly women, to conform to the standard through replacement of the nonstandard objective hullie by the standard hun, with extension to a subjective pronoun through hypercorrection. De Rooij also points to the extension of other objective forms to subjective use, as well as to the use of hullie itself as a subjective form in Dutch dialects. However, this explanation of hun still leaves hullie, and hulder, and the earlier Cape and the Afrikaans forms as subjective pronouns unexplained. An alternative explanation is that hun, hullie, hulder as subjective pronouns developed as strengthened forms. De Rooij (1990: 139), however, argues that the standard has a full form zij and that similar replacement of jij has not occurred — although examples of oblique pronouns (including 2nd person singular forms) as stressed subjective pronouns as outlined in 8.2 above do occur, though levelling is by no means exclusive to stressed forms. Van der Horst (1988: 84) reports a perception by some languageusers of zij as plural primarily as a feminine personal form, as with the singular zij. An explanation based on the evidence of other Germanic languages — see further the discussion in chapter 2 above — is that hun, hullie, hulder as subjective creates an unambiguous 3rd p. feminine singular-3rd p. plural distinction — a development also found in Swedish, and in Norwegian dialectally det-dom, dem. etc. (3rd p. sing. neuter-3rd p. plural), and in English she-they. Distinction from the feminine singular may also be a factor in the development of zullie, zulder, widely recorded mainly in the South in De Rooij's (1990: 134) map (RND sentence 114) — see also 8.1.9.

Modem Dutch

219

8.3.1 3rd p. sing. mase. subj. enclitic -die/-tie According to Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: §117) the 3rd p. sing. masc. subj. enclitic -die/-tie derives from the demonstrative, though formation from the dental of the 3rd p. sing, verb ending (where present) or conjunction etc. and the enclitic form '-ie' (cf. Van den Toorn 1959), unlike derivation from the demonstrative, does not involve the reduction in strength of reference to a personal pronoun clitic. Compare also the 3rd p. sing. fem. obj. d'r in 8.3.2 below (including the explanation given by Schönfeld/Van Loey there). According to Van den Toorn, influence of the demonstrative was possible, plus also differentiation from the 2nd person in areas where the enclitic form of 'jij' was also -ie. On the distribution of -die/-tie see the survey by Kooiman (1950). 8.3.2 3rd p. sing. fem. obj. d'r The 3rd p. sing. fem. obj. form d'r with initial [d] (or [t]) developed according to Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: §117, see also §56) from the enclitic pronoun [ar] in sandhi, for example in 'Hij heeft V gezien', i.e. reanalysis, and with epenthetic d where r immediately follows n, / or r — Schönfeld/ Van Loey 'Wat had ze in d'r korf' — compare for example beenderen, donder, kelder, meerder, though d'r is no longer limited to these environments, e.g. 'Waar is Lia? Heb je d'r ergens gezien?'. Compare the sandhi discussion in chapter 2 (2.5.2) which illustrates both of these types. 8.3.3 3rd p. sing, neuter het The 3rd p. sing, neuter personal pronoun is pronounced [at, t ] with no initial [h] as suggested by the spelling het. Het has no stressed form as a personal pronoun13 — cf. 1.1.2 — contrast hij, hem, haar and hun, hen which retain the [ h ] as full forms. Loss of initial h- is also found in the cognate pronouns in English (cf. OE hit, ModE it) (see 6.2.5) and in much of Frisian. 8.3.4 3rd p. plural obj. hun, hen Hun and hen are originally regional variants of the same pronoun (see 8.1.6). An artificial distinction between these forms was constructed already at the beginning of the seventeenth century by Renaissance grammarians (De Vooys/Schönfeld 1957: §35). In present-day Dutch in writing a distinction is sometimes made between hun and hen, which however is rarely applied consistently and the two forms are mostly used without difference (though stylistically hen is higher) (ANS 1984: 170f.). For further discussion of this distinction see De Rooij (1990:107-129). De Rooij's (1990:126) figure, which maps the distribution of 3rd p. plural objective forms in RND sentence 16 (Ik ben blij dat ik met hen niet 13 As an article het can occur stressed.

220

Dutch

meegegaan ben'),14 shows that in dialect speech — in this use after a preposition — neither hun nor hen is particularly common — hen in particular is very restricted, also in spite of the fact that it appears in the questionnaire (apart from North Holland).15 In fact, RND sentence 16 records in dialect in most areas forms other than the standard hun, hen. 8.3.5 1st p. plural subj. me etc. In much of the South, in particular the Southwest, a 1st p. plural subj. sandhi form me etc. with initial m- is found. This form developed from assimilation of the verb ending -n (and also in a number of dialects conjunctions — De Schütter 1989: 37) and enclitic pronoun w-, e.g. hebbenwe > hebbeme, and has also been extended to nonenclitic use. Similar developments are also found in some of the other Germanic languages and have been discussed together in chapter 2. The distribution of the m- forms in RND sentence 101 is shown in figure 8.3.5. According to the RND material (from De Schutter 1989: maps 3 & 8) forms with m- appear to occur only in isolation further north. Entjes (1970: 266) also notes an enclitic [mg] in Overijssel.

8.4 Developments in the forms of address T - V distinction in address has led to significant changes in the 2nd person pronouns in Dutch.16 Already in the earliest Middle Dutch texts the originally 2nd p. plural-only pronoun ghi17 is also used as 2nd person singular V (Van Haeringen 1960:104); Van den Toorn (1977:522) states that the original singular and plural forms 'leven nog voort in de Middelnederlandse pronomina du en ghi, maar wanneer de historische bronnen eenmaal vloeien, blijkt die tegenstelling singularis-pluralis voor een groot deel vervangen te zijn door de tegenstelling laaggeplaatst-hooggeplaatst. Anders gezegd: ghi heeft zieh ontwikkeld tot een beleefdheidspronomen of een standspronomen'. 18 14 Also 'Ik ben blij dat ik niet met hen meegegaan ben', and for North Holland 'met ze', plus for Frisian 'mei harren' (see De Rooij 1990:122). 15 Although of course some interviewers may have used 'met hun' or (outside North Holland) 'met ze'. 16 On the considerable difficulties in reconstructing the use of the forms of address of earlier varieties of Dutch from written records, see Van den Toorn (1977: 523 & 525). 17 Reference here to the nominatives du and ghi should generally be taken to include the oblique forms unless stated otherwise. 18 Also, in the 1st person in official documents wi can occur as pluralis majestatis, e.g. 'Wi Florens grave van Holland ende Zeland...' (Middelnederlandsch woordenboek 'wi', Duinhoven 1988:19f.).

Modem Dutch

221

Figure 8.3.5 1st p. plural subj. proclitic forms From De Schutter, G. (1989) Pronominale clitica in de Nederlandse dialecten, Universiteit Antwerpen (= Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 58), 90

222

Dutch

8.4.1 Loss of du-di-dijns The original 2nd person singular pronouns du-di-dijns have been lost in most of Dutch, surviving today only regionally (and to varying extents) on the eastern periphery of the Dutch-speaking area, compare for example Weijnen's (1966) (line) map of du.19 Over the course of the Middle Dutch period there is in the literature generally a gradual decrease in the use of du; by around the end of the sixteenth century ghi was the rule everywhere, in all literary production of the South as well as of the North (Vor der Hake 1908:226,20 see also Van Halteren 1906: 3-5), though du must have survived longer in some varieties as it seems to have been maintained for example in rural areas of NoordHolland in places into the nineteenth century (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: 137), as well as in the areas shown in Weijnen (1966). In addition, the oblique forms of du appear to survive somewhat longer than the nominative (Van Halteren 1906: 5), though according to Duinhoven (1988: 20) this is because of replacement in copying. A final blow for the old 2nd person singular was the decision at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618-19 not to use du in the State Bible translation, instead using ghi (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959:137). It is likely that the loss of the original 2nd person singular pronouns was largely due to the use of du and ghi (and oblique forms) as respectively Τ and V forms of address. Similar loss of the 1st p. singular forms and the singular forms of the 3rd person pronouns did not occur. With the use of the originally 2nd person plural-only ghi also as a singular V form of address — as noted above already in the oldest Middle Dutch texts — Dutch had two 2nd person singular pronouns, du Τ and ghi V.21 The expansion of ghi at the expense of du represents an expansion of the V form over the Τ form of address. This development in Dutch of the V pronoun replacing the Τ form compares with English where thou-theethine, thy were replaced by the originally plural-only, V form of address ye/you. However, it contrasts with developments in for example Swedish where expansion of the Τ form du over the last decades has been at the expense (though not total exclusion) of the 2nd person V form ni — compare here chapter 2. These represent two directions of essentially the same development — the increasing domain of one pronoun of address over the narrowing domain of another. The direction of this development

19 Both West Frisian and German generally retain the original 2nd person singular forms, however an area of Germany around Cleves also shows loss as in Dutch (Frings 1956:1,14 & 16f., & II, 126). 20 Quoted from Stoett (1923: §27). 21 T' and 'V' are representative, relative terms, and not absolutes — in addition, in a changing situation the values of the forms will alter.

Modem Dutch

223

taken in Dutch meant that more and more people were addressed as V rather than as T, with the Τ form becoming increasingly marked and restricted to certain spheres.22 The more restricted to certain domains Τ became, the more marked its use outside these domains would be, and, conversely, the more unmarked use of the V form would become in most situations. Preservation of du on the eastern periphery of the Dutch-speaking area, away from the main centres (and alongside German and Frisian which as noted generally retain the original 2nd p. singular forms), as well as the retention of the old 2nd person singular in rural areas of Noord-Holland in places into the nineteenth century mentioned above, may suggest the importance of the major Dutch centres of population in the growth and spread of the V form of address — compare also the retention of thou/thee forms in areas furthest from London in England (6.6.2). As in English, the spread of the V form of address may be connected with the rise of the middle class, where aspirations towards the habits of politest society would include the V form of address. Furthermore, the status difference in the use of Τ to an inferior may have meant that in cases of uncertainty V was used rather than Τ to avoid possible insult. Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: 137) state that the loss of du in Holland was accelerated by the settlement of great numbers of southerners — who occupied many important positions in the cities of the North and whose language enjoyed prestige (Donaldson 1983: 101 L· 103), and where in the sixteenth century du had apparently already been lost in much of the South (De Vooys/Schönfeld 1957:78). As noted, Dutch shares with English the loss of the original 2nd person singular pronouns. However, several additional innovatory developments occurred in Dutch: the j- forms became the standard singular Τ pronouns, and the g- forms regional/archaic, biblical forms. Furthermore, a new pronoun u developed, in addition to the innovatory plural form jullie.23 These are discussed below. 8.4.2 g- and j- forms It is possible that the Dutch 2nd person nominative forms with initial gand j- 24 represent etymologically variants of the same pronoun, the former a southern, Frankish form and the latter a North Sea Germanic form, and 22 Apparent confusion in the use of du and ghi in some texts may reflect nuances in usage (Van den Toorn 1977: 523), though (cf. above) Duinhoven (1988: 20) suggests it is due to replacement of only some forms in copying. 23 Some varieties of English also have 2nd p. plural forms such as y'all, youse — see chapter 6. 24 'g' and 'j' are used here as representative terms of the variants, cf. for example Van Haeringen (1938: 205f.).

224

Dutch

Heeroma's (1937: 256) figure certainly seems to give the impression of a spread of g- with retention of the j peripherally. 25 A nominative *ji is not, however, recorded at all in Middle Dutch, the usual orthotone form having initial .26 Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: §113) point out that the lack of attested nominative forms with j- may be due to the southern — in particular Brabants — bias of Middle Dutch records, which would have g- as the usual form. About two-thirds of thirteenthcentury records are from Flanders, however, where some North Sea Germanic forms might be expected, though compare the 1st p. plural nless us which is rare in thirteenth-century texts (see Berteloot 1984: 68 & map 69), but does occur in modern dialect in parts of Flanders (see the map in Kloeke 1932 for areas with 'North Sea Germanic' and later loss of the nasal). Schönfeld/Van Loey believe that in Hollands dialects, certainly in Noordhollands dialects, j- forms were always the spoken forms, while in Zeeland and perhaps in Zuid-Holland g- and j- forms may have existed side by side in the spoken language. An enclitic form je is attested, however, in the second half of the fourteenth century (though the occurrence of an enclitic -je does not necessarily mean a parallel orthotone form with j- — some modern dialects have enclitic -je and a full form with initial g-). It is not until the midsixteenth century that a form jij is recorded, though at the beginning of the seventeenth century a nonenclitic je and especially jij are still rare (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §113). After about 1610, however, such forms quickly increase in the literature of Holland — a change which, according to Schönfeld/Van Loey, shows how authors shifted from Brabants written forms to Hollands, although gij remained very common in writing well into the nineteenth century, in the South into the twentieth century. Oblique forms with initial j-, ju, jou, juwer, juwes, are, however, recorded in Middle Dutch, in Holland and the West (Van Loey 1960: §27) — indeed in more or less the same areas where nominative forms with j later appear (cf. Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §113), which begs the question why j- forms are not recorded in the nominative earlier. An alternative explanation, initially proposed by Verdenius (see 1924 & 1930), most recently by Devos (1986) (for West Flemish), is that the nominative forms with j are not a direct continuation of a Germanic pronoun with *;'-, but developed from the dental of the 2nd person (plural) verb ending and enclitic -i. According to Devos (1986: 178), the current

25 Devos (1986) records gij as a full form in the whole of West Flanders, though in western areas the unaccented nonenclitic form is generally je. 26 On the possible significance of the spelling difference between < gh > and < g > in Middle Dutch as well as later see for example Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: §84 & §113) and Daan (1990: 32).

225

Modem Dutch

forms with j, even in the coastal dialects, were preceded by a g- system. This agrees with J. Taeldeman (personal communication) who states that Dutch shows a tendency to eliminate j + ï, thus the change *ji > ghi, though here perhaps the question could be asked whether a form with j could have been retained as an unaccented pronoun. Taeldeman compares this avoidance of j + ï with a similar tendency to avoid the combination w + ü, compare for example dialectal forms of the standard woensdag such as oensdag, wensdag and also goensdag (though goensdag does not show the same geographical distribution as 'gij' — see Heeroma 1937: 254-259). Van Haeringen (1938:203), also Gysseling (1966:208), assume that j > g before a stressed palatal vowel. The explanation of the origin of the j- forms in enclitic position assumes a development as for example below (see Devos 1986:179f.): gadi > gadJi > gadJ3i > ga3i > gaji > gaje gadJ3e >ga3e >gaje or gadi > gad-H > gaá-iji > gaji > gaje Gysseling (1966) believes that -je developed through assimilation of the verb and the full form ghi in inversion, e.g. wilt ghi > wilt gie > wilie > wilje The explanation of the development of the nominative j- form in enclitic position, unlike the first explanation above, accounts both for the earliest records of the 2nd person (plural) nominative with g- (enclitic -i), and for the first record of j- pronouns as enclitic forms. It is possible that development of the enclitic -je to a nonenclitic form in many areas was supported by the analogy of the oblique forms with j-. The explanation also accounts for the early lack of attested j- forms in the nominative but not in the oblique pronouns, where the nominative, unlike the oblique pronouns, would have undergone a change of j > gh before ï: *ji >1 ghi

ju, jou ^ ju, jou

juwer 4 juwer

Furthermore, the absence of the verb ending -t in inversion with jij, je, but not with gij, ge (je gaat - ga je·, ge gaat - gaat ge etc.) is also accounted for by this explanation. Development of a new enclitic form in sandhi, as well as subsequent development to a nonenclitic form, are well-attested types of change in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages (cf. chapter 2): compare also in Dutch the development of a 1st p. plural form with initial m- in some areas — see 8.3.5.

226

Dutch

In present-day Dutch the j- forms jij and jou are now the standard 2nd person singular Τ pronouns (with je used as well as singular also with jullie as plural), while the g- forms, from being earlier dominant at least in writing, are regional, occurring in the South (though here the standard forms jij etc. and u are gaining ground 27 ). In the North gij, ge have archaic and (through the Bible translation) religious connotations. The standard jij, jou (excluding the unaccented je) have undergone separate development to singular only, Τ forms of address. As 2nd p. singular T, they correspond to the earlier 2nd p. singular Τ du etc. in terms of the pronoun system, though their actual usage can differ. Van den Toorn (1977: 523) states 'Gelijk bekend is jij in de lacune van du getreden . . . , maar wanneer, hoe en waar dat gebeurd is, kan men alleen maar gissen' — however, this development seems to have been completed fairly late as jforms occur as V in the eighteenth and into the nineteenth century, and examples of jij as plural are found into the eighteenth century (De Vooys/ Schönfeld 1957: 79, Van den Toorn 1977: 525, Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §115)Schönfeld/Van Loey (1959: §115) explain the gradual restriction of the full forms jij and jou to the singular as due to the emergence of the plural form 'jullie' (see 8.4.3). While the full forms jij and jou are now singular only, the unaccented form je can still be used also as plural (if plural reference is clear) — cf. 1.1.2 and 2.5.1 — e.g. (ANS 1984:165)28 Ik weet wel dat jullie graag vroeg vertrekken, maar zou je niet eerst even helpen opruimen? 8.4.3 jullie The Modern Standard Dutch 2nd p. plural Τ pronoun jullie should be seen in connection with the 'liede' forms in Middle Dutch and in modern nonstandard or dialect (e.g. wullie, guider, zullie etc.) — see 8.1.9. A form julluy is attested in a text from 1750, though apart from jullij in 1766, jullie is not recorded until the middle of the nineteenth century (Scholtz 1963d: 85f. L· 90). In texts from the Cape jully is first recorded from 1741, and several times before the end of the eighteenth century (Scholtz 1963b: 60 & 1963d: 83f.) — see further 9.1.4. The now archaic jelui is found from the seventeenth century (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §115). Jullie has been explained as deriving from a subjective, objective and/or possessive form (see further for example Van den Toorn 1977: 524) —

27 For further detail see the studies by Deprez and Geerts, e.g. (1980). 28 On the extent of je as plural in dialect note the comments by De Schutter (1989: 39).

Modem Dutch

227

whatever the explanation it is important to note that Dutch (and also Afrikaans) now has a single case form for 2nd person plural. 8.4.4 u Various explanations have been offered for the origin of the Standard Dutch 2nd person V pronoun u. Several of these are based on derivation from an abbreviated form of Uwe Edelheid or Uwe Edele 'Your Honour', often also assuming influence of the oblique and/or possessive forms of 'gij' — u etc. According to Daan (1990: 32), Uwe Edelheid first appears in the written language at the end of the sixteenth century, 29 and it is clear from letters that it was first used by the upper classes. Around the middle of the seventeenth century it is also used by 'well-to-do middle class citizens' (Daan ibid.), becoming common in those circles at the end of the century. This spread to the middle class compares with the kind of development discussed in 8.4.1 above in the expansion of ghi. Even early on Uwe Edelheid was often shortened in writing to Uwe Edt, Uw(e) Ed., U Ed., and also to the form UE which increases with time (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §114). A possible subjective form u is recorded in the middle of the sixteenth century (see Sassen 1983, but also Paardekooper 1987: 496-498), though it is only rarely attested until the nineteenth century. In records from the Cape, however, a considerable number of examples of u are recorded from the beginning of the eighteenth century (Scholtz 1980: 67,1963b: 64).30 Daan (1990: 32) explains the development to u as an imitation of the upper classes by the lower classes, pronouncing the abbreviated form UE as Uwée [ywe] or as [yve]. The subsequent shortening to u — problematic because of the accent on the second syllable in [ywe], [yve] — was, Daan believes, due to influence of the objective form of 'gij', namely u. One explanation offered by Kern (1911)31 is that u developed from a dropping of the E in UE, but Kuijper (1971-72: 199) points out that the occurrence both in the seventeenth and in the eighteenth century of uwe and uw does not support this. Kuijper suggests, however, that more than one shortened form of Uwe Edelheid may have existed in speech — one of which he believes was the first word Uwe of Uwe Edelheid. This, he believes, may be seen in the forms uwe and u(w), which would eventually all lead to u (Kuijper 1971-72:201).

29 Comparable forms such as uwe liefde are also found earlier as replacements of a personal pronoun in Middle Dutch and in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (for further examples see Duinhoven 1988: 23, Stoett 1923: 22f., also Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §114). 30 On Afrikaans u see further 9.1.6. 31 References from Kuijper (1971-72) who reviews eight previous explanations of u, adding one of his own.

228

Dutch

Kloeke (1937) suggested that u developed from the possessive form of the abbreviation UE with loss of the second syllable: according to this explanation, the form UE 's was more likely to undergo accent shift than UE because of a stressed noun immediately following the possessive pronoun. Kloeke believed that uwe(e)s was extended to the nominative, with, under influence of the objective and possessive of 'gij', loss of the second syllable. However, an objection made by Kuijper (1971-72:199) is that there is no evidence for the use of uwe(e)s as subjective form among the upper classes in the cities of Holland where it came into use, and the possible parallels with other pronouns do not occur in the language of the upper classes. The use of titles in place of a personal pronoun is also found in other Germanic languages — cf. 2.8; with a development of u from Uwe Edelheid, Uwe Edele, Dutch would show not only the use of titles as forms of address, but a further step of grammaticalization to a personal pronoun. An early stage in the development of a title to a personal pronoun is probably its abbreviation (i.e. Uwe Edt, Uw(e) Ed., UEd., UE) — a sign of a more frequent use (whether in writing or in speech) of a comparatively long form — compare the discussion in chapter 1 of the shortening of frequently-used forms, as well as a sign of its use being well known — an abbreviation of a rare form would make little sense. A further sign of pronominalization is the use — already sometimes recorded in the seventeenth century (Schönfeld/Van Loey 1959: §114) — of UE with the 2nd person form of the verb, when for a title the 3rd person would be expected (and indeed was used with UE, and is used with u32). Such a development in Dutch u would not be unique: similar developments are found in other languages, one of the most well known of which is Spanish usted which derives from vuestra merced ('Your Worship'), as well as, according to Mühlhäusler L· Harré (1990: 144-147), Italian Lei and Loro (from la vostra signoria), (Brazilian) Portuguese Voce(s) (from Vossa Merce 'Your Honour'), and also Polish. Other explanations — generally deriving u solely from the objective or possessive of 'gij' — in some cases do not explain the attested examples of UE etc., and do not account for the use of u with the 3rd person form of the verb and the reflexive pronoun zieh, as in u heeft, u vergist zieh. J. Taeldeman (personal communication), however, points out that with some verbs jij, je also can occur, in the spoken language, not with the etymological 2nd person (plural) verb form, but with the same verb form as the 1st and 3rd person singular — e.g. (spoken language forms) jij kan, jij wil, jij zal, contrast jij/gij hint, jij/gij wilt, jij/gij zult — though these

32 Though u heeft and u vergist zieh are now marked variants.

Modem Dutch

229

examples are perhaps easier to account for and do not in themselves explain u heeft, u vergisi zieh etc. As well as the several examples of originally objective and possessive pronouns used as subjective forms in Dutch, including other. 2nd person forms — see 8.2 — replacement of the subjective pronoun by the oblique form is also found in the cognate 2nd person pronouns in English you and West Frisian jo. An explanation is offered by Paardekooper (see further 1948 & 1950, 1987 & 1988), who suggests that u arose from a collision between the Brabante and Hollands (Amsterdams) pronominal systems; with the settlement in the North by great numbers of Southerners, the Hollanders tried to emulate Brabants usage and consequently replaced their subj./obj./poss. je with Brabants u, using u also as a subjective form. Paardekooper believes that a further factor was the similarity in (2nd person) verb forms (with the exception of hebt u, heb je etc. — though Paardekooper points out that heb u is usual in randstads), and that u heeft, u is, and the use of zieh with u arose from the influence of UE in writing. According to Paardekooper, therefore, it originally came from the South, but its use as a subjective pronoun originates in the North. J. Taeldeman (personal communication), similarly, believes that u as subjective resulted from hypercorrection of Brabants pronominal usage by Hollanders. This explanation can, however, only be valid if the record of u from 1550 ('U eist dien ic meane' — see above) is not in fact as a subjective form, as it predates the fall of Antwerp (1585) and move North of large numbers of Southerners.

Chapter 9: Afrikaans 9.1.1 Full and unaccented forms Many of the unaccented forms of the personal pronouns common in Dutch do not occur, or occur to a lesser extent, in Afrikaans. This is a feature which may also be found outside the personal pronouns (see Kloeke 1950: 347ff., Scholtz 1963b: 52-58,1980:65f., Raidt 1983:96f., 1991:205f.). However, this does not mean, as Scholtz seems to imply, that the Afrikaans personal pronouns do not vary with stress. Although in Dutch many unaccented forms of the personal pronouns are written, investigation of spoken Afrikaans shows clearly that Afrikaans does indeed have unaccented or reduced forms of the personal pronouns, although they do often differ from those in Dutch:1 in contrast to the many unaccented forms of the personal pronouns with schwa in Dutch, corresponding forms in Afrikaans are less common; however, unaccented or reduced personal pronoun forms do occur in Afrikaans in connected speech, although often where Dutch uses a form with schwa, Afrikaans uses one with a fuller vowel.2 Afrikaans shows replacement of the 3rd p. sing, het by a demonstrative form dit (cf. e.g. dit reën, dit sneeu),3 which Scholtz (1963b: 53, 1980: 65) views as part of the same pattern of favouring of full forms — though the use of demonstrative forms in place of 3rd person personal pronouns is by no means exclusive to Afrikaans, as comparison with other Germanic languages clearly demonstrates. H. den Besten (personal communication) offers an explanation deriving Afrikaans dit as a personal pronoun from the demonstrative form dat, rather than from the proximate demonstra-

1 Le Roux & Pienaar (1927: 185-187) also discuss strong and weak forms of function words in connected speech in Afrikaans, though they by no means give an exhaustive list of the weak forms of the personal pronouns. 2 Taking all the Germanic languages, it is by no means the case that the pronouns are always reduced in their vowels to schwa (or zero) when unaccented, and it is perhaps questionable whether Afrikaans is in reality so exceptional: if Standard English English is taken as a comparison, the vowels of several of the English personal pronouns are generally not reduced to schwa, for example me, he, him ([am] = 'them'), she, we, they (for pronunciations see the Modern English paradigm). 3 On a replacement of dit by hy to some extent in Afrikaans see Ponelis (1979: 58, 69-71, 584-590).

231

Afrikaans

SUBJ. 1 s 2 S Τ 3 S M 3 S F 3 S Ν 9 V

1 Ρ

2 Ρ

3 Ρ

Afrikaans OBJ.

GEN./POSS.

ek

my

my

[ek]

[mai]

myne

jy

jou

jou

[pi]

[jou]

joune, joue

Hy

hom

sy

[fiai]

[fiam]

syne

«y

haar

haar

[sai]

[fia:r]

hare

dit

dit

[dat]

[dat]

u

u

u

[y]

[y]

u s'n

ons

ons

ons

[5:s]

[5:8]

ons s'n

julle

julle

julle

[jœla]

[jœla]

julle s'n

huile

huile

huile

[ficela]

[ficela]

huile s'n

—

232

Afrikaans

ti ve dit. It appears from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century texts that dat was for a long time in competition with dit in place of het] however this usage has been lost in most areas (Scholtz 1963b: 58,1980: 66). Den Besten points out that Orange River Afrikaans speakers still use dat for dit at least optionally, and states that they also have [hat] for the auxiliary het 'have', which derives from an unstressed [hat] > [hat], [a] > [a] being common in nonstandard Afrikaans. He believes therefore that the demonstrative form dat may have been misinterpreted as a substandard pronunciation of [dat], and so (given that Dutch [i] is centralized in Afrikaans) of the demonstrative dit. Enclitically a form [(a)t] is common in Afrikaans colloquially, which could be a continuation of the old het — compare some retention of older forms as unaccented pronouns in other Germanic languages — though Scholtz (1963b: 53) believes it to be a recent reduced form. Scholtz (1963b: 53,1980: 65) also sees the development of the 1st p. sing, subj. pronoun in the same context, believing it significant that the form [ek] has become more usual in Afrikaans than [ak]. Le Roux & Pienaar state in (1927: 185) that although Afrikaans speakers claimed they used only one of these variants, in fact speakers used both the [sk] and the [ak] form, depending on stress. H. den Besten (personal communication) states, however, that the vowel in '[ak]', although commonly transcribed in Afrikaans as schwa, is rather a centralized i. This [i/a] 'is more or less in free variation' with [ε] in older and nonstandard Afrikaans, so that for example en ('and') may be pronounced as 'in' [i/an], and in as 'en' [εη]. Ek is now the standard form, while nonstandard varieties can retain [i/ak] — according to Den Besten, therefore, [i/ak] is not a reduced form, but a variant form. Scholtz (1963c: 106, 1963e: 116, 1980: 66 & 69) also sees the same tendency of favouring of full forms in the complete replacement of other forms by ons and hvlle in the 1st and 3rd person plural — see 9.1.3 and 9.1.5. He points out (1963e: 116) that in Dutch Zeeuws (and in a number of French- and West Flanders dialects) ons is a more emphatic subjective form, though why in Afrikaans 'wy' should not occur given for example jy, hy and 3rd p. sing. fem. sy is not explained. As already noted, there is no reliable evidence that extended 1st p. plural forms such as wijlui, wvllie (i.e. parallel to Afrikaans julle, hulle) ever existed at the Cape (Scholtz 1963e: 116). The replacement of the objective forms ze, hun by hulle could possibly be explained as a more emphatic form (Scholtz 1980: 66), though this cannot really account for the preference of hulle over sulle. Furthermore, both 'ons' and 'hulle' may well be inherited and in such case not specifically Afrikaans developments. The explanation given by Scholtz for the tendency to favour fuller forms in Afrikaans in comparison with Dutch is that T)ie neiging tot

Afrikaans

233

nadruklik praat en oormatige aanduiding is kenmerkend van volkstaal' (1980: 66); however, he himself admits that in Dutch dialects in the seventeenth century and today reduced forms of the personal pronouns occur 'in abundance'. He states that pronouns with a fuller vowel are also a characteristic of Dutch speakers who grew up in the former Dutch East Indies, and compares this to the situation at the Cape, ascribing it possibly to 'die begryplike neiging om teenoor vreemdtaliges oormatig duidelik to praat', as well as to the 'vreemdelinge-Nederlands' — Hottentots, slaves, also Germans and Huguenots — which was frequently heard in the East and at the Cape, suggesting also influence of the written form in learners (Scholtz 1980: 66, 1963b: 54f., cf. also Kloeke 1950: 347). This somewhat ad hoc sounding explanation does, however, find a parallel in Mühlhäusler (1986) on the development of personal pronoun systems in pidgins and creóles, which— without here suggesting that the Afrikaans personal pronoun paradigm as a whole is the result of creolisation — is of course also connected with language contact: one feature noted (see Mühlhäusler 1986: 164 & 166) was that unaccented forms of the pronouns are usually lost in the first phase of pidgin development. 9.1.2 Morphological case distinction As the paradigm above illustrates, of the personal pronouns in Standard Afrikaans only the 1st and 2nd person singular and the 3rd p. singular masculine and feminine have separate subjective and objective forms, the remainder — dit, u, ons, julle, hulle — all have a single form. Only the 3rd p. singular masculine distinguishes morphologically between (subjective-) objective and determinative possessive,4 though syntactically of course they differ. U, ons, julle and hulle thus each have a single form for personal and determinative possessive, with the independent possessive formed by the regular addition of s'n — u s'n, ons s'n, julle s'n, hulle s'n — compare for example dis Jan s'n, Maria s'n (it's John's, Mary's) (cf. Ponelis 1979: §4.1.2.1).5 Both ons and hulle show the extension of an originally objective and/or possessive form to a general form for subjective-objective-possessive; whether julle and also u show the same development is uncertain (see the discussions below). However, it is possible that these developments originate from the Low Countries — Scholtz (1963c: 91) speaks of the many functional changes in the subjective, objective and possessive forms in Hollands, Zeeuws and also other Dutch dialects today — cf. 8.2 above — though how widespread these developments were in the seventeenth

4 In nonstandard Afrikaans hom also occurs as a possessive (Scholtz 1963c: 104, H. den Besten — personal communication). 5 On archaic and other variants see Ponelis (ibid.) and Scholtz (1963c: 92).

234

Afrikaans

century is not always clear. As already mentioned, Kloeke (1950: 350) speaks of the 'Systemzwang' of ons (subj.)-ons (obj.)-ons (poss.), julle-jullejulle, hvlle-hulle-hvlle and ('desnoods') u-u-u. As stated in Dutch, these changes in the personal pronouns must also be viewed in the context of Change Type [B] discussed in chapter 2 (2.2). Ons, julle, hulle and u are discussed below. 9.1.3 ons Although ons as subjective is virtually unrecorded in writing in the eighteenth century — wij being usual — Scholtz (1963c: 94, 1963e: 112, & 1980: 69), cf. also Raidt (1983: 155f.), assumes from a verbatim quote from 1772 and a contemporary account from the 1730s/40s that ons was already usual in the speech of the settlers before the end of the eighteenth century. Already around 1670 ons as a subjective form is found in the broken Dutch of Hottentots; shortly before the end of the seventeenth century it is also recorded once in the broken Dutch of a slave, and in the first quarter of the eighteenth century ons frequently occurs in language attributed to Hottentots and slaves (Scholtz 1963c: 93f., 1963e: 111, 115f. & 1980:69). Scholtz believes that colonists avoided the use of ons in writing (compare hulle below), and points out that into the twentieth century Afrikaans speakers who wished to make their language more dignified or more like Dutch used 'wy heef' and 'wy ben'; he states that the same need was not always felt to refine the usage of Hottentots and slaves in writing (Scholtz 1963c: 94,106,1963e: 116). Several explanations have been put forward for the use of ons as a subjective form. An early explanation suggested influence of the language of the Huguenots, as in French the 1st p. plural form is the same for subjective and objective. However, the theory of far-reaching Huguenot influence on the language of the Cape in general has been rejected (see Scholtz 1963c: 94), and with it largely the explanation of French influence in the use of· ons. Another explanation ascribes the use of ons to the influence of Malay, but according to Scholtz this seems unlikely as practically all evidence suggests that Malay did not play an important role before about 1720, i.e. after the first records of ons as a subjective pronoun (see Scholtz 1963c: 94, 106,1980: 69). A further explanation sees influence of the broken Dutch of the Hottentots — indeed ons as a subjective pronoun is first attested in the speech of Hottentots as mentioned above. In Hottentots itself, as in French, Malay and Portuguese, no morphological distinction is made between subjective and objective in personal pronouns (Scholtz 1980: 69). It is not necessarily the case, however, that the development of ons is due to foreign influence. Ons as subjective pronoun is not found in

Afrikaans

235

Hollands, but does occur as already noted in Zeeuws, as well as in a number of French- and West Flanders dialects. This usage is apparently generally assumed to have existed in the seventeenth century, though it is not recorded (see Scholtz 1963c: 106). According to Scholtz, however, the likelihood that Zeeuws was ever of important influence in the development of Afrikaans is small (1980: 69, see also 1963c: 95). Raidt (see 1991: 213f.) suggests that ons as subjective may have occurred in the seventeenth century in Hollands dialects as an emphatic but 'onbeskaafde' form. Scholtz believes that ons in Afrikaans should be seen in connection with the many examples of functional change in pronominal forms in Dutch (see the comments above) as well as with a tendency to favour emphatic forms in the development of Afrikaans also in other forms (Scholtz 1980: 69,1963c: 106,1963e: 116). 9.1.4 2nd p. plural julle Scholtz assumes that the Afrikaans 2nd person plural is inherited, and this certainly seems to be the case with the extension with derivatives of liede etc. (see Dutch'8.1.9). Although the usual forms in seventeenth- and e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Hollands

t e x t s a r e jijlui a n d jelui, julluy is a t t e s t e d in

1750 from Rotterdam (see Scholtz 1963d: 90), though apart from jullij in 1766, jullie is not recorded until the middle of the nineteenth century. In Cape texts in the first half of the eighteenth century jijlui is by far the most common subjective form and jou(w)lui as objective, though these texts were written in the (European) Dutch of the time (Scholtz 1963d: 82f.). Jully is recorded in a Cape text from 1741, and several examples of julle, jullij etc. are recorded at the Cape before the end of the eighteenth century, from which, with the similarity in form, Scholtz concludes that Dutch jullie and Afrikaans julle derive from a common seventeenthcentury form (Scholtz 1980: 68,1963b: 59-64,1963d: 82-86 & 90). As already mentioned in 8.4.3, there is some dispute over whether Dutch jullie derives from a subjective, objective and/or possessive form, though what is important to note is that both Dutch and Afrikaans each have a single form for 2nd person plural.6 Whether this single form also predates the development of Afrikaans is difficult to say due to the lack of early examples of 'jullie'. 9.1.5 3rd p. plural hulle Afrikaans hulle shows the replacement of the original subjective pronoun (cf. MN1 si, sie, se, siliede(n) etc.) by an objective and/or possessive form. Goossens (forthcoming a), unlike Raidt (1991: 214) and Scholtz, but also

6 Afrikaans also has the independent possessive julle s'n.

236

Afrikaans

mentioned tentatively as possible by Kloeke (1950: 350), believes that Afrikaans hulle derives from 'haar' + 'liede' rather than from 'hun' + 'liede', though Goossens' evidence from Dutch dialects is inconclusive. In texts from the Cape the oldest records of hulle as subjective date from 1772, but it seems likely, given that it appears in such ordinary use, that it was found some time before this date (see Scholtz 1963e: 112-114). Although not attested as a subjective form in seventeenth-century Hollands, hun is very common — though hullie less so — as subjective in present-day Hollands, but it is only first recorded in the Low Countries in 1911 (see Scholtz 1980: 68,1963e: 115, L· 8.2.2). Heurlui, haarluij are attested once in records from the Cape from 1744 as subjective; before this there is only one uncertain example from 1713. Although not recorded in seventeenthcentury Hollands, it is found today, though is unusual and is much more Zeeuws than Hollands (Scholtz 1963e: 114). According to Scholtz it was never common as a subjective form at the Cape, though Le Roux does record ha(ar)lie as late as 1921 as 'nominative' (Scholtz 1963c: 98f.). In the letters and statements of the Kaapse Taalargief (1750 - c. 1815), sy (se) as subjective and se as objective still occur frequently, but Scholtz (1963c: 96) believes that these forms (as plural haar and hen) were no longer part of the spoken language of the writers, and are the result of attempts to keep as close as possible to Dutch. Often in texts by the same writers the forms sylui, sully, sulle alternate with sy (se) as subjective, and haarlui, haarly, haarle and also sulle with se as objective. Scholtz believes that hunlui, hully, hulle were for a long time consciously avoided in writing (but contrast haarlui etc. below): even as objective and possessive they are first recorded very late in Cape texts. As objective, hunlui was common in seventeenth-century Hollands, and hullie is fairly widely recorded for Hollands and elsewhere in the RND (see De Rooij 1990: 126 for RND sentence 16); as possessive hunluyden, hunlieden was frequent from the sixteenth century, and today hullie is still found in North and South Hollands as possessive (Scholtz 1963c: 99 & 1963e: 114f.). Scholtz (1963e: 113f.) also points out that zijlui and its derivatives sullui, sully, sulle are extremely rare or unattested completely in early Cape records, even though zijlui dates from a period before settlement and does occur (with sullui etc.) frequently in Cape sources soon after 1770, which obviously suggests that it occurred also before 1770. From this Scholtz concludes that the lack of early written examples of hulle (or hunlui, hullui, hullij) does not necessarily mean that it did not exist in the spoken language at the Cape at that time. As already mentioned above, ons as a subjective form was for a long period unrecorded in writing, though it does occur earlier in the records of speech of Hottentots and slaves; however, for the 3rd person plural no records exist from their speech, not even zij, zijlui etc. (Scholtz 1963e: 115).

Afrikaans

237

As objective and possessive, haarlui, haarly, haarle were more common than hunlui, hully, hulle in texts up to around 1830, and were also attested some decades earlier (as possessive almost a century earlier). Haarlui etc. is found in Dutch already before the time of settlement. Scholtz explains the earlier preference for haarlui etc. over hunlui etc. at the Cape as a more formal form more appropriate in writing, though he does not explain why this should be the case. Goossens (forthcoming a: 2) states, on the other hand, that heurlui and haarlui — and not hunlui — as the more formal forms of hulle, were more appropriate in writing and are thus recorded earlier. As subjective pronouns sulle and hulle were for a long time competing forms, and although hulle did become the standard form, sulle survived — perhaps as a slightly more formal pronoun, above all in the language of older people — into this century (Scholtz 1963c: 96 & 1963e: 112f.).7 Like sulle as subjective form, haarle as objective and possessive pronoun also survived alongside hulle into the twentieth century, in somewhat oldfashioned, formal language (Scholtz 1963c: 97, 98,1963e: 115). 9.1.6 u According to Scholtz (1963c: 91), u in speech is comparatively recent. He states (1980: 67,1963b: 65f.) that the 2nd person V pronoun u is and was felt as a cultural loan from Dutch, not only as a subjective form, but also as objective and possessive. In rural areas and elsewhere 'by die "gewone mense'" what Scholtz terms the real Afrikaans pronouns of address are still always jy and julle\ even among the older generation of 'geleerdes en verstedeliktes' julle and also jy may still be heard where younger people would without doubt use u (Scholtz ibid.). Many non-whites, children, and Afrikaans nonstandard speakers in general normally use an indirect form of address using a title (e.g. meneer, mevrou, oom, tante etc.) where jy would be felt too familiar. On the use of the Afrikaans forms of address see also for example Ponelis (1979: 67f.).8 It is therefore surprising that u is found in Cape written records — including as a subjective form — from the beginning of the eighteenth century, also by what Scholtz calls 'betreklik onontwikkelde mense' living

7 Sulle also occurred to some extent as an objective pronoun and as a possessive, though according to records never to any great degree; however, Le Roux in 1921 gives sullie and sulle as still existing, though already half-obsolete possessive and accusative forms (Scholtz 1963c: 96f.). 8 These data all predate the recent democratic changes in South Africa. Such changes can of course lead to change in the use of the forms of address — compare for example 6.6.2 — as well as to change in the status of Afrikaans itself.

238

Afrikaans

in remote areas (Scholtz 1980: 67). Scholtz believes it likely that u was initially used only in the pure Dutch-speaking official circles in Cape Town and had a mark of urban refinement, but he doubts whether Afrikaners around 1800, even those living at the Cape or nearby, ever used u in their normal everyday language (Scholtz 1963b: 65 h 66).9 From the situation today, Scholtz (1963b: 67) is certain that u was not used in any function in the normal spoken language of the rural population around 1800. He states, plausibly, that 'Briewe en rapporte skryf was vir die merendeels min geletterde bewoners van die platteland 'n ernstige saak; huile het daarom hulle bes gedoen om die deftige Nederlandse aanspreekvorme en titulatuur in hul geskrifte na te volg . . .' . One suggestion by Scholtz is that people in rural areas learned the form from Dutch speakers — officials and especially teachers who sometimes lived with them for many years. Scholtz (1980: 67,1963b: 64-67,1963d: 74-77) sees the origin of u as the objective and possessive form of gij (in writing at least, possibly on the analogy of UE used as a subjective, objective and possessive form), and takes UE as a separate form (see Dutch 8.4.4). He states (1963d: 77) that V is in ons bronne in die reel 'n beleefde of beleef-vertroulike aanspreekvorm in teenstelling met die meer fórmele, deftige UE' — though UE is also found in less formal correspondence, even in letters from a son to his mother (see Scholtz 1963d: 75). In the Kaapse Taalargief the normal V form of address is UE etc., as subjective, objective and possessive, although u also occurs frequently as objective and possessive (Scholtz 1963b: 66f.), as well as, as already mentioned, a considerable number of times from the beginning of the eighteenth century as subjective (see Scholtz 1963b: 64f. & 1963d: 75-77). 9.1.7 1st p. sing. obj. myn Myn as an objective form (cf. Dutch 8.1.1) occurred until early into the twentieth century alongside my. It seems to have been very common as it is recorded almost five times as often as my in the Kaapse Taalargief, and it is used consistently by Johanna Duminy. However, Scholtz believes my must have been more common in the spoken language than appears from the records. In his Afrikaans of 1830-32, Boniface writes my without exception, and Bezuidenhout in 1851 uses mostly my. Meurant, on the other

9 Scholtz states that a subjective form u was in use in Hollands from the first half of the seventeenth century — in fact it may be recorded even earlier in the middle of the sixteenth century, possibly for northern Dutch (see Sassen 1983: 166 and Paardekooper 1987: 496-498) — although it is recorded only rarely in the Low Countries before the nineteenth century (see Scholtz 1963b: 64 and Dutch 8.4.4).

Afrikaans

239

hand, uses myn much more often than my (see Scholtz 1980: 66,1963c: 102, 1963e: 119).

Chapter 10: Langobardic Of the personal pronouns in Langobardic only the 1st p. nom. sing, ih is recorded (Bruckner 1895:109).

Chapter 11: German Old High German The Old High German period is taken by Braune/Eggers (1987) as approximately 750 to 1050.1 Apart from some earlier names and legal terms showing High German forms, the oldest records in High German date from the second half of the eighth century. As preserved to us, Old High German consists of a number of written dialects characterized by the appearance, to varying extents, of the High German Sound Shift. These dialects are: Bairisch and Alemannisch (Oberdeutsch), Ostfränkisch, Rheinfränkisch, Südrheinfränkisch and Mittelfränkisch (Mitteldeutsch). 11.1.1 1st p. sing. nom. ihha, ihcha The forms ihha, ihcha represent Latin 'egomet'. A form iche with final -e is found in thirteenth-century official documents in Ostmitteldeutsch and, in Schlesisch, occasionally in Early New High German; iche occurs in modern times in Ostmitteldeutsch, though it is uncertain whether it is connected with the Old High German form (Walch & Häckel 1988: 30). Berlin also has icke, but many examples of final -e occur, e.g. dranne ('daran') — see Schönfeld (1990:117). Ikke is also found in modern Westfälisch and Engrisch (Seebold 1984:17), and in Dutch and Frisian. 11.1.2 3rd person initial hIn Fränkisch records, as well as the vowel-initial forms of the 3rd person pronouns, forms with initial h- also occur. These correspond to the hforms found to varying extent in most of the Germanic languages, though in Old High German, as in Old Saxon, they are less extensive than in the 3rd person pronouns in Old English or Old Frisian for example. In Old High German h- forms are most widespread in the masc. sing, nominative as her (he), occurring in Fränkish texts as far south as the border with Alemannisch (Zelissen 1969:172) — where h- forms are found in Oberdeutsch sources this is most probably the result of 'false' addition, compare for example huns for uns (Braune/Eggers 1987: 240, see also Rönnebeck 1922:

1 For a slightly different periodization see Geuenich (1985: 982f.).

German

242

Old High German ΝΟΜ. 1

S 2

S 3

S M 3

ih (Latin 'egomet' ihha, ihcha) -ih (occas. -h) dû, du (Obd. also t ü ) - d u ( 0 -d) er (rarer ir) Frk. also h e r (he) -er ( τ )

AGG.

DAT.

GEN.

mih

mir (rare m i )

mïn (0 also m i n e s )

dih

dir (rare di)

dïn (0 also thines)

inan, esp. later in; early imu; i m o (late Bair. also inen) (Frk. occas.hìmo] (LS ini, DH ina) LS e m o ) - m o -nan, -(e)n

early siu, esp. later si (late occas. sie) -si (si-, S - )

sia, late sie (occas. si; LS sea) (-sa, si-, s-)

13 (late also e3)

13 (late also e3)

Ν

-3

1 D

sin (0 also sines)

-ro

ira; from C9 also iru (iro) (LS era)

-3

early imu; i m o (iYfc.occa.5.himo) -mo

es, late also is (also sin) -s

*

*

*

once (0) u n k ë r

*

*

*

*

uuir

uns ih (occas. u n s )

uns

unser

ir (rare gi)

iuuih, also iuuuih (occas. iu) (I e u u u i h )

iu (late occas. üch) (le u)

3 Ρ M

sie (sia, see, sea) -se (si-, -sa, s-)

sie (sia, see, sea) -se (si-, -sa, s-)

3 Ρ

F

sio 0 & esp. later sie (sia) (-so, s-)

sio early im, from C9 in iro (rare ira, iru) 0 & esp. later sie -ro (Frk. occas. hin) (sia) (-so, s-)

3 Ρ Ν

siu (occas. sie, later more frequent)

siu (occas. sie, later more frequent)

S F 3

S

iru; later irò

D 1 Ρ

iuuër, also i u u u ë r

early im, from C9 in irò (rare ira, iru) (Frk. occas. hin) -ro

early im, from C9 in irò (rare ira, iru) (Frk. occas. hin) -ro

Obd. = Oberdeutsch, Bair. = Bairisch, Frk. = Fränkisch; 0 = Otfried, LS = LexSalica, DH = De Heinrico, I = Isidor

Old High German

243

38f.). Some h- forms are also found in the oblique pronouns, though here generally vowel-initial forms are the norm. Zelissen (1969: 184) assumes that in Old High German h- forms in the oblique pronouns were approximately as widespread as her (he), or at least down to near t h e Main area. That the oblique forms were replaced by vowel-initial forms earlier than her (he) — as seen in the Middle High German period — is ascribed both by Zelissen and Frings (1956:1,23) to the 'Satzinnenstellung' of the accusative and dative. However, this overlooks that in Germanic verb-second languages nominative forms can also frequently occur postverbally — compare for example Niibling's (1992: 254-257) statistics for a sample of modern Berndeutsch already mentioned (2.5.2) — nor does it explain the survival of h- forms in the oblique pronouns in other Germanic languages. Several explanations have been offered for her2 — one that it represents a combination of the northern form he etc. and southern er etc. (see e.g. Rönnebeck 1922: 125f.), and the fact that her occurs only in the area where h- and 'er' forms meet could support this (Walch & Häckel 1988: 81; cf. also DSA, map 48). Possibly also the 2nd person forms ger, gir (e.g. Altdeutsche Gespräche, Trierer Floyris, modern dialects on either side of the Meuse) which Zelissen (1969: 141) and Frings (1956: II, 130 & map 30) explain as probable combinations of western gi and eastern ir (er) could be compared here. Another suggestion (Behaghel 1928: 542) is that he etc. originally represented the stressed form and her the unstressed form, compare Frisian and Dutch Limburgs, and also some difference in the extent of 'he' and 'er' according to stress in the DSA material (see 11.7.1), though neither Rönnebeck (1922: 120ff.) nor Walch & Häckel (1988: 82) have found any evidence for he as stressed form and her as unstressed in earlier records. For further discussion of the h- and vowel-initial forms in the Germanspeaking area as a whole see 11.7.1 below. 11.1.3 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative-dative distinction In Old High German not only do the 1st and 2nd p. singular have separate accusative and dative forms, but the distinction has also been extended to the 1st and 2nd p. plural pronouns. As already pointed out, it is likely that

2 Whether or not her requires special explanation at all depends on the explanation of the h- forms in the 3rd person pronouns — i.e. only if h- was first added to the masc. sing. nom. pronoun because of loss of -r are h- and final -r in the masc. sing. nom. mutually exclusive. If, on the other hand, this explanation of the h- forms is incorrect, then dialectal forms with both initial h- and final -r require no special explanation. As already stated in the Introduction, reconstruction is not discussed in this study — see further Rosenfeld (1955), Krahe (1956), Nielsen (1981), Markey (1981), Seebold (1984), and Klingenschmitt (1987).

244

German

at an earlier stage in Germanic in the 1st and 2nd person separate accusative and dative pronouns existed only in the singular, while in the plural and dual one form was used for both cases (for the justification for this assumption see chapter 3). The Old High German innovatory accusativedative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person plural is by extension of the accusative pronoun formative -ih (in OHG: mih, dih, sih) to the 1st and 2nd p. plural to give the accusative forms unsih and iuuih, which contrast with uns and iu. These forms are generally sharply distinguished in Old High German. (For a possible trace of an innovatory 1st p. plural dative distinction in German see 11.2.3 below.) As already mentioned, parallel forms are found in some Old English — Mercian ûsic, èowic and Northumbrian üsih, iuih (see English 6.1.1); and in Low German plural obj. forms such as 1st p. plural ûsik, unsik, 2nd p. plural jük, jüch also indicate earlier analogical extension (see Low German 11.4.3). This type of distinction by Analogical extension (here extension of a pronominal formative) shows, as discussed in chapter 2, how Change Types [ C J and [D] can be closely related and overlap. 11.1.4 Dual A personal pronoun dual is attested only once in Old High German — and then with the addition of the numeral 'two': the 1st person dual form unkër occurs with zueio as unkër zueio in Fränkisch in Otfried. The 2nd person dual forms ej,-enc-enker are attested later — though with plural meaning — in Middle High German in Bairisch from about the end of the thirteenth century, and, very much in isolation, in Mährisch and Schlesisch3 in the fifteenth century (Walch & Häckel 1988:73). These forms survive up to the present day in Bairisch, and it can be assumed that they were indeed present in the Old High German period but are not attested. Kranzmayer (1954: 250) ascribes the lack of dual forms in Old High German to the influence of the Latin texts which form the basis of a large part of Old High German literature: as the dual did not occur in the Latin, the use of dual forms in Old High German translations was 'eher abgehalten als angeregt'. This seems a valid point — compare Eggenberger in the Introduction on the subject pronoun — but it should also be noted that similar circumstances in several of the other Germanic languages did not lead to a virtually complete exclusion of dual forms. König (1978: 61) states that the fact that monks from different areas worked together resulted in an avoidance of strongly dialect forms, an example of which,

3 The genuineness of these isolated forms has been questioned — see Walch & Häckel (1988: 73).

Old High German

245

he believes, are the dual forms in Bairisch. Another possibility is that thé dual forms were eliminated in copying from other dialects, for example a Bavarian copying from another dialect might not have introduced duals, and a copyist reproducing a Bavarian text could have eliminated them (M. Durrell, personal communication). It is also possible, given the fact that the single attested dual form already in the ninth century has the addition of the quantifier 'two', that the pronominal dual number was already then to some extent weakened, in which case its rarity in much of Old High German is not surprising — compare chapter 2 on Loss of forms in the pronouns. As mentioned, 2nd person dual forms are not attested until around the end of the thirteenth century and by this time the dual number had been lost and the pronouns had taken on plural meaning. Kranzmayer (1954: 250 & 258) states that ej-enc-enker were avoided in Middle High German courtly literature and points to the fact that in Austria, in spite of the many courtly works written between 1200 and 1280, no duals are attested from this period. However, not only in courtly literature but also in Middle High German Urkunden no dual forms occur before the fourteenth century (Sparmann 1961:28). In Early New High German in all texts in which dual forms are found in Walch & Häckel's corpora, the dual forms are considerably less frequent than the plural forms (Walch & Häckel 1988: 71). Kranzmayer (1954: 250) believes that 'eß and enk standen fürs Rittertum offenbar im Ruf unhöfischer Derbheit und erschienen ihm unfein' and (1954: 258) that the replacement of the 2nd p. plural forms by dual forms was 'eine Angelegenheit der bäuerlichen Volks- und nicht der höfischen Ritter- oder gar der mittelhochdeutschen Literatursprache'. Dual forms in Modern German (including Low German forms) are discussed in 11.7.2 below. See also on the dual forms in Yiddish 12.1.1. For discussion of reasons for the retention of dual forms (even after loss of dual number) see chapter 3.

246

German

Middle High German The Middle High German period is now usually taken as the late eleventh century to about 1350 (Rautenberg 1985:1120). The period sees an expansion of the German-speaking area eastwards and southwards, with the development of 'Ausgleichs-' and 'Mischmundarten' in the new colonies (Rautenberg 1985:1120f.). The forms given are from both literary and nonliterary sources. 11.2.1 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. Sparmann (1961, map l) shows the distribution of the neuter sing, nom./ acc. forms in Middle High German official documents (literary records are not included). 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. it etc. In Middle High German unshifted forms of the 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./ acc. pronoun are found in Mittelfränkisch, more consistently in official documents, but also commonly in literary works (Zelissen 1969: 233ff.). In the Old High German period it is rarely, if at all reliably attested — see Franck (1971:128). Merger of /3/ and /s/ From the end of the twelfth century coalesced with /s/ in most dialects (Paul/Wiehl/Grosse 1989: §154) with the result that the distinction between the 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. ej, ¿3 and the neuter/masc. genitive es, is was lost. For the replacement of es, is (e$) by the reflexive pronoun see Mausser (1933: 765 & 769), Franck (1971: §171), Walch & Häckel (1988: 85 & 122f.), and here chapter 2 (2.4 [2] & 2.8). 11.2.2 1st p. plural nom. mir, mer 1st p. plural nom. forms with initial m- are attested in Middle High German from the thirteenth century (Paul/Wiehl/Grosse 1989:141). These are discussed in Modern German 11.7.3 below. 11.2.3 1st p. plural dat. unsis, unses The forms unsis and unses are attested once each in Middle High German, occurring as 1st p. plural dative (see Weinhold 1967b: 513). These forms appear to correspond to the Gothic 1st p. plural obj. pronoun unsis (4.1.1), which, although occurring both as accusative and as dative, is recorded less frequently as accusative. However, Smits (1972: 344) suggests that the unsis in the Wiener Genesis (line 736) may be from 'uns sô', and Seebold

Middle High German

ΝΟΜ. 1

S

S M

3

S F 3

S Ν

er (occas. êr) (Md. also her, hê (hie, hei)); Alem. CIS ir) -er, -r

Ρ

e3, also 13, es (rare ês, ê3) -3 (Mfrk. also it, id, -(e)t )

GEN.

mir min (Austrian also mein)(esp.Md., CIS (mer; Bair. also mier; Rip., Thür., also Obd. mines; later also miner) Ofrk. also mi) dir din (der; Obd. esp. Bair. (Obd. & Md. later also dier; Thür., also dines; rare Ofrk., Rip. also di) diner)

in (occas. inen, in) im, also ime sin (es) (Md. en(e), on(e), (imme, ìm(e), imo) (Bair. also sein) un(e), hin) (Md. em(e),om(e); (sines, from CIS -en, -η him(o)) -em,-me occas. siner)

e3, also 13, es (rare ês, ê3) -3 (Mfrk. also it, id, -(e)t )

im, also ime (imme, ìm(e), imo) (Md. em(e), om(e); him(o)) -em,-me

uns (rare unsich) (Obd. from end CIS also üns)

uns unser (very rare unsis, (Obd. from end CIS uns es) (Obd. from also ünser) end CIS also üns)

ir iuch, iuwich (er;Má. also îr, î, gì; Md. ûch; Bair. euch Bair. also ier, e3) (Bair. also enc) -er,-r (also iu, û)

3 si, sì, sie, occas. Ρ siu(seu,sû,j4/ero. M also sú, su), (Bair. F sei), also se, -s 3 Ρ Ν

dich (Md. rarer dich; Rip. occas. dig) (unstr. dech, di-)

DAT.

si, si, sie, occas. ir, esp. early¡Md. ire ir, esp. early ¡Md. ire si, sì, sie, siu siu (Bair. seu, Md. (Md. also er(e), or, (Md. also er(e), or, (Bair. seu, Md. sû), sû), (Bair. sei), Mfrk. hir; Alem. Mfrk. hir; Alem. also se, -s also se, -s also irò, ira, iru) also irò, ira, iru)

wir 1 (wer;Obd. also wier; Ρ Omd., Ofrk. also wî) (later also mir, mer)

2

ACC.

ich (ih, jch) mich (Md. also ich; Omd. (Md. rarer mich) also iche) (unstr. mech, mi-) i-, -ch, rare -ech du, dû (ιObd. also duo) -tu,-te,-de,-t,-d

3

Middle High German

247

si, sì, sie, siu (Bair. seu, Md. sû, Alem. also sú), also se, -s

iu, Md. û (iuch, ûch) (Bair. also enc)

es, is (Alem. also e3) -s (also sin)

iuwer, iwer, iur Md. ûwer (Bair. poss. enker)

si, sì, sie, occas. in (in), esp. Alem. ir, esp. early ¡Md. ire siu (seu, sû, Sierra (Alem. also iro,-a,-u) also inen also sii, su), (Bair. (en, on, ien(en), (irre, ier) sei), also se, -s enen; v. rare im) (CIS- occas. irer) si, sì, sie, siu (Bair. seu, Md. sû Alem. also sú), also se, -s

in (in), esp. Alem. ir, esp. early ¡Md. ire (Alem. also iro,-a,-u) also inen (irre, ier) (en, on, ien(en), enen; v. rare im) (CIS- occas. irer)

Alem. = Alemannisch, Md. = Mitteldeutsch, Mfrk. = Mittelfränkisch, Ofrk. = Ostfränkisch, Omd. = Ostmitteldeutsch, Rip. = Ripuarisch, Thür. = Thüringisch

248

German

(1984: 33) is also uncertain of the genuineness of these pronouns in "Middle High German. On accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural in the Germanic languages as a whole see 3.1.2. 11.2.4 1st p. plural umlaut oblique forms From the end of the thirteenth century umlaut forms of the 1st p. plural oblique pronouns are found in Oberdeutsch (Weinhold 1967b: 513). In the Early New High German period they are additionally recorded in Schlesisch, though very much in isolation (Walch h Häckel 1988:47), and in the Modern period they are further found in some Hessisch and (in the Low German area) Ostfälisch dialects (Schirmunski 1962:454). Various explanations have been put forward for these forms. It is possible that uns developed from the accusative pronoun unsi(c)h etc. with analogical extension of the umlaut to the other cases (Mausser 1933: 753). Seebold (1984: 33) also gives this explanation but adds that the forms as recorded do not suggest this. Kleiber et al. (1979: 131) believe that uns represents a single objective pronoun for both accusative and dative with the umlaut from the accusative and the monosyllabic form from the dative, the umlaut then extended to the genitive/possessive by analogy. Jungandreas (1928: 137), on the other hand, believes that uns developed not from the accusative unsi(c)h but from what he believes was the Germanic dative form unsis (cf. 11.2.3 above). Jungandreas also believes analogy with iuch may have been possible. A different explanation is offered by Michels (1979: 58) who states that uns probably developed from an unstressed /ans/ or / n s / which was then restressed, with unser developing by analogy with the obj. form. In addition, it should be noted that in Elsässisch the change u > ü is not restricted to uns (Walch & Häckel 1988:48). 11.2.5 Fem. sing, nominative-accusative In Middle High German levelling occurs between the fem. sing, nominative and accusative, though some levelling, especially in the unaccented forms, is already found in the Old High German period. Possible traces of the nominative-accusative distinction may still be found in two Early New High German texts, one of them Hochalemannisch, in Walch & Häckel's (1988:130) corpora, though the small number of accusative forms attested makes this uncertain. On a difference in the nom. and acc. clitic forms see the Modern Swiss German paradigm below. 11.2.6 Fem. sing, dative-genitive Levelling of the fem. sing, dative and genitive distinction is also found in Middle High German. Here too some levelling already occurs in the Old High German period. In some Early New High German texts the extended

Middle High German

249

forms in the dative and genitive differ — compare Walch & Häckel (1988: 131f. & 137-9) and Early New High German below. 11.2.7 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative-dative syncretism The Middle High German period sees the loss of the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. plural pronouns. By the time of the Early New High German period this development was largely complete (Walch & Häckel 1988: 46 & 64), with the 1st person plural generally levelling to the former dative and the 2nd person plural to the accusative pronoun. On the whole, the old forms are retained longer in the 2nd person than in the 1st person, and longer in Oberdeutsch than in Mitteldeutsch. Although in Old High German the 1st and 2nd p. plural accusative and dative forms were generally sharply distinguished, isolated examples of functional merger are found as early as the ninth century, both in the 1st and in the 2nd person (Braune/Eggers 1987: §282, Weinhold 1967b: 514). In the 1st p. plural unsich is found in the accusative alongside uns into the thirteenth century, but increasingly rarely; by the fourteenth century it is lost, with uns the normal form for both cases (Weinhold 1967b: 513, Mausser 1933: 751). Zelissen (1969: 157), however, states that in the South -ich forms still occur in the fourteenth century, though he gives no references for these. On 1st p. plural umlaut forms which may be reflexes of the accusative pronoun see 11.2.4 above; for possible reflexes of the old accusative form in the Modern period see 11.6.2 below. In the 2nd p. plural in Middle High German both the earlier accusativeonly form iuch occurs as dative, and, conversely, iu is found in the accusative (Weinhold 1967b: 516). Mausser (1933: 756) states that competition between the two forms seems to have spread from northern Mitteldeutsch. In Bairisch both forms are found into the sixteenth century, where iu/eu occurs in some texts alongside iuch ¡euch* both as dative and as accusative (Walch & Häckel 1988: 64). Traces of the old distinction are still found in the fourteenth century, more rarely in the fifteenth, in some Bairisch and Westoberdeutsch texts, and also in a few Ostmitteldeutsch sources: here iuchIeuch occurs for both cases, but iu/eu is also found as dative, albeit often only occasionally. From the sixteenth century, however, with the exception of some Bairisch records from the first half of the century, iuch/euch is the sole form for accusative and dative in all areas in Walch & Häckel's corpora (1988: 64ff.). This levelling to the accusative in the 2nd p. plural means, diachronically speaking, that the Old High German innovatory 2nd p. plural accusative form with addition of the formative -ih, later itself became accusative-dative unspecific.

4 The originally accusative pronoun is represented here by MHG tuc/i/NHG euch.

250

German

Levelling of the 2nd p. plural accusative and dative to the former dative pronoun iu/eu (rather than to the accusative) is found in some Bairisch sources from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Walch & Häckel 1988: 64 & 70). On the distribution of the 2nd p. plural obj. forms in the Modern period see further 11.6.2. The reasons for the levelling in the 1st and 2nd p. plural obj. pronouns are complex: accusative-dative distinction is generally maintained in most of the personal pronouns in High German, and the dative generally remains distinct in noun phrase inflection,5 so the question must be asked why then did levelling occur in the 1st and 2nd p. plural pronouns — see further the discussion in 3.1.2. As for the direction of levelling, the frequent arbitrariness of case as a determining factor is shown by the fact that generally the 1st person plural levelled to the former dative and the 2nd p. plural to the former accusative. Zelissen (1969:158) states that retention in the 1st person plural of uns over unsich 'läßt sich vielleicht auf eine Tendenz zurückführen, im Bereich der casus obliqui der Personalpronomina nur einsilbige Formen zu verwenden', but this fails to note firstly that unsih is the normal accusative form in Old High German, and secondly that in Middle High German, as in other Germanic languages, new disyllabic forms of some of the personal pronouns do occur, for example inen and miner, dîner etc. Heltveit (1952: 383 & 381) believes the reason for the preference of uns over unsich was that 'the pronunciation of an accusative form . . . involved the pronunciation of the corresponding dative form + an element which found no support in the inflectional system as a whole', though the same could also be said of the 2nd person forms iu and iuch. In the 2nd person Heltveit (1952: 383) believes that iu was felt to be too 'weak', although his reasoning that 'it was felt to be incomplete, to be lacking the case formative . . .ch' seems to contradict his explanation for the 1st person. As already stated, it is not the case that short forms do not occur in the Germanic personal pronouns — the fact that -ch less forms such as ui, eu, i occur in the Modern period (for their possible origins see 11.6.2) amply illustrates this, compare also other modern vocalic forms in Oberdeutsch, 1st p. sing. nom. i, 1st p. sing. acc. mi, 2nd p. sing. acc. di, which in many areas occur both accented and unaccented (see Schirmunski 1962:449 & 451).

5 On levelling in the 3rd p. sing. masc. accusative and dative in some Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch dialects see 11.6.3.

Middle High German

251

11.2.8 3rd p. plural gender distinction Even in Old High German records, gender in the 3rd person plural personal pronouns was distinguished only in the nominative/accusative forms. As already mentioned, in the personal pronouns in the surviving records of the early Germanic languages except the genitive in Gothic, gender is not differentiated in the dative plural and genitive plural. In loss of the High German 3rd person plural gender distinction we are therefore, as far as the recorded development since the first surviving texts are concerned, discussing only a change in the nominative/accusative forms. Loss of gender distinction in the plural in High German is also seen in the demonstratives and in adjective inflection. On the connection between category/property distinction in noun phrases and pronominal distinction see the discussion in chapter 2. The High German 3rd p. plural nom./acc. pronouns show in loss of gender distinction the kind of functional merger and phonological merger discussed in chapter 2 (see 2.2.1). — Levelling of gender distinctions in the 3rd p. plural nom./acc. personal pronouns is already found to some extent in Old High German, especially in the later period and between the masculine and feminine forms (Braune/Eggers 1987: §283). In Middle High German sie is the originally masculine and feminine form, and siu the originally neuter form, but sie can also be found as neuter, and siu occasionally as masculine, more rarely as feminine (Paul/Wiehl/Grosse 1989: §214, Weinhold 1967b: 524). The weakly-accented or unaccented forms si (reaccented as sì), se, -s occur for all genders, and already in Middle High German texts siu is less common as nom./acc. plural neuter than si, si, sie (Walch & Häckel 1988: 124f.). By the beginning of the Early New High German period the distinction between the genders is lost and reflexes of the old masc. and fem. sie, as of the neuter siu, occur for all genders (Walch & Häckel 1988:142f.).

252

German

Early New High German

The dating of the Early New High German period used here — from the middle of the fourteenth century to the end of ,the seventeenth century — follows that of Moser et al. (eds) in the Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen (see Walch & Häckel 1988: 14).6 On the dialectal divisions used by Walch & Häckel see (1988:15).

11.3

Extended forms

Over the course of its development, High German shows considerable increase in extended forms of the personal pronouns, particularly in the genitive. Several of these developments also occur in other pronoun types. The 3rd person dative plural extended form ihnen has become standard in Modern German. Outside the standard language, extended forms or reflexes of extended forms of the other pronouns survive in the Modern period, as do unextended forms of the 3rd p. dative plural (see Leupold 1909, Walch & Häckel 1988:170, Schirmunski 1962: 471f.). 11.3.1 3rd p. sing. masc. acc. men/ihnen In the Early New High German period the 3rd p. sing. masc. acc. variant inen/ihnen is hardly attested in the fourteenth century and only rarely in the fifteenth. It is therefore possible that men/ihnen does not represent a continuation of OHG inan, MHG inen, but a new formation by analogy with adjective inflection (Paul 1958: §132). On the possible survival of original -en forms in some dialects see Walch & Häckel (1988: lllf.). 11.3.2 3rd p. plural dat. inen/ihnen The 3rd p. plural dative extended form inen is already found in the Middle High German period. It is first seen in Alemannisch, from where according to Leupold (1909: 26) it spreads to other dialects. The addition of -en may be an analogical formation on the pattern of adjective and/or noun dative plural inflection — compare similar developments in other Germanic languages in 2.4. Similar addition of -en is also seen in the dative plural denen. Walch & Häckel (1988: 166) point to differentiation of the dative plural from the most usual masc. sing. acc. form in/ihn as a factor in

6 For a different periodization see Eggers (1985: 1304) who places the close of the Early New High German period at the end of the Thirty Years' War.

Early New High German

NOM. 1 s

ich

2

du

S

Early New High German ACC. mich

dich

-(t)u, (-t)

253

DAT.

GEN.

mir (Wmd., Thür. CI4, 015 also mi; Md. also mer; Obd. also mier)

min/mein, miner/meiner (Md. 014,15 also mines; Alem. 015017 also m(e)inen)

din/dein, dir diner/deiner (Mfrk., Omd. CI4, (Md. 014,15 also C15 also di) dines; Alem. 016/1 (der; Obd. also dier) also dinen/deinen)

in/ihn, sin/sein, im/ihm, er, Md. also he, her also ine/ihne siner/seiner ime/ihme; S (hei, hie; Omd. (rarer inen/ihnen; (Md. C14J5, Nobd. Md. esp. C14J5 also M occas. ha, har) Md. also e n / o n ) CI4 also s(e)ines; em/om, eme/ome (rare -n) Alem. also s(e)inen) 3

3

S F

sie/si (C14J5 also: Wobd., Bair. siu/sü/seu, Thür, su) ("Β)

sie/si (C14J5 also: Wobd. Bair. siu/sü/seu, Thür, su) (esp. acc. -s)

ir/ihr (also: Wobd. i(h)ro,-a esp. C16 i(h)ren; Nobd. 017-o] Wmd., (Halem.,Nobd.) -e)

ir/ihr (also: Md. 016- -er; Wmd. CI4 -s; Wobd. 016 -en; Alem. -0, Halem. 015 -e)

es/ez, also is/iz; es/ez, also is/iz; im/ihm, sin/sein (Halem. often,esp.acc.-s (-z) often,esp.acc.-s (-z) ime/ihme; 016 also sinen; rare S (Mfrk. C14J5 also (Mfrk. C14J5 also Md. esp. CI4J.5 also seiner Eis. 016) Ν it/id (-t) ) it/id (-t) ) em/om, eme/om (also es etc.) 3

wir (rarer also mir) uns 1 Ρ (wier; Md. also wer, (Obd. also üns) mer; Mfrk.,Omd. C14J5 also wi)

(v. occas. us)

ir/ihr üch/uch/euch (Omd. C14J5 also (Halem. 014,15, Bair. CI4-I6 also Ρ i/ie; Md. also er; Mfrk.rare dir; Bair. iu/ew; Bair. also also ez,es, rare -s) enk, ench) 2

3

Ρ

sie/si C14J5 Obd. also siu/sü/seu (Thür.,Mslfrk. also su) (Obd. -s)

uns (Obd. also üns) (v. occas. us)

unser ( 016,17 also uns(e)rer) (rare uns, unse, uns ers)

üch/uch/euch (Obd.,Omd. C14J5, Bair. 014-16 also iu/ü/u/ew; Bair. also enk, ench)

üwer/uwer/e(u)wer (Obd. 017, Md. also ew(e)ieT;Rip.Cl4,15 also ur(r)e, ur(e)s; Βαν. also enker)

sie/si in/ihn, ir/ihr, irer/ihrer C14J.5 Obd. also later general ine(n)/ (also: Wobd.-en; Md. C14J5-(e)s; siu/sü/seu ihne(n) esp. Halem. -0; (Thür.,Mslfrk. also (Md. also en, on) occas.-errare -a) su) (Obd. -s)

Wmd. = Westmitteldeutsch, Nobd. = Nordoberdeutsch, Wobd. = Westoberdeutsch, Halem. = Hochalemannisch, Els. = Elsässisch, Mslfrk. = Moselfränkisch

254

German

favouring inen/ihnen in the dative plural, compare also Schirmunski (1962: 471f.) and possible parallels in Change Type [Cj [5] in chapter 2. Extension of the dative plural by analogy with the masc. sing. acc. variant inen is unlikely according to Walch & Häckel (1988: 166) because of the relative rarity of masc. sing. acc. inen in Middle High German, and the fact that the dative plural extended form was still only occasionally attested in the twelfth century. However, in sixteenth century Ostmitteldeutsch charters and deeds the extended form inen occurs both in the masc. sing, accusative and in the dative plural (Walch & Häckel 1988:167). 11.3.3 3rd p. sing. fem. dat. iren¡ihren 3rd p. sing. fem. dat. forms with -en are found from the first half of the sixteenth century in Westoberdeutsch. They are attested mainly in the second half of the sixteenth century in Alemannisch; in the seventeenth century they are recorded only in Hochalemannisch. The chronological and dialectal distribution of iren/ihren in the fem. sing. dat. corresponds approximately to that of the -en forms in the fem. sing. gen. and in the 3rd p. plural genitive; some texts show -en forms both in the genitive and in the dative (Walch & Häckel 1988: 139f.). Compare also the (more widespread) ENHG fem. sing. dat. demonstrative/relative pronoun variant deren (Walch & Häckel 1988: 235ff.). The -en in iren/ihren may be a weak ending as possibly in the genitive forms in -en, though in Elsässisch at least -en may be a reversed spelling for /a/ (see Walch & Häckel 1988:140).

Old Saxon (Old Low German)

255

Old Saxon (Old Low German) The Old Saxon period is taken here as the ninth century to the twelfth century (see Holthausen 1921: 9 and Hartig 1985: 1072). It is important to note that the usual periodizations of High and Low German are not the same. 11.4.1 3rd person initial hIn Old Saxon initial h- in the 3rd person pronouns is restricted, with a few exceptions, to the masculine singular nominative. Forms of normally vowel-initial 3rd person pronouns with h- may be due to influence of the masculine sing, nominative, or to 'false' addition of h- in spelling, see Holthausen (1921:115) and Gallee (1910:238). Initial h- is less widespread in Old Saxon than in Old English, Old Frisian, Middle Dutch and the Scandinavian languages — for further discussion of h- in the 3rd person pronouns in the whole of the German-speaking area see 11.7.1. 11.4.2 3rd p. sing, masc./neuter dative forms In the Old Saxon 3rd p. sing, masc./neuter dative forms occur both with and without a final vowel — im, imu, imo. In the 'Heliand' and the Old Saxon 'Genesis' im is dominant, although the forms ending in a vowel do also occur, most particularly in 'Heliand' M;7 in the lesser texts the longer form dominates (Holthausen 1921: 116). The origin of these Old Saxon forms is disputed, see for example Dal (1983: 83ff.) and Markey (1976: 262f.). Form doublets are also found in the demonstrative, the interrogative pronoun and in the adjective. 11.4.3 1st and 2nd person accusative and dative Old Saxon records usually do not show accusative and dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns: Foerste (1950: 73) concludes that the original syntactic distinction of the accusative forms was already lost in the first half of the ninth century in western Westphalia, though Sarauw (1924:106ff.) believes that elsewhere the distinction was retained considerably longer, see Middle Low German 11.5.3 below. In Old Saxon texts the 1st and 2nd p. singular accusative forms mik and thik are found only occasionally (though both in the 'Heliand' and in some of the lesser texts); and in the plural the 1st person accusative form unsik is recorded once alongside us in glosses from the tenth century, otherwise accusative and dative are represented by the same form (see e.g. Gallee 1910: 236f.).

7 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Cgm 25).

256

German

Old Saxon (Old Low German) NOM. 1

ACC.

DAT.

s

ik (ek)

m i (rare m e ) (occas. m i k )

m i (rare m e )

2 S

thu

thi (rare t h e )

thi (rare t h e )

3 S M

(-tu)

min

thin

ina (ine)

im, imu, imo

is (rare es)

F

(Heliand, C v. occas. sia, sea)

sia, sie (sea)

iru, irò (ira)

irò, also ira, iru,

3 S Ν

it

it

im, imu, imo

is (rare es)

1 D

wit

unk

unk

(unkero, unkaro)

2 D

git

ink

ink

1 Ρ

wi (rare w e )

üs (v. rare unsik)

üs

gi (rare ge)

iu (iuu, giu(u), eu)

iu (iuu, giu(u), eu)

iuwar (euwar), iuwer; (iuwaro,-oro,-ero, -era)

sia, sie (sea)

im

iro (occas. ira)

im

irò (occas. ira)

3 S

2 Ρ 3 Ρ

M F

3 Ρ Ν

he, hie, hi

(occas. thik)

GEN.

siu ire

*

sia, sie (sea)

siu (also as masc./fem.)

(poss. — inka)

user

siu (also as masc./fem.)

C = Cotton Caligula A.VH, British Museum

Old Saxon (Old Low German)

257

However, the fact that the accusative forms are still found in Middle Low German, and become general in Ostfälisch, and that in the plural unsik and jüch are recorded in the earliest Nordnieder sächsisch8 of the Middle Low German period, does show that the old accusatives were retained longer in Low German than attested Old Saxon records reveal (Lasch 1914a: 211f.)· The 1st and 2nd p. plural forms ûsik, unsik, jüh, jüch suggest that Low German, as some Old English and Old High German, had also at one stage an innovatory accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. plural by extension of the accusative pronoun formative -ik etc., whether independently or in connection with English or High German developments — compare Old English Anglian üsic, üsih, ëowic, ïuih and Old High German unsih, iuuih. As has already been stated, it is likely that in the 1st and 2nd person Germanic at an earlier stage differentiated accusative and dative only in the singular, while in the dual and plural one form was used for both cases. This extension to the accusative contrasts with some possible extension in the dative in Gothic and West Scandinavian, and a possible unsis, unses also in High German. On 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural accusative-dative distinction in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages in general see 3.1.2. 11.4.4 Dual The dual is better attested in Old Saxon than in Old High German, but several times in the 'Heliand' dual forms are replaced by plurals, for example in lines 130,134 and 3573 manuscript C has gi where M has git] C also has once each wit bethia and user bethero (Holthausen 1921: 114, Behrmann 1879: 37, Sehrt 1966). Dual forms are not attested in Middle Low German records (Lasch 1914a: 7 and Sarauw 1924: 110), although an exception may possibly be found in a letter from the fifteenth century where Hoefer (1873: 301f.) sees in the form 'yud' a 2nd p. dual nominative, but Sarauw (1924: 110) doubts this reading. 2nd person dual forms do occur — as plurals — in the Modern period in an area around Dortmund (see 11.7.2), and this indicates that, at least in the 2nd person, dual forms were indeed present in the Middle period in at least part of the Low German area, but are not recorded — compare also absence or avoidance in High German texts (11.1.4). Foerste (1957: 1766) believes that the lack of attested dual forms in Middle Low German was due to the influence of the Lübeck norm; he points out that in the extensive Middle Low German records from Dortmund no examples

8 Nordniedersächsisch, is used here by Lasch (1914a: 16-19) as a general term for the whole of the northern Low German area.

258

German

of dual forms are found, even given the occurrence of the 2nd p. dual pronouns as plurals in the same area in the Modern period. This lack of evidence from the Middle period obscures investigation of the loss of the dual number and the loss of the 1st p. dual pronouns in Low German. For a discussion of why the 2nd p. dual forms survived as plural pronouns see chapter 3. 11.4.5 3rd p. plural gender distinction As noted above, in the surviving records of the early Germanic languages except the genitive in Gothic gender is not differentiated in the dative plural and genitive plural. In Low German texts, therefore, we are dealing only with a change in the nominative/accusative forms. Old Saxon already shows levelling of the masculine-feminine distinction, and in addition the neuter plural is represented several times by a masc./fem. form. In Middle Low German levelling of the plural gender distinction is complete. Levelling is also found in the demonstrative and adjective inflection (Holthausen 1921:117ff. L· 123ff.) — compare here again chapter 2.

Middle Low German

259

Middle Low German

Middle Low German is separated from Old Saxon by a period· in which no Low German records survive, the first Middle Low German texts dating from the beginning of the thirteenth century. In comparison with the Old Saxon period, the Middle Low German area shows considerable expansion, particularly to the East, but also to the North and Northwest, with some losses in the Southwest and Southeast (Peters 1985: 1211ff.). From the middle of the fourteenth and especially in the fifteenth century developments can be seen in Middle Low German towards a written norm based on the language of Lübeck. In large parts of the Middle Low German area this leads to an avoidance of certain strongly deviating local traits, including some personal pronoun variants. The periodization used here is from the beginning of the thirteenth century to the middle of the seventeenth century — over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Low German was replaced as a written language by High German and, on its western edge, by Dutch, though it continued to be spoken in many areas (see Lasch 1914a: §4 and Peters 1985:1219). 11.5.1 2nd p. plural According to Foerste (1957:1785 & 1817), in Mecklenburgisch-Pommersch and also in a smaller area around Soest (Germany) the 2nd p. plural obj. pronoun is an analogical formation with the possessive jûwe on the pattern of the 1st p. plural objective — possessive correspondence u(n)s — u(n)se. For Old Saxon Holthausen (1921:114) mentions the possibility of influence of the 2nd p. plural genitive iuwar on the obj. form iuu. For the modern dialect situation see 11.6.2 below. 11.5.2 3rd p. plural dative jüm The 3rd p. plural dative form jüm is found in Middle Low German in Nordniederdeutsch and developed as a result of influence of what Lasch (1914b: 121f.) terms a 'Tondehnung' found in other pronoun forms and analogy with the initial j- of the 2nd p. plural pronouns. Similar forms are found in other pronouns in Elbostfälisch in the Middle period but these are later lost (Foerste 1957:1785f.). 3rd p. plural forms with initial j- are also found in Frisian, though Lasch dismisses Frisian influence in jüm on the grounds that it reaches in Low German 'recht tief ins binnenland', and that no forms with -a- occur in Low German as in Frisian. See, however, also 11.6.5 below.

260

German

Middle Low German ΝΟΜ. 1

s

ik, ek

ACC.

DAT.

mî (mê) (mik, mek)

mî (mê) (mik, mek)

GEN.

mîn later miner (contracted also

mir)

2 S

dû (-tu, -te)

dîn dî (de) (dik, dek)

dî (dê) (dik, dek)

later dîner (contracted also

dir) 3 S M

hê (hey), also hî (hy, hie)

early ine;

en(e), ön(e) -ne

early ime;

eme, öme, en

sîn, later sîner (contracted also

sir) (rare is (es) )

3 S F

sê (sey, se), (si(e)),

3 S Ν

it (et, öt, id, -t)

1 Ρ

2 Ρ

early su

wî, wê (wy, wie)

gì, gi (je,ie; î)

sê (sey, se), Me)), early su

it (et, öt, id, -t)

early ime;

uns, ûs (os, ûsik, ûsik, unsik)

uns, ûs (os, ûsik, ûsik, unsik)

jû, jûw, jûwe, jow, ûwe, û (jûk, gik, jiich, ûch)

jû, jûw, jûwe, jow, ûwe, û (jûk, gik, jiich, ûch)

(occas. gî) 3 Ρ

sê (sey, se), (si(e)),

ere, er, erer (erre), örer

sê (sey, se), (si(e)),

eme, öme

ere, er, erer (erre), örer

is (es); sîn, sîner (contracted also sir)

unser, ûser

jûwer, ûwer

{occas. gî)

em, en, öm, ön, jûm, en(n)e

ere, er, erer (erre), örer

Middle Low German

261

11.5.3 1st and 2nd person accusative-dative The 1st and 2nd p. old accusative forms are typical of Ostfälisch, but do also occur in other areas (see Lasch 1914a: 13ff. & 212ff. and Sarauw 1924: 106ff.).9 Sarauw believes that, apart from in the West (see Old Saxon 11.4.3 above), the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. pronouns was retained until about the end of the thirteenth century, in Ostfalen longer; in the fourteenth century the syntactic distinction between the forms was gradually lost and functional merger of the originally accusative and originally dative pronouns is found — compare chapter 2 on Functional merger of forms in Change Types [A] and [Bj — with the generalization of the accusative forms in Ostfalen, especially in the singular, and a reduction in the occurrence of the accusative forms elsewhere. In addition, the developments towards a written norm mentioned above tended to replace the accusatives by the originally dative pronouns, without, however, obscuring them completely, and presence of the accusatives in Ostfälisch generally no longer represented an accusative-dative distinction but rather variation of written and spoken forms (Cordes 1983: 229 and Lasch 1914a: 212). In the Modern period accusative-dative distinction is found in southernmost Westfälisch (in the plural in a smaller area), though it is disputed whether this is an old distinction or a more recent innovation through High German influence (see Foerste 1957: 1783f., Frings & Linke 1963: 99, and Sanders 1982, map 4). Accusative forms are still found in some areas outside Ostfälisch after the Middle period, see further Modern German 11.6.1 & 11.6.2 below. On 3rd person accusative-dative syncretism in Low German see Modern German 11.6.3. 11.5.4 3rd p. sing. fem. nom. In Old Saxon functional merger of the feminine singular nominative and accusative forms is found very occasionally in manuscript C of the 'Heliand'. In Middle Low German according to Foerste (1957:1785) the fem. accusative form replaces the fem. nominative pronoun (OSax siu) early on, so that in Middle Low German both cases are represented by sê etc., though analogical influence of the (masc./fem.) 3rd p. plural nom./acc. forms also seems likely, compare also (Anglian) Old English and Old Frisian 7.1.1. The oldest texts of the thirteenth century still occasionally have siu, sü (Foerste 1957:1785 and Lasch 1914a: 11).

9 The 1st p. plural form os in Ostfälisch texts (see the paradigm opposite) probably represents os, and is the same as or a blend with ösk < unsik (Lasch 1914a: 93 & 215).

262

German

Modern German Since the Second World War the size of the German-speaking territory has diminished through the loss of the dialect areas of Schlesisch, Böhmisch, Nordmährisch and Hochpreußisch and the Low German areas of Mitteland Ostpommem and Niederpreußen. The speakers of these dialects have resettled elsewhere. In addition, since the replacement of Low German as an official written language by High German and, on its western edge, by Dutch over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the domain of Low German has decreased so that today it is generally only found as a spoken language in the family and local area, and to some extent at work (Goltz h Walker 1990: 32).10 As well as in Low German, the extent of traditional dialect in Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch has also generally decreased, though to a lesser extent in south Germany and Austria. Taking Barbour & Stevenson's (1990:141ff.) definitions of varieties of German — formal standard', 'colloquial standard', 'colloquial nonstandard' and '(traditional) dialect' — it can be said that the normal spoken medium of most speakers of German today is the continuum of colloquial speech. Two important exceptions are, however, Germanspeaking Switzerland and Luxembourg where types of language are used which — from a Federal Republic German standpoint — could be regarded as dialect, but which in many respects can be regarded as separate national varieties of spoken German, and for this reason Luxemburgish and Swiss German paradigms have been added below after the Standard German forms for comparison.

11.6

Case distinction in the Modern German personal pronouns

The diagram below of morphological case distinction in the Standard German personal pronouns highlights several important points.11 Only three of the personal pronouns — the 1st p. singular, the 2nd p. singular and the 3rd p. sing. mase. — in fact differentiate all three cases: all of the other pronouns have either a common pronoun for accusative/dative, or a common form for nominative/accusative. Specifically nominative forms of the personal pronouns exist only for ich, du, wir, ihr and er, the remainder have joint nominative/accusative pronouns. In the accusative only mich,

10 In Low German areas (as well as some Mitteldeutsch areas) pronoun forms such as unshifted ick, et, dat occur in (High German) colloquial nonstandard speech — compare for example Barbour & Stevenson (1990:163 & 173f.). 11 Discussion of gen./poss. forms is not included here — see the Introduction.

263

Modem German

DAT.

ich

mich

mir

[iÇ, ç ]

[miç]

[mi:*, m i ' , mi(')]

[maen-]

dich

dir

dein(-)

2 du S Τ [du:, du, do, da, t ] 3 S M 3 S F 3 S Ν

9, V

1

Ρ

2 Ρ

GEN./POSS.

ACC.

1

s

Modern German

ΝΟΜ.

mein(-)

[diç]

[di:', d i ' , d i « ]

er

ihn

ihm

sein(-)

[ e - e*, e ( V ]

[ i:n, in, in ]

[i:m, im, i m ]

[zaen-]

sie

sie

ihr

ihr(-)

[zi:, zi, zi, za]

[zi:, zi, zi, za]

es

es

[ES,

as, s]

[ ES,

as, s ]

[i:', i',

if)]

[daen-]

[i:', i:ar- etc.]

ihm

sein(-)

[i:m, im, i m ]

[zaen-]

Ihnen

Ihr(-)

Sie

Sie

[zi:, zi, zi ]

[zi:, zi, z i ]

wir

uns

uns

[vi:', v i ' , v i p ) ]

[uns]

[uns]

[unzï, onzar- etc.]

ihr

euch

euch

euer(-)

[O0Ç]

b0ç]

[30·β, D0ar- etc.]

ihnen

ihr(-)

l(')]

Τ

[ i - , i',

3 Ρ

sie

sie

[zi:, zi, zi, za]

[zi:, zi, zi, za]

[i:nan, i - n:, in·, in]

[i:nan, i'n:, in·, in]

[i:', i:ar- etc.]

unser(-)

[i:',i:ar- etc.]

The pronunciations here are based on the Standardaussprache as given by GWDA

264

German

Luxemburgish NOM.

ACC.

DAT.

1 s

ech

m ech

mir

(menger)

2 S Τ

du

dech

dir

(denger)

3 S M

hi en

hien, en

him

(senger)

hatt

hatt, et

him

3 S F

(GEN.)

(hirer)

si

si

hir

3 S Ν

et

et

him

(senger)

1 Ρ

mir

ons, eis

ons, eis

(onser/eiser)

dir

iech

iech

si

si

hinen, en

2 Ρ 9 S V 3 Ρ

(ärer)

(hirer)

Although the genitive forms in -er seem to have survived longer in Luxemburgish than in much of German, according to my data from native speakers (aged 2530) they are no longer widely used

265

Modem German

Swiss German (Zürichdeutsch $¿ Berndeutsch) ΝΟΜ.

ACC.

DAT.

GEN./POSS.

iich, ich, i, e, -

miich, mich, mi

miir, mir, m e r

m y n etc.

iig, ii, i, -

mii, mi

miir, mir, m e r

m y etc.

duu, du, de, d, -

diich, dich, di

diir, dir, der

dyn etc.

duu, du, de, d, -

dii, di

diir, dir, der

dy etc.

ëër, ër, er

inn, in, en, e

i m m , im, e m

syn etc.

äär, är, er

iin, in, ne(n)

iim, im, e m

sy etc.

sy, si, s

sy, si

ire, ere, re

ire etc.

sii, si

sii, se

iire, ire, (e)re

ire etc.

ëës, ës, es, s

ins, s

imm, im, e m

syn etc.

ääs, äs, es, s

iins, ins, s

iim, im, e m

sy etc.

miir, mir, m e r

öis, is

miir, mir, m e r

üüs, iis, is, nis

öis, is üüs, üs, is, nis

öise etc. üse etc.

iir, ir, er

öi, i

öi, i

öie etc.

diir, dir, der

öich, ech, nech

öich, ech, nech

öije etc.

sy, si, s

sy, si, s

ine, ene, ne

ire etc.

sii, si, se

sii, se

iine(n), ine(n), ne(n)

ire etc.

1st row = Zürichdeutsch, 2nd row = Berndeutsch. In Zürichdeutsch the forms of the 3rd p. pi. (though not s), in Berndeutsch those of the 2nd p. pi. are used as V

266

German

dich and ihn are distinctive forms, the rest being either nominative/ accusative or accusative/dative. For the dative separate forms exist for all pronouns except uns and euch, which are both joint accusative/dative forms. Morphological case distinction in the Standard German personal pronouns nom. acc. dat. ich mich mir du

dich

dir

er

ihn

ihm

es

es

ihm

sie

sie

ihr

sie

sie

ihnen

Sie

Sie

Ihnen

ihr

euch

euch

wir

uns

uns

In the 3rd person pronouns nominative-accusative are distinguished only in the masculine sing, er-ihn; all others have joint nominative/accusative pronouns. In the 1st and 2nd person pronouns the 2nd person V form Sie (etymologically a 3rd person) also has a single form for both cases. (Nominative/)accusative-dative distinction, on the other hand, is made in all the 3rd person forms, while in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns the 1st and 2nd (T) person plural forms do not differentiate. Nonstandard and especially dialect speech show several case developments which differ from those in the standard language. Case distinction and levelling in the personal pronouns in dialect varies according to region and according to person, number and gender, although the 1st and 2nd p. singular pronouns can be considered in parallel. Generally speaking, in dialect case distinctions in the personal pronouns are maintained strongest in the southwest of the German-speaking area — compare Shrier (1965, map 13) — with Oberdeutsch generally maintaining more distinctions than Mitteldeutsch, which in turn generally maintains more than Low German. Looking at the German-speaking area alone, the personal pronouns in the Low German dialects differ most from the case system in the standard language (although Low German, particularly in the 3rd person pronouns, does not show wholesale levelling of the accusative-dative distinction everywhere). However, in the Germanic languages as a whole it is the High German dialects which are more exceptional in the extent of maintenance

Modem German

267

of morphological case distinction — as discussed in chapter 2 — both in noun phrase inflection and in the personal pronouns. Low German dialects show generally-speaking more in common in case distinction with Dutch, Frisian, English and the Continental Scandinavian languages.. 11.6.1 1st and 2nd p. singular accusative and dative The dialectal distribution of the 2nd person singular accusative and dative pronouns is mapped by the DSA and reproduced in König (1978:160).12 As already discussed in Low German above, most Low German dialects show levelling; in addition, some levelling is also found outside Low German, though the great majority of Mitteldeutsch and particularly Oberdeutsch dialects retain the distinction (in Oberdeutsch with loss of final consonant in the accusative forms especially when unaccented, in Schwäbisch, Bairisch and most Swiss dialects also when accented, see Schirmunski 1962: 451).13 In some areas, particularly those in the regions where distinction meets nondistinction, there may be a complex history of levelling, change of general objective pronoun, or redistinction, see for example Frings (1956, e.g. ΠΙ: 58), Schirmunski (1962: 450f.) and 11.5.3 above. Furthermore, it is possible that in some dialects parallel syncretism represents a separate development, see Foerste (1960:15f. Sz map 1) on levelling in Thüringisch and Ostfränkisch. Most dialects which show syncretism levelled to the former dative (e.g. 2nd p. sing, di, dir etc. — see König's 1978: 160 figure), compare similar developments in English, Dutch 14 and Frisian. Some dialects, however, levelled to the former accusative (e.g. 2nd p. sing, dik, dek, dich etc.), compare here the Continental Scandinavian languages. See also the PanGermanic discussion of accusative-dative levelling in chapter 3 above. Accusative forms are characteristic of Ostfälisch, but levelling to the accusative also occurs to some extent in other dialects, cf. König (ibid.). Furthermore, small enclaves of accusative levelling are also found — not

12 König (1978:160) is based to a large extent on material from the DSA (see maps 5 and 25, plus supplementary maps 31, 44, 68, 76), and Frings (1957). The DSA survey records the distribution of forms from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and, although of course representing a period of Modern German, antedates many important factors on German dialect variation, such as changes in the rural and urban population, the Second World War, and the influence of radio and television for example. In addition, it is important to note that a map of this size cannot possibly convey all dialectal variants, particularly phonological ones (cf. König's comments 1978: 5), however it does give a good schematic overview of the form types. 13 König's (1978: 160) figure omits most of the German-speaking area of Switzerland — these dialects have separate accusative and dative forms in the 1st and 2nd p. singular pronouns. 14 For the southeastern Dutch area see 8.1.8.

268

German

marked in König but shown on DSA maps 5 & 25 — in Schleswig-Holstein and around Bamberg.15 11.6.2 1st and 2nd p. plural obj. forms In contrast to the 1st and 2nd p. singular pronouns, in the 1st and 2nd p. plural virtually all Modern German dialects do not differentiate accusative and dative, instead, as the standard language, having a single objective pronoun for both cases. (On earlier differentiation and syncretism see the High and Low German sections and also 3.1.2 above.) An exception is a small region of southernmost Westfälisch in the area Drolshagen - Plettenberg - Schmallenberg where separate accusative and dative forms acc. auk, dat. au exist for the 2nd person plural. Unlike the 1st and 2nd person singular accusative and dative forms in (a larger area of) southernmost Westfälisch (see 11.5.3 above), Foerste (1957:1784) believes this to be a more recent differentiation. In the 1st person plural traces of originally accusative forms — though not accusative-dative distinction — can be found in dialect (cf. OHG unsih, MLG ûsik, unsik). It is possible that umlaut forms such as uns, ins etc. also generally have their origin in the accusative pronoun (under influence of the following i), however for other explanations see 11.2.4. In Ostfälisch some areas have ösch, üsch (Niebaum 1973: 162); also Ahlmann (1991: 107) records one example of usk from the second half of the seventeenth century in Kiel (see footnote 15). A Schwäbisch unaccented 1st p. plural form [ex] derives from the -ih in unsih (see Russ 1990c: 353). A considerable part of Ober- and Niederhessisch, in Bairisch-Osterreichisch south of the Danube, and south Schwäbisch dialects have umlaut forms; also umlaut forms are characteristic for Swiss dialects (Schirmunski 1962: 454). In the 2nd person plural the Standard German form euch is a former accusative. The dialect forms of the 2nd p. plural obj. pronoun are shown schematically in König (1978: 156).16 The map also shows the originally dual forms ink, enk etc. as 2nd p. plurals in the area around Dortmund and in Bairisch — for a discussion of these see 11.7.2. Much of the Low German dialect area shows forms such as ju, jo, jau, u. Originally accusative pronouns jück, jöck, jüch etc. are found in Ostfälisch, compare the occurrence of similar 1st and 2nd p. singular forms (mick, 15 Sanders (1982: 86f.) states that the accusative forms in part of Schleswig-Holstein are from Ostfälisch settlement. 16 König (1978: 156), based on DSA (see map 21, plus supplementary map 43), records the form of the 2nd p. plural obj. pronoun in 'Ich verstehe euch nicht', i.e. as an accusative. As levelling is virtually total in Modern German, the map can be taken to represent the general obj. form. Most of the German-speaking area of Switzerland is omitted — for information see text. For comments on the use of this map compare footnote 12 above.

Modem German

269

meek etc.) above. Foerste (1957: 1814f. L· 1830) believes that the Ostfälisch 2nd p. plural originally accusative pronouns are retained well due to support from High German euch; in the Brunswick area of Ostfälisch, forms with -ch are found under High German influence, e.g. jüch, jich .etc. The forms juch, jug, juw etc. in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, a neighbouring area of Holsteinisch, most of Ostpommersch (an area now lost to German but included in the DSA survey), and southeast Westfälisch — although formally very similar to the originally accusative pronouns in Ostfälisch — are generally explained as analogical formations with the 2nd p. plural possessive, see 11.5.1 above, Niebaum (1973:163), and DSA (1956: 10) which states that this explanation is indicated by the material on the possessive pronoun, although Foerste (1957: 1785) does see in the south Westfälisch forms juch and uch influence of Mitteldeutsch. Both Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch dialects show in the 2nd person plural forms, as the standard language, levelling to the originally accusative pronoun, compare König (1978:156). The various southwestern forms such as ui, öi etc. pose a question, however, in that it has been suggested (see SDS, map ΠΙ 209, Russ 1990c: 353 & Russ 1990b: 376) that they derive not from the former accusative, but from the unextended originally dative pronoun, OHG and MHG e.g. iu. SDS (map ΠΙ 209) gives the northeast Swiss forms öi, öü, üü etc. as reflexes of the former dative pronoun, and Russ (1990c: 353) further adds an older Schwäbisch form ui. It is possible, however, that these are in fact originally accusative pronouns with loss of final -ch, as seen in other personal pronoun forms (cf. the 1st and 2nd p. singular above): in the dialects described by Russ other personal pronoun forms do also occur with loss of -ch, compare for Central Schwäbisch (1990c: 353) 'ich' - [i:, i], 'mich' - [mi:], 'dich' - [di:]; SDS (maps ΠΙ 195-197) shows for 'ich' in northeast Switzerland both areas with and areas without -ch forms when accented; when unaccented -ch less forms are general. Weinhold (1967a: 453) states that in Alemannisch functional merger of accusative and dative forms in the 2nd person plural is found from the thirteenth century, where the former dative iu occurs for the accusative, but, 'ungleich häufiger', iuch occurs for the dative. Furthermore, for the Early New High German period Walch & Häckel (see 11.2.7) conclude from their material that from the sixteenth century, except for some Bairisch records from the first half of the century, for accusative and dative in all areas 'ausschließlich' the type 'iuch/euch' is recorded. It is of course possible that former dative pronouns did survive, but are unrecorded until the Modern period (compare for example the relatively poor record of dual forms in German); however, the evidence may suggest that it is more likely that forms such as ui and öi in parts of the Southwest represent old accusatives with loss of final -ch rather than survivals of originally dative pronouns.

270

German

11.6.3 3rd person accusative and dative Levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the 3rd person pronouns differs from that in the 1st and 2nd person both in dialectal distribution and date. In comparison with the 1st ánd 2nd person pronouns, loss of the accusative-dative distinction in the 3rd person — where it occurs — is generally more recent. Some dialects show complete loss of the accusativedative distinction in the 3rd person pronouns, while others show only partial loss, and others none at all. In some dialects accusative-dative distinction has been lost in some or all of the 3rd person pronouns, but there has been a Functional reinterpretation of the accusative and dative forms according to accent (though see also further below). For example, in Nordbairisch the masc. sing, [eim] occurs as an accented objective form, and [n(e)] as an unaccented form (Rowley 1990:429); in Mittelbairisch the distribution is more complex with [eim] occurring both as masc. sing, accusative and dative, but [n, -en] as clitic accusative (Wiesinger 1990: 492). Schönfeld (1990: 113) gives an example of an Ostniederdeutsch dialect ((Reuterstadt) Stavenhagen — data from the early part of this century) with fem. sing. obj. and plural obj. forms [e:ae], clitically [ze, s]. Dialects showing stress-governed or stressinfluenced usage are marked in figures 11.6.3a and 11.6.3b by 'S'. Functional reinterpretation — not only of accusative and dative — is a common feature of development in the personal pronouns — see the discussions in chapter 2 and chapter 3 above. In some areas it is possible that an unaccented masc. sing, [n] form could be an old accusative pronoun, or a weakened form of the dative with [m] > [n] (see below), the unaccented variant in such a case then not representing a reflex of the accusative, but rather a form of the dative pronoun. Feminine and plural obj. unaccented forms such as [ze, s] above cannot, however, represent weakened forms of the dative. Masculine singular Levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the masculine singular in German dialects is shown in figure 11.6.3a. As the map shows, in much of the German-speaking area masc. sing, accusative-dative distinction is lost in dialect, the distinction generally being retained only in the west-central and southwestern area. In the Low German area the beginnings of accusative-dative syncretism are seen in the Middle Low German period with the loss of final -e in the dative masc./neuter sing, pronoun eme etc. and the resulting development of the then final -m to -n, so that merger with the masculine acc. sing, form was possible (Foerste 1957: 1786). Lasch (1914a: 212) states that examples are found as early as the thirteenth century. However, this development could not have taken place or have been complete in all

Modera German

Figure 11.6.3a 3rd p. sing. mase, accusative-dative in German dialects Adapted from Shrier, M. (1965) 'Case Systems in German Dialects', LANGUAGE 41: map 5 by permission of the Linguistic Society of America / Dialect areas with levelling S Dialect areas with stress-governed or stress-influenced usage • Dialect areas with distinction

271

272

German

areas as some Low German dialects have maintained the masculine sing, accusative-dative distinction into the Modern period, and others levelled to the dative (i.e.TO)form. In the Modern period levelling is found in most Low German dialects. Accusative-dative distinction is retained strongest in Kernmünsterländisch, the Mark, and Sauerländisch, where, however, the dative form can also occur for the accusative under strong stress. Durrell (1990: 80) also mentions in north central Westfälisch a recent tendency to differentiate the accented and unaccented forms em - en on the High German pattern as dative and accusative. In the remaining Low German dialects levelling has been mainly to the dative, but in Ostfälisch and eastern Westfälisch, levelling was to the accusative (Niebaum 1973:163, Foerste 1957:1817f.). In Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch levelling in the masc. sing, is found in Bairisch-Osterreichisch dialects, and in a considerable area of Ostmitteldeutsch (see figure 11.6.3a). These Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch areas show a similar syncretism of accusative-dative distinction in the masculine singular in the articles and adjective (see Shrier 1965: 423-427, 430f., 434). In Thüringisch and Obersächsisch the general obj. pronomi is an η form, e.g. un, un, as is the Nuremberg form, e.g. in. In Nordbairisch and the central part of Bairisch-Osterreichisch the masc. obj. personal pronoun has forms ending in -to, but enclitically an η form may also occur (see above) (Schirmunski 1962:465, Rowley 1990:429, Wiesinger 1990:492). In Early New High German masc./neuter dative sing, forms occur very rarely with n, e.g. ihn, ihne, in, ine. These represent either a change of TO > n, or possibly replacement by the accusative — see Walch L· Häckel (1988: 93f.). In the masc. sing, accusative, forms with TO instead of η occur occasionally in Mitteldeutsch in the fourteenth century and in Oberdeutsch from the fifteenth century, e.g. im, ihm, ime etc. Such forms may sometimes be errors in spelling, or reversed spellings as a result of the change TO > η where this occurred — Walch L· Häckel (1988: 104) — however they may represent general objective forms for the masculine accusative and dative, as found in the Modern period. Feminine singular Levelling in the feminine singular accusative-dative is shown in figure 11.6.3b. As the map shows, the dialect picture differs considerably from that in the masculine singular, particularly in Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch dialects, which generally retain the accusative-dative distinction. In the Low German area, Niebaum (1973: 164) states that Westfälisch, Niederfränkisch and some of Ostfälisch differentiate accusative and dative strongly, however part of North Central Westfälisch has levelling to the dative (Durrell 1990: 80). The remaining Low German dialects mostly show levelling to the dative or variation according to stress (Niebaum

Modera German

273

Figure 11.6.3b 3rd p. sing. fem. accusative-dative in German dialects Adapted from Shrier, M. (1965) 'Case Systems in German Dialects', LANGUAGE 41: map 7 by permission of the Linguistic Society of America / Dialect areas with levelling S Dialect areas with stress-governed or stress-influenced usage A Dialect areas with distinction

274

German

1973:164, Shrier 1965: 426). In Ostmitteldeutsch levelling to the accusative occurs in one or two locations (see Shrier 1965: 425f. and Bergmann 1990: 305). Neuter singular Shrier's figure (1965, map 10) shows accusative-dative levelling and distinction in dialect in the neuter singular personal pronoun. Shrier (1965: 428f.) states that all German areas north of the line show levelling of the accusative-dative distinction (to the originally accusative form), although in the Osnabrück area em, en is usual for the dative neuter (Durrell 1990: 80). A comparison of Shrier's map 10 with figure 11.6.3b for the feminine singular shows a similar geographical distribution for dialects retaining the accusative-dative distinction. 3rd person plural In the 3rd person plural some Low German dialects show accusativedative levelling, while in others a distinction between accusative and dative is maintained (Niebaum 1973: 164 and Foerste 1957: 1818). On genitive-derived or genitive-influenced forms compare Dutch 8.1.7 and Frisian 7.6.2. Some levelling is also found in Ostmitteldeutsch (see Shrier 1965: 438 and Bergmann 1990:305). In most southern and western dialects of German the distinction between accusative and dative is maintained; however in many areas, including the south and west, there is fluctuation according to stress or functional merger (Shrier 1965:438). 11.6.4 Nominative-accusative 3rd p. sing. masc. nom.-acc. hien, en etc. In the west of the German-speaking area in part of West Moselfränkisch in Luxembourg, Thionville - Merzig, Saarburg - Prüm, in the Arlon dialect, plus an area around Geldern and scattered in isolation in a few western locations, the 3rd p. sing. masc. has a common nominative/accusative form, e.g. hien, en, hen, hän (see DSA, map 48; Luxemburgischer Sprachatlas, map 44; Newton 1990: 141; Bertrang 1921). (Compare also the clitic forms in some southern Dutch dialects — see 8.2.1.) An explanation for these forms is that the masc. sing, accusative has taken over the function of the nominative (Bruch 1953: 143f.) — hien, en, hen, hän etc. would thus correspond to Standard German ihn. Similar masc. sing, common nominative/accusative forms are also found in the articles, the demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, and in the adjective. Bruch (1953: 144) believes that levelling was through influence of neighbouring Romance dialects where in nominal inflection nominative was replaced by oblique early on. As already noted above for Standard

Modem German

275

German, of the 3rd person pronouns only the masculine singular differentiates nominative and accusative, the feminine and neuter singular and the plural all having a common form for both cases. The same is also true in many dialects, and so levelling of the masculine nominativ.e-accusative distinction both in noun phrase and pronominal inflection may represent formally a parallel development. The final / n / in the masc. sing, common nominative/accusative forms and elsewhere is mobile (see e.g. Newton 1990:165 & 168), and this has lead some authors (see e.g. Bruch's discussion 1953: 144) to conclude that - / n / in the pronoun etc. is not from the accusative. Rönnebeck (1922: 127ff.) believes that although influence of the masc. sing, accusative was possible, the masc. sing, nominative does not derive from the accusative pronoun, but developed from enclitic e or he plus the addition of mobile η to give en, hen, which was then also generalized as an accented form. According to Rönnebeck, as in some areas -n was added to for example Gänse, ohne to give Gänsen, ohnen, in the same way hat he, hat e etc. became hat hen, hat en. 3rd p. sing, nom.-acc. distinction in 'es' Several Alemannisch dialects show an innovatory nominative-accusative distinction in the 3rd p. singular 'es' with an accusative form ins (see e.g. Russ 1990b: 376, Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1990: 323). In addition, ins, ëns is found in Rheinfränkisch (e.g. DWB 'es', Südhessisches Wörterbuch 'es'), where it is also used as nominative. In Early New High German Rheinfränkisch is the only area attesting 'ins' forms — both as nom. and as acc. — though only very rarely and only in the sixteenth century; it is not recorded in Hochalemannisch or Elsässisch in the Early New High German period in Walch & Häckel's material (1988:117). Most probably ins represents the masc. sing, accusative in etc. plus the neuter form s, which Niibling (1992:295) for Berndeutsch states is also found as a neuter marker in the article, possessive and adjective etc. Enclitically, the old neuter sing, accusative form may be retained in s, although this could also represent or be perceived synchronically as a reduced form of ins. 11.6.5 Complete levelling of nom./acc./dat. distinction Complete levelling of nom./acc./dat. distinction can be found in dialects which in the 3rd p. sing, fem., 3rd p. sing, neuter, or 3rd p. plural (see 11.6.3 above) show levelling in the object pronouns to the accusative where the nominative and accusative forms are the same. Here levelling to the accusative means levelling to a nominative/accusative form, and therefore results in a common form for subject and object.

276

German

Otherwise, levelling of all nom./acc./dat. distinction in personal pronouns is relatively restricted in German dialects. In the 1st person plural uns occurs in place of 'wir' in northeast Württemberg (Schirmunski 1962: 457), though DWB 'uns' for probably the same area states that the replacement is governed by stress, with the unstressed nominative form mr, the stressed form uns. In the 2nd person plural levelling of case distinctions to a single pronoun is noted for a few Low German locations by Panzer (1983: 1173 & 1972: 164), but several of these are in Ostpreußen and Ostpommern, areas now lost to German. In part of Schleswig-Holstein, however, the forms jüm, jim, jem are found for 'ihr'/'euch' (Foerste 1957: 1817). These correspond to North Frisian jam, jam (also subj./obj.) and Danish Fjolde (German Viöl southeast of Bräist/Bredstedt — now extinct) im-irm/iem.17 In Norder-Dithmarschen Foerste states that in order to differentiate the 2nd person plural jüm and the 3rd p. plural oblique form jüm (see 11.5.2 above), a new 3rd person plural form sum developed with s- from sé ('sie'). This new form süm is also used for all cases. Levelling in the 2nd person plural also occurs in an area east of Nuremberg and Bayreuth between Marktredwitz and Berching where the originally dual objective pronoun enk is used in place of the nominative es; in the north and a small part of the west of this area the common subj./ obj. pronoun is enks, engs, deriving from enk, eng plus -s originating from the nominative form (Kranzmayer 1954: 256, see also Glitter 1971, maps 34 L· 35). Kranzmayer (1954: 256 & 251) also mentions an unaccented objective form deriving from the plural 'euch', but it is unclear whether this is also used as subject. 11.7.1 Forms with initial h- in the 3rd person pronouns The dialectal distribution of initial h-, firstly in the 3rd p. sing. masc. nominative and secondly in other 3rd person forms, is shown schematically in König (1978:164)18 (based on DSA, see map 48) and in figure 11.7.1 opposite. As figure 11.7.1 shows, the extent of initial h- in the masc. sing. nom. is considerably greater than in other 3rd person forms. Taking only the German-speaking area, initial h- in the masc. sing. nom. is widespread in the North, while in the South 'er' forms are general. Between these is a broad transition band — shown in König (1978: 164) but disregarded by Frings & Lerchner in figure 11.7.1 — where a mixture of forms is found. It is important to note that h- pronouns are not only Low German forms,

17 For a discussion of the Frisian forms see 7.5.2. 18 For comments on the use of this map see footnote 12 above.

Modem German

277

Figure 11.7.1 Initial h- in 3rd person pronouns From Frings, T. L· Lerchner, G. (1966) Niederländisch und Niederdeutsch. Außau und Gliederung des Niederdeutschen, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, map 22

278

German

but are found as far south as Lorraine, the Main and the Erzgebirge. Some difference in the extent of 'er' and 'he' is found according to stress: unstressed 'er' occurs more frequently and further in the North than a more stressed form of 'er', and a more stressed 'he' is more common and frequent in the South than unstressed 'he' (Rönnebeck 1922: 32-34, based on DSA material). A form her occurs scattered in the band where 'er' and h- forms meet. Her was earlier much more common and widespread than in modern dialect (Rönnebeck 1922:115ff.), but its occurrence was always restricted to the transition area between 'he' and 'er'. On the origin of her see Old High German 11.1.2 above. In much of the German-speaking area vowel-only forms such as e, a etc. are recorded when unstressed, but also to a lesser extent with stress (DSA sentences 5, 7, 20). Rönnebeck (1922: lOlff.) sees these as unstressed forms which have in some cases been generalized, but also in some areas as a 'Kompromiß' of er and he.19 Rönnebeck (1922: 87ff.) concludes that in the masc. sing. nom. h- forms were earlier spread further south than in modern dialects, and places the earlier southern border as follows: Weissenburg — Planich — Mainz — Frankfurt — Hanau — Plauen 20 — Chemnitz — Pirna — Görlitz — Striegau — Schweidnitz — Reichenbach — Brieg (or Plauen — Prague — Brieg). However, some caution may be necessary with these results — firstly with the notion of a border line (a problem of which Rönnebeck is aware); secondly, h- forms are recorded down to this line in the DSA survey — Rönnebeck states that these are rural survivals of earlier more widespread forms; and thirdly, Rönnebeck's material is taken mainly from Urkunden, and Zelissen (1969: 171) for Rheinisch-Maasländisch notes a considerable difference between Urkunden and literary texts in the extent of h- forms, although it is the Urkunden which show the greater extent of h-. Outside the masc. sing. nom. larger areas of initial h- pronouns in German dialect are found only in Low German Ostfriesisch and in an area running south approximately from Aachen (see figure 11.7.1). Smaller areas occur mainly along the western border, see Schirmunski (1962: 461) and Rönnebeck (1922: 2). Generally it can be said that most German dialects

19 In the Wendland, an area around Lüchow has e forms (not shown in König 1978: 164 but see DSA map 48) which Rönnebeck (1922: 103-105) explains as a remnant of Wendisch influence — here confusion of h- is found, with h- often omitted, e.g. und ('Hund'), och ('hoch'), and, less often, added, e.g. happel ('Apfel'), heier ('Eier'). 20 Against h- forms in Plauen (though indeed slightly further north in Weida) see Gleissner (1935: 38 & 68f.).

Modem German

279

with initial h- in the masc. sing, nom., particularly the Low German dialects, do not have h- in other 3rd person forms. The Ostfriesisch pronouns with initial h-, hum and höhr/hör/har, are probably the result of earlier Frisian substrate (Goltz & Walker 1990:40 & 47, Maak 1983:1178). As it is generally the more northern German dialects which tend to have h- in the masc. sing, nom., it is somewhat surprising that the area running south of Aachen has h- forms outside the masculine sing. nom. (cf. e.g. the Luxemburgish paradigm above), while more northern Germanspeaking areas generally do not (cf. figure 11.7.1). This is also seen early on where Old Saxon generally has h- only in the masculine sing, nom., while Old High German Fränkisch does show some initial h- forms in other 3rd person pronouns (cf. the OHG and Old Saxon sections above). Frings & Lerchner (1966: 71) state that the h- forms spread from the Low Countries deep into the Rhine area, where they are still found today, though somewhat receded to the west; compare also Zelissen (1969:184) (see OHG 11.1.2 above) who assumes that in Old High German oblique h- forms were spread at least down to near the Main area. Looking at the Germanic languages together, it should be stressed that in the 3rd p. sing. masc. nominative those High German dialects without h-, Yiddish, and Gothic are exceptional in not having h-. All other Germanic languages including Low German and some High German dialects have initial h- in the masc. sing, nom., and many of them also have h- to varying extents in other 3rd person forms. German is part of rather than an exception to the initial h- development in the 3rd person pronouns. Initial h- in the 3rd person pronouns is frequently cited as an Ingwaeonic or North Sea Germanic feature, but it is really a feature found with the exception of Yiddish to varying extents in all the extant Germanic languages. 11.7.2 Originally dual forms in German dialect Originally 2nd person dual pronouns in German are found as plurals in

two areas: es-enk/eng etc. in Bairisch-Osterreichisch, and (g)it-ink etc. in a smaller area around Dortmund. In the 2nd person originally dual forms in the area around Dortmund several variants are found: in the nominative it, et, git, get, also göt, gönt, and objective ink, enk, önk. The form önk is generally taken to be a 'compromise form' between neighbouring ink and öch areas (see DSA, map 21), and the nominative forms göt, gönt have analogical vowel or vowel and nasalisation (Frings 1956:1,15 & II, 130; Schirmunski 1962:456). In Bainsch-Osterreichisch also several variants are found. Especially in the south and the north, the nominative accented form is prefixed with a d- — e.g. south Austrian Pernegg des and Nordbairisch dëds — which derives from reanalysis of verb ending and pronoun as in the 2nd p. plural

280

German

'ihr' forms with d- (see 11.7.3) (Wiesinger 1990: 451, Kranzmayer 1954: 256, Schirmunski 1962: 457, Rowley 1990: 429). Compare also 2nd person (originally) dual forms with initial dental in other Germanic languages — see 2.5.2. Furthermore, in parts of Nordbainsch es became êds (or, with initial d-, dëds) under influence of the 2nd p. plural ending -ts, -ds. This ending is itself derived from the dental of the original 2nd p. plural verb ending plus the clitic form of the dual pronoun, and also occurs suffixed to subordinating conjunctions, e.g. [ßoutj/datj gsitf] ('wo-/daß-ihr geht') (Rowley 1990: 433, Kranzmayer 1954: 256). In addition, in parts of Nordbairisch, as already noted in 11.6.5, enk and, with addition of -5, enks, engs are also used as nominatives. These Nordbainsch variants are shown in Gutter (1971, maps 34 & 35).21 The originally dual personal pronoun forms in Bairisch-Osterreichisch are now mostly found only in rural dialects (Wiesinger 1990: 492), however in frequently-used expressions they may still occasionally be heard even in the speech of Munich, e.g. 'Jiggds enngg' ('beeilt euch') (Altmann 1984:195). In addition, a reflex of the nominative es is retained in the 2nd p. plural ending -ts, -ds even in dialects where the dual form has been replaced by 'ihr'. Possible explanations for the retention of the 2nd person dual pronouns as plurals are discussed in chapter 3. 11.7.3 1st and 2nd p. plural nom. forms with initial τη- and d-22 In dialect and nonstandard colloquial speech 1st and 2nd p. plural nom. forms occur with initial m- and d- (in parts of Bairisch-Osterreichisch also 2nd p. former dual pronouns with d-), e.g. mir, dir, des. It is generally assumed that these forms developed from verb and enclitic pronoun in inversion, with in the 1st person plural assimilation of the w with the verb (or conjunction) ending -n, and in the 2nd person plural reanalysis of the dental verb ending (or conjunction) and vowelinitial pronoun 'ihr' (see e.g. Walch & Häckel 1988:41 & 59 with references). On similar developments also in other Germanic languages see chapter 2. The important development is extension to use outside the original conditioning environment: here we have, as pointed out by Niibling (1992) and discussed in chapter 2 (see 2.5.2), not development of a clitic form through reduction of the orthotone pronoun, but the reverse process of development of an orthotone form from a clitic pronoun.

21 The forms 'dirts', 'diats' (see Giitter 1971, map 34) may be from the plural (dir + ts) (so Schirmunski 1962: 457) or from the dual (Kranzmayer 1954: 256). 22 On the 1st p. plural nom. form bir with initial b- in the now lost dialect area of Schlesisch see Walch & Häckel (1988: 42f.). On per, ber in the south of Valais see Niibling (1992: 253f.) with references.

Modem German

281

For the 1st p. plural, Schirmunski (1962: 453) and Behaghel (1928: 539f.) also assume analogical influence of the 1st p. singular oblique forms 'mich', 'mir', 'meiner', as the 1st p. plural nom. mir also occurs in Alemannisch where the 1st p. plural verb ending already in Middle High German was -ent, later -et, though this does not rule out conjunctions with -n. However, borrowing may also have been possible: in Alemannisch m- forms are found from the fifteenth century (Weinhold 1967a: 451), whereas in some other areas they are found in the Middle High German period and early on in the Early New High German period (Walch & Häckel 1988: 41). A further problem in assuming sole derivation from assimilation of the 1st p. plural verb ending is that in late Old High German, in Middle High German, Early New High German and the Modern period dialectally the verb ending -(e)n can be lost before enclitic wir (or mir) (DWB 'wir' and Behaghel 1928: 540).23 Bruch (1973: 60) also mentions the possibility of 'Nachwirken einer alten Verbalendung', i.e. the Old High German 1st p. plural ending -mes. It is possible that -mes represents a former 1st p. plural pronoun retained from 'voralthochdeutscher Zeit' (see e.g. Eggenberger 1961: 169), compare for example modern Bairisch dialectal 1st person plural forms such as [mie breçnre] 'wir brechen' where the verb ending derives from the pronoun (Rowley 1990: 430f., Niibling 1992: 257ff.). Eggenberger states that in his Old High German 'mixed texts' (see the Introduction) the use of the 1st person subject pronoun is the norm, except for 1st p. plural verb forms ending in -mes which can occur without a subject pronoun, in inversion consistently so. Personal pronoun forms with initial m- in the 1st person plural nom. are found in Middle High German (see paradigm and 11.2.2 above), and in the Early New High German period they are recorded in much of the High German area, though to varying extents, and mostly occur far less commonly than 'wir' forms (Walch L· Häckel 1988: 40f.). In Modern German, mir for 'wir' is found in very much of the High German area in dialect and in nonstandard colloquial speech. In some dialects the 1st person plural 'mir' overlaps with the indefinite pronoun 'man', probably as a result of merger of the two forms when unaccented (Schirmunski 1962: 453), though their similar possible semantic roles must also have been a factor. The distribution of mir and wir forms in modern colloquial German is mapped in Eichhoff (1978, map 120). In the 2nd person plural, forms with initial d- are attested later and are less widespread than the 1st p. plural m- forms. As in the 1st person plural, as well as reanalysis of verb (or conjunction) and clitic pronoun (see Walch

23 Note Ahlgren's suggestion for Swedish 2nd person ni (see 14.3.1) connecting ni with obsolescence of the -n of the verb ending in reanalysis.

282

German

& Häckel 1988: 59), influence of the 2nd p. singular forms with initial d- 'du', 'dich', 'dir', 'deiner' is a possibility. A further possible contributory factor, put forward in chapter 2 (2.4 [3]), is Analogy of a pronominal phonotactic pattern in reanalysis of the consonantal verb ending as part of the vowel-initial pronoun. Schirmunski (1962: 455f.) believes that the plural dir is a strengthened, phonetically more stable form, though, as has already been pointed out, there are no purely phonetic reasons why short vocalic forms cannot occur — Dutch for example has 2nd person u [y], Danish has 2nd person I [i], and Standard German has the ¿-less ihr. The 2nd person plural d- forms are generally under pressure from the standard ihr (Schirmunski ibid.) (but see also the Luxemburgish and Swiss German (Berndeutsch) paradigms above). For example Durrell & Davies (1990: 233) for south Hessisch state that the d- form is found only in rural districts and is becoming unusual even there. Forms with initial d- are found in Moselfränkisch, some Rheinfränkisch, to some extent in Ostfränkisch, in eastern Schwäbisch, some Elsässisch, in west German-speaking Switzerland, Thüringisch, and in parts of Bairisch-Osterreichisch (see 11.7.2; Goossens forthcoming b: 2; Schirmunski 1962: 455; SDS, map III 204; Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1990: 323; Pfälzisches Wörterbuch 'du'). 11.7.4 Swiss German 1st p. plural nis, 2nd p. plural nech etc. 24 The n- in the 1st and 2nd p. plural unaccented objective forms nis and nech etc. derives from the intrusive η common in Swiss German, for example 'ich isse-n-immer Brot' ('ich esse immer Brot'). In 'uns' and 'euch' the SDS records n- forms in several dialects, though less so in the central part of German-speaking Switzerland, and not always as segmentable forms — see SDS, maps ΠΙ208 and 210 plus accompanying texts. For Berndeutsch, Niibling (1992:260) states that the η originally occurred only after a vowel, but as a result of reanalysis has become part of the pronoun. In the 1st person plural the form with η still occurs more often after vowels, while is tends to occur after consonants; however, nis also occurs in postconsonantal position and is, according to Niibling, in the process of becoming a separate form. In the 2nd person plural Niibling (1992: 264) states that the obj. form nech, unlike the 1st person plural nis, occurs in Berndeutsch irrespective of whether it is preceded by a vowel or consonant. As well as in the 1st and 2nd p. plural objective pronouns, Niibling (1992: 264f.) adds that forms with initial n- are also found sporadically in the 3rd person singular dative clitic pronouns -nere(-) ('ihr') and -mra(-) ('ihm') (the n- in ne(n) ('ihn') can be of a different origin, see 11.3). 24 1st and 2nd person unaccented obj. forms with initial n- are also found in Elsässisch, see Philipp & Bothorel-Witz (1990: 323) (Colmar).

Chapter 12: Yiddish The modern Yiddish standard is based on the Eastern Yiddish dialects, and the language form of the majority of Yiddish speakers alive today is southern Eastern Yiddish. Western Yiddish is today almost extinct; small enclaves of Yiddish survived in Alsace, in several Swiss villages and in parts of the Netherlands until recently (Birnbaum 1979: 101, Katz 1983 & 1987: xx-xxi). 1 12.1.1 2nd person plural originally dual forms Yiddish, as a number of the Germanic languages, retains to some extent originally dual forms with plural (also V) meaning. Comparison of the Yiddish forms ets-enk-enker with those in Bairisch-Osterreichisch (Middle High German e^-enc-enker), as well as with other Germanic languages, shows clearly their German(ic) origin. As in Bairisch-Osterreichisch, only 2nd person forms survive in Yiddish; the Bavarian 2 2nd person dual forms are first attested from about the end of the thirteenth century, and then already with plural meaning — see chapter 11 above on the German dual forms, and 3.2 on the dual in the Germanic languages in general. Standard Yiddish has as 2nd person plural/V ir, the originally dual forms being generally avoided (Schaechter 1969: 297, Katz 1983: 1033), though Birnbaum (1979:75) states that the original 2nd person plural pronouns have been replaced by dual forms in probably the greater part of the Yiddish speech area. Their precise (historical) dialectal distribution seems somewhat unclear, however.3

1 The transcribed forms given in the paradigm and in the text are taken from various sources. Some variation may therefore be purely orthographic. 2 On the possibility of dual forms in isolation also in Mährisch and Schlesisch see 11.1.4. 3 The Westjiddischer Sprachatlas (Beranek 1965: 107), a work much criticized however (see Katz 1983: 1020), gives dual forms 'nur im westlichen Teile des Sj. [Südjiddischen] sowie in den genannten südöstlichen Teilen des Wj. [Westjiddischen]'; Beranek's map also gives dual forms for parts of Eastern Yiddish (not all of Eastern Yiddish is covered). Katz (1983: 1033) terms ets a southern form; Schaechter (1969: 297) labels the dual forms Central and Western Yiddish, and Birnbaum (1979: 99) gives dual forms as characteristic of Eastern and Central Yiddish. King (1987: 73) states that the dual forms are 'archaic Mideastern Yiddish'.

284

Yiddish

Modern Yiddish 1 s

2 S

3 S M

3 S F

ΝΟΜ.

ACC.

DAT.

ix (ex, jex, jix, jax, ijox, χ-, AYiç, accented iiex, iax, eix)

mix (mex, j4ymiç; accented also miiex, meiex) (NEY mil)

mir (accented miier)

majn(-) etc.

du

dix (dex, i4ydiç; accented also diiex) (ΝΕΥάϊτ)

dir (accented diier)

dajn(-) etc.

er (CY, WY re; accented eier)

zi (ζ-; accented zìi)

im im (em, -n, CY nim; (em, -η, CYnim; accented eim, iim; accented eim, iim) AYacc. (i:)na etc.)

zi (accented zii) (NEY ii)

ir (accented iier; CY nir, AKiira)

GEN./POSS.

zajn(-) etc. (eims)

ir(-) etc.

3 S Ν

s-, es, (SEY & southern CY) se(CY nés)

1 Ρ

mir (CY, partly SEY indz)

undz

undz

undzer(-) etc.

2 Ρ 2 S V

ir (er, accented iier) (ets) (WY V Sie)

ajx (aax) (enk)

ajx (aax) (enk)

ajer(-) etc.

zej

zej

zej (AYdat. (i:)na etc.)

zejer(-) etc.

3 Ρ

es (CY nes)

im (em, -η; accented eim, iim)

zajn(-) etc. (eims)

(enker)

AY = Alsatian Yiddish, CY = Central, NEY = Northeast, SEY = Southeast, WY = West

Yiddish

285

12.1.2 Accusative-dative Comparison of the Modern Yiddish paradigm opposite with the Middle High German paradigm shows accusative-dative levelling in the 3rd p. singular masculine and 3rd person plural pronouns in Yiddish. (On the extent of parallel or shared development with German dialects see below. Note also the Alsatian Yiddish 3rd p. sing. masc. accusative and 3rd p. plural dative forms in the paradigm opposite.) The 1st and 2nd person plural also have each a single accusative/dative form, where in Old High German, but to a decreasing extent in Middle High German, separate forms for accusative and dative existed — for more detailed discussion of accusative-dative distinction in the German 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns see chapter 11. (Eastern) Yiddish thus makes no accusativedative distinction in the plural personal pronouns. Furthermore, much of the north of Eastern Yiddish has also levelled the accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd person singular and 3rd person sing, feminine pronouns. These developments are discussed below. 1st and 2nd person singular Figure 12.1.2a shows dialect equivalents of the Standard Yiddish 1st person sing, accusative in 'knows me' and 'loves me' (kenen/konen and lib/holt hobn) in Eastern Yiddish. The map shows that in much of the north of Eastern Yiddish mir, the originally dative-only pronoun, is used also as (in Standard Yiddish) accusative. Wolf (1969: 142-146) also investigates whether levelling has taken place in any areas to the accusative form (Standard Yiddish mix), but finds no examples of this in his data, though he points out that the survey question used does not give suitable data for all areas (see further Wolf ibid.). Wolf (1969: 142) believes that developments in the 1st person singular probably also apply to the 2nd person singular, as the objective forms mix and dix, mir and dir appear to have matching distributions. As a reason for levelling in the 1st and 2nd person singular accusative and dative, Wolf (1969:149, see also 142-146) points out that the contrast between mir and mix (and dir and dix) could be lost in 'a significant area' of the Northeast where final / r / and final / x / could merge (see Wolf for detail and references) — compare ix tret (Ί step') and ir tret ('you (V) step') which could both be realized phonetically as [ixtxet], and ix get im (Ί divorce him') and ir get im ('you (V) divorce him) which could both be realized as [iygetem]. Wolf's explanation does indeed have parallels in other 1st and 2nd p. sing, accusative-dative levelling in the Germanic personal pronouns, see the Pan-Germanic discussion in 3.1.1 — such phonological levelling has already been discussed in chapter 2; however, it should also be noted that accusative-dative levelling in much the same

286

Yiddish

Figure 12!.2a 1st person singular From Wolf, M. (1969) 'The Geography of Yiddish Case and Gender Variation', in M. I. Herzog et al. (eds), The Field of Yiddish, ΠΙ, The Hague: Mouton (de Gruyter), p. 144

Yiddish

287

Figure 12.1.2b 3rd p. sing. fem. From Wolf, M. (1969) 'The Geography of Yiddish Case and Gender Variation', in M. I. Herzog et al. (eds), The Field of Yiddish, ΠΙ, The Hague: Mouton (de Gruyter), p. 146

288

Yiddish

dialects in the feminine singular could not have been phonological given the suppletive distinction between the two forms zi and ir. Similarly, in the 3rd person singular masculine accusative-dative levelling may well be phonological, but in the 3rd person plural this is not the case. 3rd person sing, feminine Figure 12.1.2b shows dialect equivalents of the Standard Yiddish 3rd person sing, feminine accusative (StdY zi) (on a possible modification to the eastern areas indicated on the map see Wolf 1969: 151-153). The figure shows that levelling to the dative form ir has taken place in much of the northern area of Eastern Yiddish and in isolation further south. On fem. sing, acc.-dat. levelling in noun phrase inflection in Northeastern Yiddish see Wolf (1969:149-153). Wolf (1969:147f.) notes that the areas of levelling of 1st and 2nd person sing, accusative-dative and the 3rd person sing, feminine accusative-dative coincide approximately, though levelling in the 3rd person singular feminine is found further in the Southeast and Southwest. 3rd person sing, masculine According to Wolf (1969:147), the 3rd person sing, masculine 'has long had' a common form for accusative/dative. Wolf doubts whether accusativedative distinction was made in the 3rd p. sing. masc. pronoun even in 'early E[astern] Y[iddish]' 'in view of the great fluctuation in earlier Yiddish (even the Yiddish coterritorial with German)'. Levelling in the 3rd person singular masculine, as in the 3rd person plural below, parallels syncretism in noun phrase inflection in Standard Yiddish (see Wolf 1969: 109-115). Wolf (1969:147) believes that the 3rd person sing, masculine obj. form im may derive from the originally dative pronoun (cf. MHG im etc.), or from the originally accusative form with -n (cf. MHG in etc.) on the basis of a comparison with words such as brunem ('well') and bojdem ('attic') which he stat.es derive from forms with -n, though in the case of bojdem at least, Middle High German bodem, Old High German bodam do not seem to support this. Birnbaum (1979: 248) gives also masc. sing, acc./dat. -n. Accusative-dative levelling is also found in the masculine singular in German Bairisch-Osterreichisch dialects and in a considerable area of Ostmitteldeutsch, possibly from the fourteenth century, see further the discussion in German 11.6.3. 3rd person plural The 3rd person plural has a common form zej for nom./acc./dat. which results from levelling of the accusative-dative distinction to the nominative/accusative pronoun — contrast Middle High German nom./ acc. si, sì etc. - dative in etc. The Yiddish 3rd p. plural gen./poss. zejer(-)

Yiddish

289

etc. further represents an extension of this earlier nom./acc.-only form to gen./poss. use with addition of the formative -er.4 12.1.3 1st p. plural nom. indz According to Schaechter (1969: 297), undz as nominative occurs in Central and partly in Southeastern Yiddish, though D. Katz (personal communication) makes the point that dialects with this case change have the form indz. Birnbaum (1979: 98) gives nominative jndz. 12.1.4 1st p. plural nom. mir Beranek (1965: see 41) (though note the criticism of this atlas referred to above) records 1st person plural nom. mir in Western Yiddish, UkranianSouth Yiddish and North Yiddish (note the areas with nom. indz in 12.1.3 above). 1st p. plural nom. forms with initial m- are recorded in Middle High German from the thirteenth century and are discussed in detail in 11.7.3. 12.1.5 Central Yiddish nim, nir, nes Central Yiddish nim (StdY im), nir (StdY ir), nes (StdY es) (Schaechter 1969:297),5 as the 1st person plural nom. mir above, has parallels in other Germanic languages. For further discussion of sandhi forms see 2.5.2. 12.1.6 3rd p. sing. fem. z¿-3rd person plural zej Yiddish, in contrast to New High German sie-sie, has the distinct 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd person plural nom./acc.(/dat.) forms zi-zej (and gen./ poss. ir(-)-zejer(-) etc.).

4 On the survival of the earlier form in naan iiery (German 'ihrer neun') etc. see Birnbaum (1979: 87). 5 For the distribution of these forms see Prilutski (1937: 91-94, lOlff., 114ff., 141f., 144,179) (cited in Schaechter ibid.).

Chapter 13: Scandinavian The Scandinavian 3rd person pronouns share two important morphological characteristics. Firstly, the 3rd p. sing, neuter and 3rd p. plural (masc., fem., neuter) are not formally personal pronouns, but demonstratives. (On later thœn, den as a personal pronoun in some of the Scandinavian languages see further 16.3.1.) However, rather than saying here that personal pronouns are lacking in the 3rd p. sing, neuter and 3rd p. plural, it seems best, following Werner (1990:178), to speak instead of a 3rd person paradigm which is differentiated morphologically into personal pronouns and demonstratives in the masculine and feminine singular. The second important characteristic are the masculine and feminine singular pronouns themselves — for example Rune Swedish/early Old Swedish han-hänom-hans, hôn-hâna-hœnne-ht£nna(r), Old Norwegian hann-honom-hans, hon-hana—henne-hennar — which to a considerable extent differ from those of the other Germanic languages. On the etymology of these forms (which is not discussed here) see for example the discussions in Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 37f. with references) and the studies referred to in the Introduction. A trace of a pronoun cognate with the 3rd p. sing. masc. pronoun in other Germanic languages (e.g. Gothic is, OHG er) may be seen in the uninflected particle es, eR (see Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 37, Wessen 1965: §37, §38, Haugen 1982: 92 & 170). In the runic sources alternations can still be found between the usual pronoun han (hon), (the demonstrative pronoun) sa(R), and es — compare the following Swedish runic examples (sources and further examples see Wessen 1965: §37, §38, cf. also Haugen 1982:170): han fil austr . . . . . . sa fiai austr is uas austr . . . tribin

'He fell in the east' 'He fell in the east' 'He was in the east killed'

Noreen (1904: §508) believes that Old Swedish 3rd p. sing, neuter enclitic -(i)t, -(e)t represent in most examples a pronoun form comparable to for example Gothic ita, and only in comparatively few examples suffixation of pat, past etc. Reinhammar (1975) (see 14.3.3), on the other hand, believes that clitic p- may have been assimilated or lost at a relatively early stage (in the 3rd p. sing, neuter), and that Modern Swedish forms of the 3rd p. sing, neuter pronoun such as hä, äd etc. derive from pœt with loss of p-

Scandinavian

291

(and in hä subsequent addition of h- by analogy with han, hon), rather than reflexes of a form comparable to for example Gothic iia (or even for example Old English hit). As has already been noted, unaccented pronouns sometimes retain forms lost in the full forms, which could support Noreen's assumption, but the records — where, according to Reinhammar (1975:177), the p- less enclitic neuter singular forms are only exceptionally recorded in early Old Swedish, but are relatively common in late Old Swedish — do not appear to support this.

Chapter 14: Swedish Old/Middle Swedish The periodization here of Swedish follows Noreen (1904) and Wessén (1968) of Runsvenskan, circa 825-1225, Aldre Fornsvenskan, approximately 1225-1375, and Yngre Fornsvenskan, approximately 1375-1526. The paradigm opposite represents the personal pronouns in Runsvenskan and Aldre Fornsvenskan. Noreen (1904: §4) notes the similarity of Runsvenska and Runedansk — compare Haugen's 'Common Scandinavian' period c. 5501050 (1982: lOOf.). Specifically runic forms are noted in the paradigm. The oldest surviving manuscript in Swedish is from the thirteenth century. 14.1.1 Dual None of the present-day Scandinavian languages maintains a dual number distinction (though Icelandic and Faroese maintained the dual number in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns until comparatively recently — see 18.2.1 & 17.1.2). Dual forms do, however, survive, as plurals, in Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian and, to a much lesser extent, in Swedish. No traces of dual pronouns are recorded in Danish (cf. 15.1.3). Retention of dual forms in the personal pronouns in the Modern Scandinavian languages is thus in the main a western feature. There are only a few examples of the dual in Old Swedish (Wessén 1968: §107 & §108); 2nd p. dual oblique forms are not attested in Old Swedish, but have survived into modern times as plurals in dialect. In Modern Swedish originally dual forms have survived to some extent in a few dialects in Dalarna and in a number of Finland Swedish dialects on the western and southeastern coast, as well as in Jämtland and Härjedalen (Levander 1928: 210 & 212f., Ahlgren 1978: 26 & figure 14.3.1 below, Oskarsson & Nygren 1973: 65, Kolsrud 1951: 50). In Dalarna 1st person plural clearly originally dual subj. forms (e.g. wiô) occur in a small number of dialects, though no 1st person dual obj. and poss. forms are retained. In the 2nd person plural a few Dalarna dialects have clearly originally dual subj. pronouns (e.g. iâ, cf. Finland Swedish et, ät), though a few more have originally dual obj. and poss. forms, e.g. obj. ikk, ikker, ikkör, poss. ikken, ikko, ikka (Levander 1925: 210 L· 213, Ahlgren 1978: 23). For further discussion of the dual see chapter 3 (3.2).

293

Old/Middle Swedish

Rune Swedish/Early Old Swedish NOM. runic ik;

ACC.

'

DAT.

GEN.

mik

mae(r), m i k

min

t>u

J>ik

t>œ(r), t>ik

J>in

3 S M

han

han

hänom, hönum (rare h a n n u m )

hans

3 S F

hôn, hun, (hjJn)

haenne, haenni

haenna(r)

runic J>at (later rare); Jjaet (t>et)

l'y. Í»

Jjaes (lies)

iak, iœk

hâna, hôna, (h^na)

3 S Ν

runic ]?at (later rare)] })œt ({jet)

1 D

vit

*

oker

okar

it

*

*

*

os

os

vär, vär(r)a

ijser

φβΓ

ijjar, iJ)ra

1 Ρ 2 Ρ

runic uiR; vl(r)

ï(r)

3 runic t>ai(R), JjâR; runic J>aim; Jjêrn, runic }>aiRa; })ê, J)â Ρ Jsasm, {)0in, ¡dom J>ëra, J)ërra, Jjaerra sometimes also Jjem M l»ë(r). t>i(r), t>œ(r) 3 Ρ F

J)â(r), t>ë(r), l>S(r)

runic J)aim; J)êm, runic {jaiRa; Mr), J)aem, J)0m, J)om Jjëra, J>ërra, J) aerra sometimes also J>em

3 Ρ Ν

runic Jjaun; J>ê, J)0n, J)ên

runic Jjaun; runic J>aim; Jjëm, runic J)aiRa; J>ê, J>0n, {sen, J)aem, J)j?m, J)om J)ëra, {îërra, J)aerra sometimes also jiem

t>â(r), t>ê(r),

294

Swedish

14.1.2 Accusative-dative (subjective-objective) 1st and 2nd person singular In Swedish the accusative reflexive pronoun sik is found in dative use as early as Runsvenskan (Noreen 1904: §501), and over the Aldre Fornsvenska period the dative singular personal pronoun forms m¿e(r), pu, tu

tik

J)ir, tir

3' S M

runic han;

3

runic han;

S

han(n)

F

han

3 S Ν

Jjet

1 Ρ

2 Ρ

3 Ρ M 3 Ρ F 3

Ρ Ν

GEN.

han(n)

hanum, hanom

hans, hanns

hâna

henni

hennar

Jjet

{ses

runic uiR; OS

vir, wir

ir

idir

runic È>aiR;

idir

t>a, {jaim

Jjaim, Jjeim

runic £>aiRa; J) aira

Jjar, J>aar

Jjar, Jjaim

J)aim, Jjeim

runic JjaiRa J) aira

t>aun

J)aun, ?{jaim

t>aim, {jeim

runic J>aiRa J) aira

J>air

300

Swedish

Modern Swedish 14.3.1 2nd p. plural/sing. V subj. ni3 The first examples of a 2nd person form with initial n- in Swedish texts are recorded from the seventeenth century, earliest from about 1615 (2x nij, lx ny) (see Ahlgren 1978: 30-35 for early examples). Ni etc. developed through reanalysis of the verb ending -(ejn (possibly also conjunction) and enclitic pronoun in inversion, e.g. (Wessén 1968:219): veten-I > veten-ni > vet-ni vissten-I > vissten-ni > visste-ni menen-I > menen-ni with extension also to nonenclitic use. Similar sandhi developments are attested in the personal pronouns in a number of the Germanic languages and are discussed together in 2.5.2 above. The earlier form I is now dialectal in Swedish. The distribution of 2nd p. plural subj. forms in Swedish dialect (in part also in Norwegian and Danish), representing approximately the situation in the early part of the twentieth century, is shown in figure 14.3.1.4 As Ahlgren (1978:25f.) points out, the occurrence of the verb ending -(e)n is a necessary condition for the development of ni (though not for its subsequent expansion). This ending is predominant in earlier Danish and Swedish, and is also known from earlier Norwegian, though pronoun forms with initial n- by no means developed in all areas with -e(n).

3 The sociolinguistic history of ni as well as other forms of address in Swedish is not discussed in this study — cf. the comments in the Introduction — for this see for example the detailed study in Ahlgren (1978) and more recently Mârtensson (1988: 143-148). 4 Material u'sed for this map covers the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but represents in the main the dialect situation from about 1910-1940 (Ahlgren 1978: 29). It is important to note that the map gives no indication of the social dimension in forms of address in Swedish as a whole and is thus a very incomplete picture — for further detail see Ahlgren (1978). For further comment on dialect variants see Reinhammar (1978:183-189). A number of the other 2nd p. plural subj. variants in figure 14.3.1 are discussed elsewhere in this study — for the originally dual forms et, iâ see 14.1.1; on forms with initial d generally speaking also reanalysis forms — e.g. dä, de, dö etc., see 16.1.1; and on dokk(er) (etc.) see 16.1.2, 16.1.5 & 16.2.2. As shown in the figure, some dialects retain forms with final -r, cf. the Old Swedish paradigm. Osterbotten (Finland Swedish) forms with final -g, e.g. neg, njeg etc. are according to Hultman (1894: 238) (cited in Ahlgren 1978: 23) accented forms where -g has been added by analogy with the doublets jag-ja, meg-mä; similar forms are found in the 2nd p. sing. subj. in some dialects, dug, tug — cf. Levander (1928: 210), Freudenthal (1889: §117).

Modem Swedish

301

Modern Swedish SUB J.

OBJ.

GEN./POSS.

jag

mig

min etc.

[ja:(g). ja]

[mej]

[min]

2 S Τ

du

dig

din etc.

[dej]

[din]

3 S M

han

honom

hans

[han]

[2hon:om]

[hans]

hon

henne

hennes

[hon]

[2hen:a]

[2hen:as]

den

den

dess, dens

[den:]

[den:]

[des:, dens]

det

det

dess

1 s

3 S F

3 S C

3 S Ν

1 Ρ

2 Ρ 2 S V 3 Ρ 2

[de:(t), de, da]

[de:(t), de, da]

[des:]

vi

oss

vâr etc.

[vi:(j), vi]

[DS:]

[vo:r]

ni

er

er etc.

[ni:(j), ni]

[e:r]

[e:r]

mainly speech d o m

mainly speech d o m

[dom:] de [de:, di:]

[dom:] dem [dem:]

deras [ de:ras]

= 'tone 2'. Unaccented forms in connected speech lack tone differences

302

Swedish

Figure 14.3.1 2nd person plural subj. forms in Swedish dialects (in part also in Norwegian and Danish) From Ahlgren, P. (1978) Tilltalsordet ni. Dess semantik och användning i historiskt perspektiv, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International

Modem Swedish

303

304

Swedish

Ahlgren connects the development of ni etc. with obsolescence of the -n of the verb ending and occurrence of a vowel-final verb ending -e (-a) in the 2nd p. plural. Reinhammar (1978:182f.), while not rejecting Ahlgren's hypothesis, believes a wider investigation of -n loss in general is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn. Ahlgren points out that verbal person and number inflection was unstable in the early Modern Swedish period. The 2nd p. plural -n was 'threatened', partly by regular loss of -n, and partly by levelling in the verb paradigm. According to Ahlgren, a situation developed where 2nd p. plural verb forms ending in -e (-a) occurred alongside forms with -(e)n. Ahlgren suggests that in such a situation it was likely that in inversion η should be 'falsely' added to the pronoun. — A further possible contributory factor, pointed to in 2.4 [3] in chapter 2, is analogy of a pronominal phonotactic pattern in reanalysis of the consonantal verb ending as part of the vowel-initial pronoun on the pattern of the CV- 1st and 3rd p. plural nominatives vi and de/di etc. (possibly also other pronoun forms). According to Ahlgren's theory, ni etc. should not have developed in areas where the -n ending was stable. Ahlgren states that in the southernmost areas of Sweden and in southern Västergötland -en was maintained (see 1978:26 with references), and judges from the dialect distribution that ni in these areas is a borrowing from further north, which he believes supports his hypothesis, though also adds that in certain dialects which had -n loss, ni is not a dialectal development but also a loan, for example in Ostergötland. On the basis of this hypothesis — given that examples of the 2nd p. plural verb endings -e and -a are common in writing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and that examples occur from the second half of the fifteenth century in place of -en — Ahlgren postulates that the new pronoun form ni etc. may have been in use already in the fifteenth century, though again Reinhammar points out that further investigation is necessary here. From the dialect map (figure 14.3.1) and earlier material, Ahlgren (1978: 35) concludes that the centre for the development of ni was the Mälar Valley (i.e. the area surrounding Stockholm), with the capital important in its spread, and further concludes that ni was originally a folklig' development, given that it is well documented in dialect texts and was 'undoubtedly regarded by the literate public as an incorrect form when it first appeared' (1978: 121). He believes that where ni occurs outside the Mälar area, it is generally through borrowing, though forms with initial nprobably did develop independently in some areas (see further Ahlgren 1978: 36). Ahlgren points out that several forms of the 2nd person plural were in competition in dialects (cf. figure 14.3.1), but that the Svealand variant ni with initial n-, i and without final -r has become standard.

Modem Swedish

305

14.3.2 3rd p. sing, neuter enclitic subj. and obj. Regionally in Swedish a distinct 3rd p. sing, neuter obj. enclitic form -et (-at, -1) exists which cannot occur as subj., for example (SAG draft 1990: §38): as subj.

Dar stâr de *Där stâr et

as obj.

Per fâr de Per fâr et

According to Hesselman (1948-53: 316f.), the same is also true of southeast Norwegian; in Danish dialects, however, and also large parts of (formerly Danish) Scania and Halland, -â, -d, -t can occur as both subj. and obj. 14.3.3 Forms of 'det' with initial hForms of 'det' (in personal pronoun use) in Swedish, partly also Norwegian, are shown in figure 14.3.3 (see also Reinhammar 1975, map 8 of enclitic 'det' in finns det etc.). As figure 14.3.3 illustrates, a considerable number of Swedish-speaking areas have forms with initial h-, e.g. hä, hed etc. According to Reinhammar (1975: 184-190), hä was earlier more widespread in Swedish, but in some areas has been replaced by forms with d-, most probably through influence of the standard. The earliest examples of hä(d) noted by Reinhammar (1975:188) date from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The forms with initial h- have in a number of studies been derived from Old Swedish hit or a variant of this form, the neuter sing, of the demonstrative hin — see the discussion in Reinhammar (1975: 165-171, also 171176), but Reinhammar, in a detailed study of these forms, rejects this derivation after discussion of the evidence. Reinhammar further doubts the explanation that hä etc. < pœt through a change p- > h in Swedish, and is uncertain whether Faroese developments (see 17.1.1) are parallel (1975:158-164,176,183f.). On the basis of dialect material and earlier records, Reinhammar (1975: 178-184), also G. Holm (see Hagström 1970: 362), conclude that hä, hed etc. derive from Old Swedish pazt. Reinhammar states that as shown in Old Swedish examples, p- in pdst may have been assimilated or lost at a relatively early stage clitically (in the 3rd p. sing, neuter), though as already noted in chapter 13 above, Noreen (1904: §508) has suggested that the Old Swedish p-less 3rd p. sing, neuter nom./acc. enclitic forms were in fact reflexes of a pronoun cognate with the 3rd p. sing, neuter personal pronoun in other Germanic languages, e.g. Gothic ita. Reinhammar (1975: 182-184) and G. Holm (see above) believe that the initial h- should essentially be seen as added by analogy with han, hon (on possible further factors see Reinhammar 1975:182-184).

306

Swedish

Figure 14.3.3 (Personal pronoun) 'det' sentence-initially, unstressed subj. From Reinhammar, V. (1975) Pronomenstudier, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, map 7

Chapter 15: Danish Old/Middle Danish The paradigm here represents the personal pronouns in the periodization used by Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965) of Gammeldansk from 800 to 1525. This period is divided into Runedansk or Olddansk 800-1100, Mldre Middeldansk 1100-1350, and Yngre Middeldansk 1350-1525. The similarity of Runedansk and Runsvenska has already been noted above. Specifically runic forms are noted in the paradigm. The oldest surviving manuscripts in Danish date from the second half of the thirteenth century. In Mldre Middeldansk three main writing traditions can be distinguished — Scanian, Zealand and Jutland (cf. Haugen 1976:190). 15.1.1 1st p. plural obj. forms with initial w-, vThe 1st p. plural obj. forms woss, voss with w-, ν- are probably due to influence of the nom. wi and gen. war, wor (see Br0ndum-Nielsen 1950: §186). On Analogical extension in the personal pronouns by Analogy with pronoun forms see chapter 2 (2.4). A number of modern Scandinavian dialects record similar forms: according to Bennike & Kristensen (18981912:163) most Danish dialects have 1st p. plural obj. forms with initial vor w-, and Brink et al. (1991:1511) record ν- forms in old low Copenhagen, older low regional standard, and especially in dialect speech. WahrigBurfeind (1989: 269-290) in her dialect survey records forms such as vos, wos, vas, wâs, vas in nearly all Danish dialect areas. Lech (1925: 81f.) gives vforms for Scania, and Colliander (1868: 23) records voss in Halland. Many Swedish Dalarna dialects have 1st p. plural obj. forms with initial w-, ν-, e.g. wáss, váss, wöss etc. (Levander 1928: 210). In Norwegian, genitivederived or genitive-influenced forms such as vare, vârs occur as 1st p. plural obj. in southeastern Norway (see Christiansen 1948: 218, Skjekkeland 1977: 96, also Seip 1934: 185), though Christiansen states that these forms were being replaced more and more by the normal Norwegian form.

309

Old/Middle Danish

ΝΟΜ. 1

s

2 S

iak, aek most areas iaek later ieg

thu

Old/Middle Danish ACIC.

DAT.

GEN.

mie, mik, mek, migh, meg(h) (me)

runic once maer; mie, mik, mek, migh, meg(h) (me)

min

thik, thic, (the)

thik, thic, (the)

thïn

han, hanum honum

hanum, hannum hannem, ham

hans

-(a)n (-aen)

-(ae)n (not Scania), occas. -num

runic hana; oldest Scanian mss. hana; otherwise as dot:, -(a)na, -(ae)nae, esp. C15 -(ae)n

earlier haenni, haenne; later henne

-tu

3 S M

han (hann)

3 S F

hun, also esp. Scanian hon (some Scanian hum)

3 S Ν

thaet, that; later thet, th;j, also the -(a)t, -set, -(e)t, Scanian -at, -ad

1 Ρ

Wl

US, OS (woss, voss)

us, OS (woss, voss)

war, wôr (wâr(r)a, wores)

2 Ρ

i

ithaer, idher, edhir, ether

ithaer, idher, edhir, ether

ithar (ethaer) (also ithra, idhars)

them, thaem also th0m, thum

them, thaem also th0m, thum

3 Ρ

-(a)n (-aen)

runic neuter J>au & once £>aun; mss. all genders the, thae

-(a)na

runic J)ui; thaet, that; later thet, th3, also the thy, also the, later thi; -(a)t, -aet, -(e)t, Scanian -at, -ad also thaet, thet

earlier haenna, haennae; later henne, haennes, esp. hendes thaes, thes also thys, thetz

runic J>aiRa, J)eRa; mss. earlier therra, therae, t her rae; later therres, theras, theres

310

Danish

15.1.2 Accusative-dative Accusative-dative syncretism in the Continental Scandinavian languages is discussed together in chapter 3. In Danish levelling of the accusativedative distinction was either complete or at least underway by the time of the oldest manuscripts. 1st and 2nd p. singular In the 1st person singular the dative mazr is found in a medieval runic inscription on a bone comb 'arngun gaf maer kab', but otherwise the dative had already been replaced by the accusative form mik by the time of the earliest manuscripts (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: §561). Similarly in the 2nd person singular the accusative thik occurs early on as a joint form for accusative and dative. The datives may, however, be found in the forms me and the, though these can also be accusatives from mik and thik ( > the) (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965:20 & 22) — see further the discussion in 3.1.1. The 1st and 2nd p. plural do not show any accusative-dative distinction in Danish, though traces of some distinction may perhaps be seen in West Scandinavian (see 16.1.6). 3rd p. sing. masc. Levelling in the 3rd p. sing. masc. was in most areas to the dative in the full forms, but enclitically the originally nom./acc. form -(œ)n is also used for the dative outside Scania. The enclitic form is retained right up to the present day, particularly in dialect (and can be merged with and perceived as a form of the pronoun den), while han, as subj./obj., occurs in the southwestern part of Scania (see further Swedish above) and northeast Zealand (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 41ff.), and is also noted for Copenhagen Amager (Bennike & Kristensen 1898-1912:163). 3rd p. sing. fem. The accusative hana is found in runes and in early Scanian manuscripts. However, early on, also in Scanian, the accusative is replaced by the dative form and generally all manuscripts have the full form hœnncB, henne etc. as objective, though enclitically, as in the masculine singular, the accusative form is retained dialectally into the Modern period (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 48ff.). — On Functional reinterpretation according to accent in case levelling see chapters 2 and 3. 3rd p. singular neuter In the 3rd p. singular neuter the dative form thy, thi is found throughout the Gammeldansk period; however, early on it began to be replaced by the nom./acc. pronoun (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965:152ff.).

Old/Middle Danish

311

3rd p. plural In the 3rd p. plural the accusative was replaced by the dative pronoun by the time of the earliest manuscripts (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 122, 143f. & 167f.). 15.1.3 Dual In contrast to the other Scandinavian languages there are no traces of the dual either in Old/Middle Danish sources or in modern dialects. In Mariaklagen for instance, a Scanian text from about 1325, we find 'at ui baJ)J)e d0 samman' (Br0ndum-Nielsen 1965: 5). Br0ndum-Nielsen believes that one of the main reasons for the loss of the dual pronouns was the coalescence of the nominative dual and plural forms, though, as Haugen (1976: 303) points out, the dual number has also been lost for example in Icelandic even though the pronouns there remained formally distinct. 15.1.4 3rd p. plural gender distinction The 3rd p. plural neuter is attested in Danish runes as pau and, once, paun (cf. Swedish runic paun and Old Gutnish paun), but the oldest manuscripts (i.e. from the thirteenth century onwards) show no gender distinction in the 3rd p. plural; according to Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 167f.) the plural subj. form the derives from the former masculine pronoun.

312

Danish

Modern Danish Den and Continental Scandinavian 3rd person plural developments are discussed in 16.3.1-16.3.3 below.

Modern Danish

313

Modern Danish SUBJ.

OBJ.

jeg

mig [ma:j, ma:, mae, ma«, ma, m]

1 s

[ja:j, ja;, jae]

GEN./POSS.

min.eic. [mi'n, min, mn]

2

du

S Τ

[du]

dig [da;j, dai, dae, da», da]

3

han

ham

hans

M

[haen, aen]

[ha*m, a»m]

[haens, aens]

3 c

hun

hende

hendes

F

[hun, un]

[he»nn, e»nn]

[he»nns, e^nns]

c iJ

din etc. [di'n, din, dn]

3

den

den

dens

O C

[de*n', de^n, dan, dn]

[de*n', de*n, dan, din]

[de-ns]

3

det

det

dets

Ν

[de*, d a , ' 3 ]

[de-,da,'Ò]

[de^ds, de*s, de*s]

2

De

Dem

Deres

[Φ]

[de^m, dam, dm]

[çte ia:s]

vi

OS

[ñ γ]

[cits]

[votots, vots]

I

jer

jeres

[i]

[je»», jae, ja]

[jsiais]

de

dem

deres

[Φ]

[de^m, dam,dm]

[deiats]

V

1 Ρ

2 Γ Τ

3 Ρ

vores (vor etc.)

Chapter 16: Norwegian Old/Middle Norwegian Seip/Saltveit (1971) put the Old Norwegian period at 1050 to 1370. Of the Old Norwegian runic inscriptions, quite a few are from the period 1050 to 1150 (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 73). (On other sources in this early period see Seip/Saltveit 1971: 72ff.) The oldest surviving manuscripts written in Norwegian date from the twelfth century, though these consist only of a few short texts (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 112) — the oldest larger document preserved dates from about 1200. Some dialect differences are apparent, in particular between East and West Norwegian, which can be further subdivided into northern and southern (Noreen 1923: §14). Specifically runic forms are noted in the paradigm opposite. The Middle Norwegian period dates from approximately 1370 to 1530 (Seip/Saltveit 1971). The unions with Sweden and, most especially, with Denmark had lasting linguistic consequences (on additional factors see Seip/Saltveit 1971: 380-385): from the end of the fourteenth century and a good way into the fifteenth the influence of Swedish was strongest, and this was followed by domination by Danish. With the end of a royal chancery in Norway in the middle of the fifteenth century, royal documents were issued in Danish only. In more local documents Norwegian forms persisted for about another century, but at the end of the sixteenth century Norwegian was no longer used as a written language (Seip/ Saltveit 1971: 380-385, Haugen 1976: 249 & 329-332). The most important source for the Middle Norwegian period are official documents. Several personal pronoun forms in Middle Norwegian can be explained as loans or influence of Swedish and Danish: for example under Swedish influence I vilin instead of Norwegian per viliò (or vilir) — 'you will'. And also other pronouns like jak, jek and vi were equally supported by Danish influence and spread far into dialects, especially in East Norwegian (see Haugen 1976: 330f.). However, Seip and others have explained such apparent loans as indigenous Norwegian developments (see for example Seip/ Saltveit 1971: 382). For further discussion see below.

315

Old/Middle Norwegian

1 S 2 S

ΝΟΜ.

AGG.

DAT.

GEN.

ek, also aek, eg rare iak

mik, mek, mig

mér (occas. mik etc.)

min

{DÚ,

διι

l)ik, Jîek, {DIG

pél

{Din

(occas. J)ik etc.)

runic occas. Jnna

3

hann later East unstr. hen, haen

hann later East unstr. hen, haen

honom (early also hónom), hánom, hçnom, hanum

hans later East unstr. hens, haens

3 S F

hon (rare hpn) early also hón later also hun

hana (ιearly also hána) hona, hena, haena

henne (henner)

hennar, haennar haenner (henne, haenne)

3

t>at, ]?aet, J>et

Jjat, {jaet, {jet

T>uí, {DÌ

{Des (s)

occas. J)a

occas. J>a

later occas. Jsaei

({D0rs)

ok(k)r

ok(k)r

okkar

yk(k)r

yk(k)r

ykkar

OSS, ÓS

OSS, ÓS

runic v. rare es {íér, Jîcér occas. early ér

y3r

y3r

Ρ M

Jjeir, Jjaeir occas. J>aer, also J>er

ì>i

3

Jjaér, occas. J)ar

Jjaér, occas. J)ar

also Jjer

also J)er

{Deim, {jaeim {Deir(r)a, J)aeir(r)a, also Jjaem, ¡)em also Jjaeirae, Jjaerra (sometimes also acc) t>eir, {Dera

J)au,

{Deim, Jjaeim J)eir(r)a, {)aeir(r)a, alsc J>aem, {Dem also Jjaeirae, {Daerra (sometimes also acc) {Deir, {sera

S M

S Ν

vit, vi3, vet 1 D later mit, mi3, met

D 1 Ρ

2 Ρ

3

Ρ F

3 Ρ Ν

J>it, Jn3

vèr, later also váfer mér, maér

{jau,

{DU

An acute accent marks length

{DU

vár, occas. varr later also vaars y3ar later also ydars

{Deim, {jaeim {)err(r)a, {)aeir(r)a, also J)aem, {Dem also J>aeirae, {>aerra, (sometimes also acc) {>eir, Jjera

316

Norwegian

16.1.1 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural nom. forms with initial ra- and pIn Old Norwegian new forms of the 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural nominatives with ra- and p- developed from verb ending and pronoun in inversion. — For discussion of sandhi and examples of similar developments in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages see chapter 2 (2.5.2). In the 2nd person pronouns reanalysis of verb ending and pronoun led to pit and per with initial p- in Norwegian. On later oblique forms with initial dental see 16.1.2 below. Similar forms are also found in Icelandic and Faroese, and di is also recorded in Shetland Norn (see Barnes 1984: 33). The earlier vowel-initial 2nd p. nom. plural form ér generally occurs only sporadically in Old Norwegian in some of the oldest documents, per being usual already around 1200, though according to Seip (1956: 7) ér was retained longer as a V form (see 16.1.4). In the 2nd p. dual nominative vowel-initial forms are practically unknown in Norwegian records (Tylden 1956/58: 99 & 109, Seip/Saltveit 1971: 220, Seip 1956: 7). This comparatively early replacement of the vowel-initial pronouns by forms with initial p- in Norwegian contrasts with Icelandic where pit, pió and per were at first rare and did not completely replace the older it and er until after 1350 (Noreen 1923: §464). In Norwegian assimilation of verb ending and pronoun in inversion in the 1st person dual and plural nominatives led to new forms with initial m-, for example (Haugen 1976: 302): komum vit/ver > komum mit/mer > komu mit/mer 1st person plural forms with initial τη- are attested — also preverbally — in Old Norwegian from around 1200 beside the older υ-initial forms; in the dual, forms with m- are not attested before 1300, though they must have existed because they occur in some Icelandic texts copied from Norwegian or with Norwegian influence (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 220). During the fourteenth century the forms in m- gain ground and become dominant (Tylden 1956/58: 68; Seip/Saltveit 1971: 191f, 219f., 351f.; Indreb0 1951: 183). An exception to this is vér as pluralis majestatis, which, as Tylden (1944: 3) quite plausibly points out, was purely literary and should to some extent be seen as separate from the usual pronouns. In his study of 1st person plural pronoun forms in official documents ('diplomas'), Tylden (1944: 6 & 9ff.) notes a difference between the dual and plural in the relative extent of ra- forms, with the proportion of informs higher in the dual — some documents are found with dual mit but plural vèr. Tylden believes that vèr was more of a fixed written form, while the dual was less tied to written convention, and as a result dual forms with ra- are found more often (Tylden 1944:11,1956/58: 68). Furthermore, Tylden (1944: 7, 1956/58: 68) notes that v- forms tended to be

Old/Middle Norwegian

317

Figure 16.1.11st p. plural subj. forms in Modern Norwegian From Christiansen, H. (1956) 'Me - vi i nynorsk', in S. Aakjaer et al. (eds), Festskrift til Peter Skautrup, Ârhus: Universitetsforlaget, p. 177 Bergen, Kristiansand and Ris0r have vi, as has North Norway;· the variant mi occurs in a larger area in South Norway than indicated by the figure, occurring in practically the whole of Aust-Agder and a large part of Vest-Agder.

318

Norwegian

stronger in towns than in more rural areas, and believes that they were supported by the pluralis majestatis usage. According to Tylden (1944: 62) the τη- pronouns mit and mér were more widespread than indicated by modern dialects. He believes that the development of the TO- pronouns was a central rather than a west Norwegian phenomenon. Along the coast in the West the development was not as complete; in the East the πι- pronouns reach Jämtland and Härjedalen. In the Southeast the m- forms contrast with the modern dialects which have ν- (see figure 16.1.1): either the dialects in this area had τη- pronouns which were later replaced by vi, or mit and mér here were merely written forms or spoken forms based on the written language (see further 16.1.3 below) (Tylden 1956/58: 68f. and Seip/Saltveit 1971: 351f.). Tylden (1944: 62), however, finds no evidence to suggest that the m- pronouns in this area were purely written forms. Seip (1956: 6), on the other hand, believes that through the written language mér was used in diplomas also in areas of Norway which had v- pronouns in the spoken language; he adds (1956: 9) that vèr was retained better in copies of the Laws than in diplomas (the source of Tylden's studies). 16.1.2 2nd person dual/plural oblique forms with initial dental In the fifteenth century in Norwegian records 2nd person plural oblique forms are found with initial p-, e.g. pydr, pyddher (Haegstad 1908: 224). Similar forms of the dual pronoun with initial p- are unattested in the Middle Norwegian period, but the modern 2nd person plural oblique forms in Nynorsk (dykk-dykkar) and the majority of Norwegian dialects go back to dual forms with initial dental. Similar forms are also found in Faroese, compare Modern Faroese tykkum, tykkara and tygum, tygara. In Jämtland deck is the most common obj. form, though in the south vowel-initial eck occurs, which is the usual form also in Härjedalen (Reinhammar 1978:188, Oskarsson & Nygren 1973: 65). Haugen (1976: 302) (cf. also Noreen 1923: 311) believes that the same process of reanalysis of verb ending and pronoun which led to the nominative pronouns pit and per also led later to the new oblique forms of ykkr and ypr in Norwegian and Faroese. However, this explanation begs the question why the same development should occur later in the oblique pronouns than in the nominative. Haegstad (1917: 138f.) offers another explanation (cf. also Seip/Saltveit 1971: 397, Indreb0 1951: 254) that the dental was extended to all the other 2nd person pronouns by analogy with the 2nd person singular and the 2nd person dual and plural nominative pronouns. — For discussion of Analogical extension and further examples of Analogy with pronoun forms in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages see chapter 2 (2.4). This explanation of extension of the formative by analogy rather than a second, later sandhi development

Old/Middle Norwegian

319

also better accounts for the initial dental in the genitive/possessive as well as in the objective pronouns. In addition, the delay between the changes in the nominatives and those in the oblique pronouns seems less problematic. Possibly a combination of analogy and reanalysis may have occurred. The result of these changes is that the dental has gone from originally only the singular in the 2nd person to all the 2nd person pronouns in Norwegian (and Faroese), thus increasing the regularity of morphological marking of 2nd person (though it should be noted that forms with initial dental also occur in the 3rd person — see also 16.2.2 below). 16.1.3 vi The origin of vi is disputed. It first appears in 1370 — used from the outset as plural and dual — and becomes the dominant form in written records (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 396, Indreb0 1951:183f, Tylden 1944). Seip/Saltveit (1971:220) believe that vi developed from a variant of the Old Norwegian 1st person plural pronoun vèr with -%-. It is possible that loss of -r also took place in the Norwegian form, as in Danish and Swedish: according to Seip/Saltveit (1971: 220 & 185) - r could probably be lost colloquially, compare the 1st person sing, dative form mér > me. Haegstad (1908:223) believes that vi may have developed either from the old plural or the old dual form (with loss of final -1, -6 — see Seip 1956: 9). The fact that the modern dialectal 2nd person plural di is not a loan form — Swedish and Danish did not have ¿-initial forms — could support the argument that dialectal vi is not a loan (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 352), and di does occur in 'a large share' of the dialects where vi is used (Haugen 1947: 433, see also Christiansen 1948:220). On the other hand, as has already been noted above, it is possible that vi is not a continuation of an Old Norwegian form, but a borrowing from Swedish and Danish. This may be supported by the fact that from the outset vi in Norwegian records was used as plural and dual as in Swedish and Danish diplommál (see 16.1.5). Possible influence of Low German is also assumed for example by Tylden (1944: 72f.). Furthermore, the geographical spread of vi (see figure 16.1.1) also suggests foreign borrowing (Indreb0 1951: 184), though it does seem that in some Modern Norwegian areas v- forms may indeed represent continuations of Old Norwegian forms (see Haugen 1947: 433, Christiansen 1956). 16.1.4 I In the fifteenth century the old 2nd person dual and plural forms are superseded in documents by I-iôr (ider, later eder) which represent both dual and plural, and 2nd person V. It is likely, particularly in the written forms, that these are borrowings from Swedish and Danish, though in

320

Norwegian

some cases influence of Norwegian dialects may have been possible (Seip/ Saltveit 1971: 397, Tylden 1956/58, Seip 1956:18ff.). Haegstad (1908:222) and also Seip (1956: Ιβίί.) 1 believe that I — found in some dialects in the Modern period as a V form of address — derives from the Old Norwegian form er (see 16.1.1 above), though this is doubted by Tylden (1956/58: 99). 16.1.5 Dual Some mixing of dual and plural forms is found already in the Old Norwegian period (see e.g. Seip/Saltveit 1971: 220 & 353) — compare chapter 2 on Functional merger of pronoun forms in loss of distinctions (see 2.2.1). Tylden (1944: 89) states that in Old Norwegian a number of documents suggest that some dialects no longer distinguished clearly between dual and plural. Functional merger of dual and plural forms increases over the course of the Middle Norwegian period, and by the beginning of the Modern period the dual number had disappeared in Norwegian (Seip/ Saltveit 1971: 396). (On the fairly widespread survival of dual forms as plurals see below.) Mixing of dual and plural in Middle Norwegian writing was also due in part to the influence of Swedish and Danish usage in official documents, which in the forms wi-oss-war and I-ider/eder-ider(s)/ eder(s) did not differentiate between dual and plural, although similar levelling in Norwegian dialects would have given these new forms an advantage (Tylden 1956/58: 91). In Modern Norwegian it is not certain whether 1st and 2nd p. plural subj. forms such as me, (vi), de, di derive from originally dual and/or originally plural forms because of the loss of final consonants (see Haegstad 1908: 223f., Indreb0 1951: 256, Seip 1956: 9, Seip/Saltveit 1971: 220 & 396). (The same also applies to some of the subj. forms in Swedish dialects with originally dual oblique pronouns.) 2 Only few Norwegian areas (S0ndre Sunnm0re and part of Nordfjord) have unambiguously originally dual subj. forms (mid, did) (Christiansen 1948: 218). In the obj. forms, however, the situation is clearer, and many Norwegian dialects show a marked difference between the 1st and 2nd person. In most Norwegian dialects the 2nd person plural obj. and often also the gen./poss. pronouns derive from the dual, example forms being dfikk, dikk, dòkk(er), dòkke, dikko(n) etc., gen./poss.

1 However, see Seip/Saltveit (1971: 397). 2 It cannot be automatically assumed that originally dual obj. and gen./poss. pronouns prove the dual origin of a subj. form in a particular dialect — Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese and Swedish all to some extent record mixed paradigms of dual and plural forms, see Haegstad (1908: 223), Skjekkeland (1977: 97), Guòmundsson (1972: 80), 17.1.2 and 14.1.1.

Old/Middle Norwegian

321

dykka, dákkers, dekan(s) (Nynorsk dykk-dykkar) (some dialects have also generalized these forms as subj., see 16.2.2); 1st person plural obj. and gen./ poss. forms from the dual, e.g. okko(n), ákkán, konn, okka(s), okkan(s), kans, occur in a smaller, 3 though sizeable region covering many of the Midland dialects, Agder and southwestern Norway (Guämundsson 1972: 118, Christiansen 1948: 217-220, Skjekkeland 1977: 95-100). Both Icelandic and Faroese also have 1st and 2nd person originally dual forms as plurals. The -o ending in a number of the Norwegian forms derives, according to Haegstad (1908: 221f.), from analogy with the -o of the dative plural noun ending in the same dialects — these would then parallel the -um, -un forms okkum [ok:un], tykkum [tik:un], tygum [ti:jun], teimurn [taimun] in Faroese (see 17.2.1, also 2.4). Skjekkeland (1977: 96-100) explains the Norwegian forms with final -n as possibly from inflected forms of the possessive, perhaps also by analogy with other pronouns with -n such as nokon. For discussion of reasons for the retention of dual forms after loss of dual number see chapter 3 (3.2). 16.1.6 Accusative-dative (subjective-objective) The Continental Scandinavian languages show considerable similarity in levelling of the accusative-dative distinction in the personal pronouns, and possible reasons for the directions of levelling in Norwegian, as well as in Danish and Swedish, have already been discussed in chapter 3 above. 1st and 2nd person singular Accusative-dative syncretism in the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns is found occasionally in the Old Norwegian period (see Seip/Saltveit 1971: 219 & 351). Levelling in Norwegian, as also in Danish and Swedish, was to the accusative (at least in the full forms). One or two rare examples of dative usage in the 1st and 2nd person pronouns have survived dialectally into the Modern period: Setesdal has as dative me, mi, de, di and se, si, which are distinguished from the accusatives meg, deg, seg. Nordhordland had, at least until the nineteenth century, a rare 2nd p. sing. dat. der (and an obsolete 1st p. sing, form mer), as well as a 2nd p. plural dative dekaa (see Reinhammar 1973: 60). 1st and 2nd person dual and plural In Scandinavian since the earliest records the 1st and 2nd person dual and plural have had general objective pronouns for accusative/dative. How-

3 Haegstad (1908: 223f.) believes that dual forms were earlier more widespread as 1st person plural but were later replaced by oss (and vâr) supported by Danish usage.

322

Norwegian

ever, the West Scandinavian 1st p. plural forms Old Norwegian ös and Old Icelandic 0ss may suggest a parallel with the Gothic 1st p. plural objective pronouns uns and unsis, which do show some kind of case distribution (see 4.1.1). Old Norwegian ös developed from *uns in a Common Scandinavian shift where, provided i or u did not occur in the following syllable, *u > o before a nasal, with compensatory lengthening of the vowel and loss of the nasal (Noreen 1923: §§112, 123, 233) — Old Norwegian ös may thus be compared with Gothic uns. For Old Icelandic 0ss, on the other hand, Noreen believes that it developed not from *uns, but from *ösiR (where *ösiR < *üsiR with δ by analogy with ös), with o > 0 by ¿-umlaut (Haugen 1976:153). It thus appears that Old Icelandic 0ss may correspond to Gothic unsis in form. Similarly, compare Bethge et al. (1900: 633) who state that the Old Norwegian form ös is equivalent to Gothic uns, and the form oss to Gothic unsis. Lack of umlaut is explained by Bethge et al. as a result of unstressed use; Noreen (1923: §112) believes that oss, found in both Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian, is a blend of os and 0ss. It should be noted that, although the Scandinavian forms ös and 0ss may possibly correspond to Gothic uns and unsis in form, there appears to be no suggestion of any case distinction between them in the Scandinavian languages — and even in Gothic uns and unsis are by no means clear-cut accusative and dative forms — although this does not exclude the possibility that some kind of distinction did once exist. In Middle High German (see 11.2.3) the forms unsis, unses are recorded once each, although it is uncertain whether they correspond to Gothic unsis. In addition, Seebold (1984: 33) suggests that a voiced [z] in Modern Frisian 1st person plural variants 'weist darauf hin, daß es früher in Inlaut stand, also wohl *unsis\ though this is unlikely, see 7.6.1. On accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural in the Germanic languages as a whole see 3.1.2. 3rd person singular masc. The Norwegian 3rd person sing. masc. pronouns are used in Middle Norwegian increasingly without distinction between accusative and dative, and a common objective form develops based on the originally dative and/or nominative/accusative pronoun (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 397). Some modern dialects maintain a distinct dative in the 3rd p. sing, masc. and fem. — for discussion see Reinhammar (1973: 62-64) with references, and Papazian (1978 passim, especially 266ff.). Norwegian shows to some extent the type of Functional merger and Functional reinterpretation of case forms discussed in Change Type [B] in chapter 2 (2.2). — In Modern Norwegian according to Christiansen (1948:

Old/Middle Norwegian

323

219f.) the former dative is widespread as an objective form in those dialects which show levelling, though in some dialects the originally nom./acc. pronoun is the sole subj./obj. form. Norwegian also seems to show to some extent a marginalization or loss of the originally dative 'honom' (in some areas also to some extent 'henne') (see Papazian 1978 passim, e.g. 259-261) (compare a possible parallel in the generalization of han and, less so, hon discussed in Swedish in chapter 14 above). Enclitically, forms such as an, η are very common in the masculine singular (and in dialects with dative often ¿'to, ηά, ο, α) (Christiansen ibid., Papazian 1978: 261f., cf. also Haugen 1976: 292). According to Skjekkeland (1977: 94f.), cf. also Reinhammar (1973: 63 with references), han, an, en, 'n etc. occur in most areas as subj./ obj. Nynorsk has both the originally nom./acc. and dative forms han and honom as objective pronouns, as does Bokmál with han and ham (< hannem), though on ham in speech see Papazian (1978:249). 3rd person sing. fem. In the 3rd person sing. fem. some modern dialects have ho, hu, hon, hun etc. as subj./obj., though more so than in the masculine singular henne, henn(a), hœnne(r) etc.4 occur as objective pronouns — henner also occurs to some extent as a subj. form, for example in Oslo (see e.g. Papazian 1978: 266 & 276-278);5 the old accusative form survives in some modern dialect clitically as a, also as a subj. form (Christiansen 1948: 219, Haugen 1976: 292, Indreb0 1951: 255, Papazian 1978: 238 & 262-264, Skjekkeland 1977: 94f.). Furthermore, ho may be an originally subjective pronoun used also as objective by analogy with the masculine singular 'han', but it may also derive from the feminine sing, accusative variant ONw hona (Indreb0 1951: 255). Nynorsk has subj./obj. ho and obj. henne; Bokmâl has only henne as obj. On dialects with a distinct dative see the references given above. 3rd person sing, neuter The 3rd p. sing, neuter levelled to the nominative/accusative form, compare det in Bokmâl and Nynorsk. In dialects which maintain a distinct dative, the form di (cf. ONw put, pi) can be found (Skjekkeland 1977: 95, Papazian 1978:265).

4 H era. Seip (1934:182) states that the form 'i3r' is attested in southeast Norwegian in the late thirteenth century as jdr, though adds that it is not until the end of the fourteenth century that ider becomes more common in writing. The oldest example in Norwegian of dere recorded by Seip (1934: 180f.) is (as an obj. form) from the second half of the seventeenth century. It is possible that the development of the 2nd person pronouns dere, d0kk etc. to subj. forms in Bokmàl and quite a number of Norwegian dialects is connected with the ambiguity in a number of the personal pronouns and the distinction of person/number discussed further below in connection with the 3rd person plural obj. forms as subj. dem, dorn etc. in Norwegian dialects and in Swedish (see 16.3.2). The developments in Norwegian can be represented schematically as follows (with [l ] representing Old Norwegian): 2nd p. sing. nom. 3rd p. sing, neuter nom. 2nd p. dual nom. 2nd p. plural nom. 2nd p. V 3rd p. plural mase. nom. 3rd p. plural fem. nom. 3rd p. plural neuter nom.

t>V

t>vt l>vt t>Vr t>Vr t>Vr JjVr

tv

As can be seen from the table, a large number of the Old Norwegian nominative forms had initial p- (on the 2nd person dual and plural nom. pronouns with p- already in Old Norwegian see 16.1.1). With the loss of final -t (-ô) and -i— according to Seip (1956: 9) already in Old Norwegian in the (1st and) 2nd p. dual and plural nominatives when unaccented and (Seip/Saltveit 1971: 221) the 3rd p. plural in speech, as well as reduction in vowel distinction when unaccented and through vowel harmony enclitically (Seip 1956:12f.), the forms above could become (with dual-plural and 3rd p. plural gender levelling, and p > d):

6 7

Quoted in Seip (1934: 181f.). On 2nd person V address in Old Norwegian see Haugen (1976: 303f.).

329

Modera Norwegian

[2 ]

2nd p. sing. svbj. 3rd p. sing, neuter svbj. 2nd ρ. plural svbj. 3rd p. plural svbj.

dV dV dV dV

Furthermore, with the use of the 3rd person plural forms de-dem-deres (through German influence) as V forms of address — i.e. as de facto 2nd person forms — from the first half of the eighteenth century in Norway (Seip 1934:180), we have: 2nd p. sing. svbj. 3rd p. sing, neuter svbj. 2nd p. plural svbj. 2nd person V svbj. 3rd p. plural subj.

dV dV dV dV dV

Here, then, the distinction between several of the subj. pronouns rests solely on the vowels, with a clear possibility of ambiguity. In addition, as also discussed in 16.3.2, verbal person/number distinction has been lost generally in the Continental Scandinavian languages, for Norwegian see for example Seip/Saltveit (1971: 356f.). The extension of obj. forms to subj. in the 2nd person pronouns dere and d0kk (etc.) (as well as also dem, dorn etc. in the 3rd person plural 8 ) can be explained as a Case form change to give a distinct subj. form — compare Seip (1956:17) and see the discussion of similar types of therapeutic change in Change Type [C] in chapter 2. These developments can be represented schematically as follows (not all changes in all dialects): [4]

2nd p. sing. svbj. 3rd p. sing, neuter svbj. 2nd person plural obj. —» subj. 3rd person plural obj. - » subj.

dV dV dere or d0kk etc. dem etc.

Seip (1934: 179) points out that in 0stlandsk rural dialects the 3rd p. plural subj. pronoun is usually dœm, d0m, dom etc., and is thus distinct from the 2nd p. plural subj. di; urban dialects, however, have 3rd p. plural di, and Seip believes that due to the merger of the 2nd and 3rd person plural forms, the 2nd p. plural obj. form has to a large degree been taken over as a subj. pronoun. Seip also notes that in dialects which have 2nd person gen./poss. deres, the 3rd person plural gen./poss. is usually dems,

8 On 3rd p. plural de (di) and dei see 16.3.2 and 16.3.3.

330

Norwegian

i0ms etc. — i.e. etymologically the obj. (earlier dative) form + s — according to Seip also to differentiate, as above (contrast Bokmâl 2nd p. plural/ 2nd person V/3rd p. plural gen./poss. deres/Deres)9 The extension of obj. forms as distinct subj. forms should also be seen within the context of redundancy of formal subj.-obj. distinction referred to in 2.3. As further possible support for a connection between ambiguity and these changes may be noted that, according to the overview of Norwegian dialect pronoun forms given by Christiansen (1948: 220), dialects with the non-monophthongal 3rd p. plural form dei, as also Nynorsk, do not show any obj. to subj. changes in the 2nd person (or 3rd person plural) pronouns. Tylden (1956/58: 75), however, points out a replacement of the 2nd person forms I and dâkker by di in Bergen 'finare daglegtale' in spite of merger with the 3rd p. plural form di.

9 Dere has also subsequently spread to dialects which have solved the merger problem in other ways: d0kk etc. in the 2nd person and deem etc. in the 3rd person plural (Tylden 1956/58: 74).

Continental Scandinavian

331

Continental Scandinavian 16.3.1 den A three-part grammatical gender distinction has been maintained in most Scandinavian dialects down to the present (on exceptions see for example Haugen 1976:288, Davidson 1990: 32f.). The Danish and Swedish standards have, however, with the merger of masculine and feminine, a two-part common-neuter gender distinction.1 In the personal pronouns, in Standard Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Bokmál the originally grammatically masculine and feminine han and hun etc. are restricted to personal gender; the nonpersonal gender forms neuter det and the innovatory common gender den are generally used according to grammatical gender. This usage of den became standard in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Bokmál, but not in Nynorsk, Faroese or Icelandic (Haugen 1976:289, 370f.).2 Haugen (1976:289) gives an example of this use of then in Danish from c. 1300, and Br0ndum-Nielsen (1950: 19 & 1965: 175f.) states that the masc./ fem. sing, form than can occur as a personal pronoun in Yngre Middeldansk (1350-1525), but that this is not normal usage — in the Gammeldansk period as a whole the use of thœn as a personal pronoun is not common and the 3rd person personal pronouns are the usual forms, even in West Jutlandic records (which today and also at that time may have had gender coalescence, see Davidson 1990: 32 with references). According to Br0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 175f.), generally these examples are to be interpreted as written forms with than for enclitic -( formal jag tog den Olson (1913: 58f.), on the other hand, believes the development is essentially to be viewed as a functional shift (or extension) of the masculine/ feminine demonstrative den. However, as Wessén (1968: 216) points out, and Tegnér (1962: 217) to some extent also concedes, both of these factors could well have been contributory. Knudsen (1949: llff.) discusses the closeness of han (hun) and den, especially enclitically, and also appears to lend support to some extent to both explanations. In Danish, as has already been noted, the same enclitic form could occur to some extent at least both as masc. and as fem., and according to Tegnér (1962:169 & 211) this was also the case in Swedish, though Olson (1913: 60)

3 Quoted from Wessén (1968: §195).

Continental Scandinavian

333

states that -en occurred only very rarely as fem.4 Both Br0ndum-Nielsen (see here above and 15.1.2) and Knudsen (1949: 14-16) mention perception of enclitic forms of the personal pronoun as forms of 'den'. Tegnér's (1962: 169) suggestion that Oâ man i mera várdat uttal ersatte jag tog 'et med jag tog det, lâg det nära till hands att ocksâ hyfsa upp jag tog 'en till jag tog den' — i.e. a hypercorrection — would appear to fit with the development in the (Copenhagen) Danish standard and Stockholm and 'bildad' Swedish against most rural dialects described above. And Analogical extension of initial formatives, as Tegnér (1962: 212f. & 215) points out, is attested in for example Scandinavian 1st person plural obj. forms with initial w-, v-, as well as possibly in Norwegian and Faroese 2nd person (originally) dual/ plural oblique forms with initial dental (cf. also 2.4). Tegnér also explains the development as analogy with a personalnonpersonal h-/d- correspondence in examples such as (Tegnér 1962: 170 & 207) 'Han reste med henne (his wife) till staden'/'Han reste därmed (his bag) till staden' (in Present Swedish med den would be used here), though this h-/d- contrast is less than clear-cut as den can in some cases also be used for people,5 and in däri, därav, harmed, härvid for example the alternation of initial h- and d- is governed by proximity to the speaker (see SAG draft 1990: §51-52, Hultman 1990: 42f., Andersson 1979/80: 37 & 44). Tegnér further suggests a reinterpretation of the enclitic obj. pronoun as nonpersonal on the basis that inanimates occur less often as subject (1962: 170ff. & 205ff.). In favour of Olson's explanation of development from the masc./fem. demonstrative den is of course the fact that, as has been discussed in chapter 13 above, in the Scandinavian languages the 3rd person singular neuter and plural (masculine, feminine and neuter where retained) are demonstrative forms used both as personal and demonstrative pronouns — i.e. they have a relatively wide range of strength of reference — so that a use of the masculine/feminine singular demonstrative den also as a personal pronoun — in the context of merger of masculine and feminine gender and a marking of han and hun etc. as personal forms — would be in accordance with an already established pattern. Similarly den also

4

My own survey of Modern Swedish dialect monographs shows up -na as the usual fem. sing, clitic obj. form. Note though that the use of the masculine pronoun for grammatical common gender in coalescence of masculine and feminine is evidenced by Dutch for example. Note also that in writing the northern Dutch language-user may in cases of doubt with the feminine gender of a word avoid a choice between the masculine and feminine personal pronoun by using the common gender demonstrative form die (ANS 1984: 51). 5 Also Danish see e.g. Togeby (1975: 2f.), and Norwegian Bokmàl Papazian (1978: 244), further also Knudsen (1949: Uff.).

334

Continental Scandinavian

occurs as a common gender determiner, e.g. (Swedish) den gamie mannen, den unga kvinnan, where it also has a wide strength of reference range, e.g. Det var DEN garden hon ville köpa (example SAG draft 1990: §90). As Wessén (1968: §110) and Olson (1913: 58) point out, the difference between personal and demonstrative pronouns is particularly in the Scandinavian languages more one of degree than of type, and virtually all the Germanic languages record demonstrative forms in personal pronoun use to some extent. — Compare here further chapter 2 (2.8). 16.3.2 Developments in the Continental Scandinavian 3rd p. plural pronouns Haugen (1976: 374) summarizes developments in the 3rd p. plural in the Continental Scandinavian languages as follows: at least from the seventeenth century in Danish, from where according to Haugen it spread to Norwegian Bokmâl and southern Swedish, the 3rd p. plural subj. form de was pronounced di. (Though the variant pi(r) already occurs indigenously in Old Swedish, i.e. excluding the present Swedish southernmost and westernmost counties; for Gammeldansk see also further below.) In East Norwegian (on other Norwegian dialects see also below) and Uppland Swedish the subj. form was replaced by the obj. dem, dom etc., which in Swedish became common in eighteenth-century Stockholm in speech (as dom), and has subsequently over the course of the twentieth century spread to become the normal form as subj./obj. in spoken Standard Swedish in all areas of Sweden (though the earlier forms can still to some extent be found). At the end of the nineteenth century dom was still regarded as 'vulgär stockholmska'. Its spread over other areas of the country was probably assisted by mass communications (e.g. rail, radio etc.) (see Mârtensson 1988: 185f.). In the Finland Swedish Standard both di and dom are used as subj. in speech. The prestige variant there is, at least at the present, clearly di. In the Swedish spoken in Helsinki di dominates in higher social groups, while dom is more usual in lower social groups (Nyholm 1984: 37). On 3rd p. plural forms in Finland Swedish (traditional) dialect see Nyholm (1984: 38-40, including map). 6

6 Some relatively isolated Swedish dialects record originally dative-only forms as subj. in the nineteenth century, which predates the spread of dom over the course of the twentieth century, e.g. Oland (Bodorff 1875: 25) has di, de, dämm, domm as 3rd p. plural subj., and some Finland Swedish dialects (Freudenthal 1878:145,1889: §117, Karsten 1891:139) record among other forms also torn, dom, t0m, d0m. Note interestingly that Estonian Swedish (Vendell 1881: 175) nom./acc. plural neuter torn, dom, dum appears to be a survival of the Old Swedish 3rd p. plural neuter (cf. the Swedish paradigm) and not the dative — taim — as nominative.

Continental Scandinavian

335

3rd p. plural dative forms are exceptionally recorded as nominative already in Old Swedish, though certain examples are not found until the end of the Old Swedish period. Examples of 3rd p. plural originally dative forms as subj. do not seem to be particularly numerous .in Swedish literature from the Modern period (see Elmevik 1977: 36 h 44). Present Danish maintains the 3rd p. plural morphological subj.-obj. distinction with de [di]—obj. dem, the Sweden Swedish spoken standard, as noted, generally has a single subj./obj. pronoun dom (on writing see further below), dialectally also subj./obj. dom, dem, döm etc. (see Werner 1981: 152-155). Present Bokmál Norwegian has de-dem, though in speech de (pronounced [di(:)]) frequently occurs also as obj. (see Helleland & Papazian 1973:24);7 Nynorsk hits subj./obj. dei8 (on Norwegian subj./obj. dei etc. see 16.3.3). Dialectally in Norwegian, 0stlandsk, some Midland dialects, Tr0ndersk and much of North Norwegian have, as in Swedish, originally dative forms as subj./obj., dem, dom, d0m, dâm etc. (Christiansen 1948: 219, Skjekkeland 1977: 98). Only a few Norwegian dialects — according to Papazian (1978:249) none — maintain a subjective-objective distinction in the 3rd person plural pronouns (Christiansen ibid., Skjekkeland ibid.).9 Factors for the levelling of the subj.-obj. distinction to the obj. pronoun in the 3rd p. plural pronouns in Swedish, as well as the origin of the form dom, though with little or no discussion of the parallel forms in Norwegian, have been discussed in several studies, most notably Elmevik (1977) and Werner (1981). A likely factor in the use of dom, dem etc. as a subj./obj. form in the 3rd person plural in Swedish and Norwegian is ambiguity between the 3rd person singular neuter and 3rd p. plural subj. forms. In Swedish already in Runsvenska after an unaccented vowel t could become d/â and, around the end of the Old Swedish period, be lost completely, resulting in forms such as pät > päd/dad and dà ¡de in the 3rd p. sing, neuter; when unaccented, the vowels of the 3rd p. plural form per > de and 3rd p. sing, neuter pät > de(t) could merge early on (see Werner 1981:159). Similarly, the Middle Norwegian mainly eastern 3rd p. plural nom. pe(r) (Seip/Saltveit

7 Helleland & Papazian (1973: 24) suggest that de ([di(:)]) is used by Bokmâl speakers also as obj. possibly as an avoidance of dialectal dem as subj., compare also the study by Hanssen (1976: 127-131) — an interesting sociolinguistic contrast with the situation in Sweden where dom as subj./obj. spread through influence of the capital (cf. Màrtensson 1988:186). 8 An earlier distinction subj. det-obj. deim in writing in Nynorsk made by Aasen was removed in 1938 (Skjekkeland 1977: 98). 9 On the variants of the 3rd p. plural originally dative pronoun in Swedish and Norwegian see Skjekkeland (1977: 98), Elmevik (1977: 34-36), and Werner (1981: 139-152).

336

Continental Scandinavian

1971: 398) shows a clear possibility of ambiguity with the 3rd p. sing, neuter — compare Seip (1956: 9) on the loss of final -t (d) (in the 1st and 2nd p. dual nominatives) when unstressed already before 1200, and Seip/Saltveit (1971: 221) on the 'certain' loss of final -r in the 3rd p. plural in speech in Old Norwegian, as well as Seip (1956:12f.) on merger of vocalic distinction in enclitic forms due to vowel harmony between verb and enclitic pronoun. In addition, in Norwegian ambiguity with the 2nd person dual and plural nom. forms was probably also a factor: these forms occur with initial p- already at an early date in Norwegian 10 (see 16.1.1), as well as with the loss of final -t (-â) and - r when unstressed already mentioned here — see further the discussion of the extension of obj. forms to subj. use in the 2nd person pronouns dere and d0kk etc. in Bokmál and a number of Norwegian dialects in 16.2.2 above. Modern 3rd p. sing, neuter forms (unstressed sentence-initially and enclitically as subject) in Swedish and in part in Norwegian are shown in figure 14.3.3 and in Reinhammar (1975, map 8). Final -1 in the 3rd p. sing, neuter has a basis in only a few dialects, at least as a subj. form (see further 14.3.2); in Standard Swedish and Norwegian Bokmâl and Nynorsk the usual pronunciation is /de(:)/. An explanation that dom (in Swedish) became the general subj ./obj. form in the 3rd person plural because it was phonetically 'clearer' or 'stronger' than de, di is not sufficient, as Swedish du, vi, ni, mig [mej], dig [dsj ] seem all phonetically to lack the 'strength' or 'clarity' of dom. Indeed, the 3rd p. sing, neuter pronoun det /de(:)/ and vi, ni show that there are no purely phonetic grounds why de (or di) could not have remained the usual 3rd person plural subj. form. Furthermore, Uthorn's comment (1970: 148) that di runs the risk of merger with the 1st and 2nd p. plural subj. forms vi and ni — though possibly valid to some extent with / n / - / d / — overlooks that both vi and ni themselves, and many other pronouns (e.g. Swedish mig-dig-sig), differ only in initial consonant. Singular/plural ambiguity in subj. forms of the 3rd person pronouns is also found in other Germanic languages, in German, (Standard) Dutch, and Frisian to varying degrees in the 3rd p. sing. fem. and 3rd p. plural — German sie-sie, Dutch zij-zij, West Frisian sy/hja-sy/hja, East and North Frisian unaccented forms. In the Continental Scandinavian languages, however, person/number distinction has been lost generally in verb morphology; in spoken Swedish singular-plural distinction was lost probably from the seventeenth century (in some syntactic environments already occasionally in Old Swedish), and first in 'uppsvensk' (Wessen 1968:252f.). For Norwegian see Seip/Saltveit (1971:356f.).

10 In Sweden 2nd person plural forms with initial d- are more or less restricted to Jämtland, Härjedalen and Bohuslän — see figure 14.3.1.

Continental Scandinavian

337

In other Continental Scandinavian — in Danish, in much of Swedish (now generally obscured by the spread of domn), and in Norwegian Bokmâl, as touched on already above, 3rd p. neuter singular-3rd p. plural are distinguished by the 3rd person plural form di with / i / (written de)}2 (On Nynorsk subj./obj. dei see below.) Elmevik (1977: 34) for Swedish states that pi(r), thi, di with i probably derive from ë > ι when unstressed, possibly, as others have suggested, also by analogy with the 1st and 2nd p. plural nominatives with i (see Elmevik 1977: 34 and Werner 1981: 160 for Swedish and Danish references). Βr0ndum-Nielsen (1965: 121) for Danish gives a 3rd p. plural nom. unstressed variant thi in Gammeldansk, compare also the 1st and 2nd p. plural nominatives wi and i. Continental Scandinavian, then, shows repair of the (neuter) singularplural number distinction in the 3rd person subj. pronouns through types of development discussed in Change Type [G] in chapter 2: (a) by replacement of the subjective form by an objective form, i.e. a Case form change, and (b) by Generalization of a distinct variant (di etc.) as the usual subj. form, or (c) by both of these in dom. Similar therapeutic change in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages is discussed together in chapter 2. With (a), the use of an objective pronoun in place of an ambiguous subjective form should be viewed in the context of syntactic change — i.e. an increased marking of subject and object syntactically rather than morphologically. Compare also levelling of the subj.-obj. distinction in a number of other pronouns. A single form for subj./obj. is general in other demonstrative forms in the Continental Scandinavian languages 13 — subj./obj. den and dei, and also denna, denne, detta, dette, and dessa, disse, desse — in comparison with which subj.-obj. distinction in de-dem is the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, the use in writing of the forms de and dem (e.g. in Swedish) is not always consistently de = subject, dem = object, as the following examples illustrate: although in pronominal use a subj.-obj. distinction maybe made in writing, e.g. 'De ville leka med dem,', as an article no subj.obj. distinction is made, de being used in both cases (and in speech dom), e.g. 'De smâ pojkarna ville leka med de rôda bilama' — *'De smâ pojkarna

11 Dom in Swedish has thus, with the influence of Stockholm, also spread to areas where the 3rd p. sing, neuter and 3rd p. plural subj. with di etc. were not or were less ambiguous. Compare also areas with 3rd p. sing, neuter has, he, hed etc. with initial h- (see 14.3.3). 12 Dialectally also other non-de variants, e.g. Scania (Lech 1925: 84f.) dai etc., Västergötland (Landtmanson 1950: 96) da etc. 13 Exceptions such as a neuter singular subj.-obj. distinction or dative di have been discussed in the individual chapters, see e.g. 14.3.2 and 16.1.6.

338

Continental Scandinavian

ville leka med dem rôda bilama' is not possible (examples see Werner 1981: 156f. with references). Some confusion in prescribed written usage of de and dem in Swedish is also discussed by Mártensson (1988: 185 L· 187f. with references). In addition, parallels of the Old Swedish and Old Norwegian 3rd p. plural dative pronoun variants pVm with other dative plural inflection have generally been lost, with the result that the 3rd p. plural originally dative dorn, dem etc. is now isolated inflectionally from its former parallels — compare Werner (1981:155-158) and here the discussion in chapter 1. 16.3.3 Norwegian 3rd p. plural subj./obj. dei etc. Nynorsk subj./obj. dei, dialectally Vestlandsk, many Midland and some North Norwegian dialects dei, dai, di, de (Christiansen 1948: 219f., Skjekkeland 1977: 98), may, unlike subj./obj. dem, dom etc. above, represent phonological merger of the subjective and objective forms rather than generalization of a single pronoun for both cases: Indreb0 (1951: 255), similarly Seip/Saltveit (1971: 398), suggest that dei derives from peir and peim with loss of - r in the nominative peir, and loss of final -m in the originally dative peim in the West and other areas in the Middle Norwegian period. Seip/Saltveit (1971: 221), as already noted above, believe that final - r could be lost in the 3rd p. plural in speech already in Old Norwegian. Final -m was lost, according to Haugen (1976: 278), after 1400 in West Norwegian, some Tr0ndelag Norwegian, North Norwegian and Northern Swedish, compare the following (West Norwegian) examples, hestunum (the horses dat. plural) > hesto, gegnum (through) > gj0no, sum (who) > so. Forms of the 3rd p. sing. mase, honom with loss of final -m (hono(m)) also occur in areas with subj./obj. dei (cf. forms in Christiansen 1948: 220). The lack of subsequent therapeutic change, i.e. remaking of the morphological subj.-obj. distinction in the 3rd p. plural pronouns after phonological merger, is explained by Change Type[B] — see chapter 2 (2.2) — i.e. the loss of parallel noun phrase distinction and the distinction (here subj.-obj.) adequately indicated by other (here syntactic) means.

Chapter 17: Faroese The earliest surviving records from the Faroes date from about 1400. However, these are mostly written in Norwegian with some Faroese influence and it is impossible to follow in detail the earlier development of the language. The oldest texts in Faroese are of the Faroese ballads or kvœâi collected in the late eighteenth century, and by this time the language was almost identical with the Faroese of today, though some older pronoun forms and usage can be found. The phonetic transcriptions given in the paradigm below are based on Lockwood (1955), and represent broadly the pronunciation of the central area (Vagar, Streymoy, Eysturoy). 17.1.1 Neuter singular nom./acc. A form of the Faroese neuter sing, nom./acc. pronoun is recorded in approximately the seventeenth century with initial h- (M. Barnes, personal communication), / h / for earlier /Θ/ is found in Faroese in some pronouns and adverbs, and in some proper names in which the first element is a reflex of 'Thor', e.g. Thursday - hósdagur, Hósvík (from t>órsvík) (contrast Tórshavn - 'Thor's Haven' with [t]) (Barnes 1985, Haegstad 1917: 84, Haugen 1976: 266). The main explanations for these forms — see Swedish 14.3.3 and Barnes (1985) are: (a) derivation from the demonstrative hin, (b) a change p > h, or (c) analogy with kann, hon etc. with initial h-. Reinhammar (1975), in a detailed study of the Swedish forms, rejects (for Swedish) the first two explanations in favour of the third — i.e. a loss of initial p- clitically and addition of h- by analogy with han, hon — but is uncertain whether the Faroese and Swedish developments are parallel. A similar explanation (Naert 1946, Braunmüller 1980) has also been put forward for Faroese (see Barnes 1985 and Haugen 1976: 266), though Barnes, also citing among others possible parallels in Orkney and Shetland Norn, as well as in Icelandic (though with no reference to Reinhammar's 1975 study), favours p > h, and, given the 'Thursday' and Hósvík examples above, a purely morphological explanation seems problematic for Faroese. On the [t] in the Faroese pronouns tú, tad, teir etc. in contrast to the Standard Danish, Swedish and Norwegian forms du, det etc. see e.g. Haugen (1976:266) and also Hagström (1970) with references and discussion.

340

Faroese

Modern Faroese ΝΟΜ. 1

s

eg [e:] {most Suôuroy [je:])

ACC.

DAT.

GEN./POSS.

meg [me:]

maer

min etc.

(most Suôuroy

[mear]

[moYn]

taer

tin etc.

[tear]

[toYn]

2 S Τ

tú

[mje:]) teg [te:]

[tau]

(most Suôuroy

2

tygum

tygum

tygum

tygara

V

[ti:jun]

[ti:jun]

[ti:jun]

[ti:jara]

s s

hann

hann

honum

hansara [hansara]

[han:]

[han:]

[ho:nun]

(occas. in writing

r «j

M 3 S F 3 S Ν 1 Ρ

[tje:])

hon

hana

henni

[ho:n]

[heana]

[hen:i]

hans) hennara [hen:ara] (occas. in writing

hennar) ta3

ta3

tí

(tess)

[tea]

[tea]

[toy]

[tes:]

vit

okkum

okkum

okkara

[vi:t]

[ok:on]

[ok:on]

[ok:ara]

2 Ρ

tit

tykkum

tykkum

tykkara

[ti:t]

[tik:on]

[tik:un]

[tik:ara]

3

teir

teir

teimum

teirra

M

[tair]

[tair]

[taimon]

[ta(')r:a]

3

taer

taer

teimum

teirra

F

[tear]

[tear]

[taimon]

[ta(')r:a]

3

tey

tey

teimum

teirra

Ν

[tei]

[tei]

[taimon]

[taC)r:a]

Γ Γ

η J

The acute accent in Faroese orthography represents a qualitative difference (not one of length)

Faroese

341

17.1.2 Dual and plural forms In Faroese the 1st and 2nd p. dual forms have replaced the earlier 1st and 2nd p. plurals as plural pronouns — compare below the Modern Faroese 1st and 2nd p. plural pronouns with the 1st and 2nd p. dual pronouns in Old Norwegian:

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

nom. vit tit

Modern Faroese acc. okkum tykkum

dat. okkum tykkum

gen. okkara tykkara

1st p. dual 2nd p. dual

ηοτη. vit J>it

Old Norwegian acc. ok(k)r yk(k)r

dat. ok(k)r yk(k)r

gen. okkar ykkar

The same development is also found in Icelandic, compare:

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

nom. vi3 Jdì3

Modern Icelandic acc. okkur ykkur

dat. okkur ykkur

gen. okkar ykkar

And, as has already been discussed, dual forms are also fairly widespread as plurals in Norwegian. Hammershaimb, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, states that some of the original 1st and 2nd p. plural forms were still found in Faroese in the NorcSuroyar-Eysturoy dialects (Hammershaimb 1891: lxxxix):

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

nom. vaer taer

acc. os(s) —

dat. osum —

gen. osara —1

And in some parts of the NorcSuroyar and Eysturoy the dual forms vit and tit were found used as duals with the plurals vœr and tcer as plurals (Hammershaimb ibid.). To some extent, then, Faroese, like Icelandic and North Frisian, maintained a dual-plural distinction in the personal pronouns into the Modern period.

1 The 2nd p. plural oblique forms were taken from the forms of the dual, i.e. acc. and dat. tykkum, gen. tykkara.

342

Faroese

However, even at the time of writing Hammershaimb states that the plural pronouns were being replaced more and more by the forms of the dual, as used in other dialects. And in 1917 Haegstad (1917:139) stated that the plural pronouns seemed to have died out.2 At the end of the nineteenth century on the Norâuroyar and Eysturoy the old plural nominative tœr was still very general as a 2nd p. sing. V form, and in present-day Faroese the originally 2nd person plural pronoun is still used as the 2nd p. sing. V form, though the nominative has been replaced by the obj. pronoun tygum (see 17.1.3 and 17.2.3 below). In the 1st person plural the possessive vár survives in Faroese in 'high style' (Lockwood 1955: 71), and compares to the Icelandic honorific 1st person etymologically plural forms nom. vèr, obj. oss, gen./poss. vor etc. Reasons for the replacement of the plurals by dual forms in Faroese are discussed together with other Germanic languages in chapter 3. 17.1.3 2nd person singular V The 2nd p. singular V pronoun nom./acc./dat. tygum [ti:jun] developed from the old 2nd p. plural objective pronoun, compare Old Norwegian yâr, Faroese ballads ydur. The initial t- and final -um [on] are discussed in 17.3.1 and 17.2.1 below. The origins of tygum and gen./poss. tygara are further disguised by their modern written form with , where would be etymologically more appropriate (cf. Jacobsen & Matras 1961: 467): this false spelling reconstruction probably results from confusion due to homophony in Modern Faroese forms such as [si:jur] - siSur 'custom' and [si:jur] - sigur 'says' or 'victory', reconstructed in Faroese orthography with and . Writing in 1891, Hammershaimb (1891: xc) states that north of the Skopunarfj0r9ur, especially in the Streymoy dialect, the obj. form tygum/ tygun was used as a nominative in polite address to one person, but, as already mentioned, on the NorSuroyar and Eysturoy the old plural nominative tœr was still very general as a 2nd p. singular V pronoun with tygum-tygara as oblique pronouns when addressing one person. Today, teer has been completely replaced by tygum as the nom. V form of address (E. Weyhe, personal communication). — For further discussion see 17.2.3.

2 The dual pronoun vit survives as a dual in the ballads (Jacobsen & Matras 1961: 507), where the old plural forms also live on.

343

Faroese

17.2 Case 17.2.1 Acc./dat. differentiation Modern Faroese differentiates accusative and dative in the personal pronouns except in the 2nd p. sing. V and the 1st and 2nd p. plural. However, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, Hammershaimb (1891: lxxxix) states that the dialects south of the Skopunarfj0rcSur did differentiate between accusative and dative in the 1st and 2nd p. plural: acc. okur 3 tykur

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

dat. okum, okun tykum, tykun

And Jacobsen and Matras (1961: 507) give the 1st p. plural dialect forms okur, okum. Similarly in the original 1st and 2nd p. plural Hammershaimb (1891: lxxxix) states that in the Nor5uroyar-Eysturoy dialects the 1st p. plural accusative and dative forms are: acc. os(s)

dat. osum

And E. Weyhe (personal communication) notes that dative osum is known from old people in Eysturoy and Noròoyar in this century. The forms os(s), osum and tygur are archaic in Present Faroese, cf. Jakobsen and Matras (1961:511 & 467) who give the archaic forms:

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

acc. os, oss tygur

dat. osum, oss, os tygur, tygum

If these forms are compared with those in Old Norwegian it is clear that Faroese created a secondary accusative-dative distinction in the 1st and 2nd p. dual and plural pronouns by addition of the formative -urn, -un:4 Old Norwegian acc. 1st p. dual ok(k)r 2nd p. dual yk(k)r

dat. ok(k)r yk(k)r

3 Pronounced [o:gor, ti:gor] etc. 4 The -urn represents an older form which is now pronounced in Faroese with -n [-on] (Haegstad 1917: 129). In the nineteenth century the pronunciation with -to was still found on Sandoy (M. Barnes, personal communication).

344

Faroese

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

oss, ós y5r

oss, ós y3r

The -urn, -un formative was also added to the 3rd p. plural dative and was extended to the personal pronouns by analogy with the dative plural in noun phrase inflection — compare here chapter 2 — replacing the final -r where present (Haegstad 1917:139), though in the 3rd person plural accusative and dative were already differentiated. The unextended 3rd p. plural dative form teim (cf. ONw peim,}κείνη etc.) survives occasionally in writing (see Lockwood 1955:70). This Analogical extension of -um, -un led to greater regularity of morphological marking of the dative. The secondary distinction of the 1st and 2nd person dual and plural accusative-dative pronouns by the addition of a formative to one of the pronouns can be compared with similar developments (though with different formatives) in the 1st and 2nd p. plural (more rarely also dual) pronouns in some Old English, Old High German, probably also Low German, and possibly in Gothic and earlier West Scandinavian (see 3.1.2). In Faroese this distinction has since been lost in the 1st and 2nd person plural and the 2nd p. sing. V pronouns: most of the Faroes have 1st and 2nd p. plural acc./dat. okkum, tykkum with -um

1st p. plural 2nd p. plural

acc. okkum tykkum

dat. okkum tykkum

Sandoy and Skúvoy have acc./dat. okum, tykum (vit, okum, okum, okara [o:gun, o:gara]), though Haegstad (1917:139) in the early part of this century notes Sandoy still okur and tygur\ okum, tykum in acc. and dat. are also now the most usual on SuSuroy, especially among the younger generation, but in some parts of Su5uroy, and especially in older speakers, okur, tykur as acc. and dat. (as well as nom. — see below) can be heard. In Sumba, the most southern village on Suäuroy, this is still the norm (dialect information E. Weyhe, personal communication). Further, as already noted, the Faroese 2nd p. sing. V form tygum occurs as nom./acc./dat. (see also below). 17.2.2 Dialectal 1st and 2nd p. plural nom. okur, tykur According to Svabo,5 okur was used as nom. instead of vit on Sandoy and SucJuroy. Hammershaimb (1891: lxxxixf.) writes that on Suòuroy and partly

5 Jens Christian Svabo (1746-1824) — see Svabo, Dictionarium Fœroense, 1966, p. 605 — cited by E. Weyhe (personal communication).

345

Faroese

also on Skúvoy the 1st and 2nd p. plural accusatives okur and tykur are used as nominatives, and in his survey in 1961, O. Werner (personal communication) recorded okur and tykur ([o:gor, ti:gur] etc.) on SuSuroy, but not elsewhere — i.e. this development seems earlier to have been more widespread. A similar development is found in cognate forms in some Norwegian dialects where the 2nd p. plural (originally dual) oblique pronoun d0kk, dokk(er) etc. also occurs as a subjective form. 17.2.3 2nd p. sing. V nom./acc./dat. tygurn As noted above, the Faroese 2nd p. singular V pronoun tygum is an objective pronoun which has become a general form for subject and object. This is also paralleled in the cognate form in some Norwegian — Bokmâl dere, and dialectally dere, dar, d0r etc. — see Norwegian 16.2.2. Whether or not a similar explanation of Faroese tygum as nom. as Norwegian dere etc. is possible is unclear, though the homonymy in Faroese of the original 2nd p. plural nom. pronoun tœr and 3rd p. plural fem. nom./acc. tœr — and the lack of person distinction in the plural forms of the verb — should be noted, although such an explanation does not seem to account for the dialectal replacement of vit and tit by okur and tykur above. 17.2.4 3rd p. plural nom./acc. In Faroese the 3rd p. plural pronouns do not differentiate nominative and accusative. Comparison with Old Norwegian shows syncretism in the masculine nominative and accusative plural in Faroese: Old Norwegian nom. 3rd p. pi. masc. Jseir 3rd p. pl. fem. \>Ατ 3rdp.pl. nt. J^au

acc. Jsá fcäfer {jau

Modern Faroese nom. 3rd p. pl. masc. teir 3rdp.pl. fem. taer 3rdp.pl. nt. tey

acc. teir taer tey

The older form tá is found in the kvœâi, and was still used in the nineteenth century on SuSuroy (E. Weyhe personal communication, after Hammershaimb). In Faroese nouns the nominative-accusative plural distinction has been levelled by the extension of -r to the accusative (Haugen 1982:108).

346

Faroese

17.3.1 2nd person forms with initial tIn Modern Faroese all 2nd person pronouns, singular, plural, and V forms, have initial t-. Comparison with Old Norwegian shows an increase in the extent of the initial dental in the 2nd person pronouns in Faroese and Norwegian: Old Norwegian nom. acc. dat. gen. 2nd p. sing. J)ú J)ik J)ér J)in 2nd p. dual Jjit yk(k)r yk(k)r ykkar 2nd p. plural J>ér, er yär yâr ycSar

2nd p. sing. 2nd p. plural 2nd p. sing. V

Modem nom. tú tit tygum

Faroese acc. teg tykkum tygum

dat. taer tykkum tygum

gen./poss. tin tykkara tygara

In both Old Norwegian and Old Icelandic new 2nd p. dual and plural nominative forms are found with initial p- (later > í in Faroese pronouns). As already noted, di is also recorded in Shetland Norn (see Barnes 1984: 33). These forms developed enclitically through reanalysis of verb ending and pronoun, e.g. (Haugen 1976:302): komij} it > J)it (Modern Faroese tit) komij) eR > £>eR (Faroese archaic tœr) For discussion of sandhi and examples of similar developments in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages see chapter 2 — 2.5.2. In Old Norwegian — a development not seen in the Faroese pronouns — a similar development also occurred in the 1st person dual and plural nominatives to give mit and mér with initial m- through assimilation. A comparison of the Modern Faroese 2nd p. plural tykkum-tykkara and 2nd p. sing. V tygum-tygara with Old Norwegian 2nd p. dual and plural oblique yk(k)r-ykkar and yôr-yôar shows addition of initial dental also to the remainder of the 2nd person pronouns. Only in the kvœâi are the old i-less forms retained (Hammershaimb 1891: xc). Explanations for these (originally) oblique forms with initial dental — i.e. a second, later sandhi development and/or analogy with other 2nd person forms with initial dental — are discussed in Norwegian 16.1.2 above. As already stated in Norwegian, the dental has gone from originally only the singular in the 2nd person to all the 2nd person pronouns in Norwegian and Faroese, thus increasing the regularity of morphological marking of 2nd person (though initial t- also occurs in the 3rd person pronouns). This can be illustrated schematically in Faroese as follows:

Faroese Old Norwegian 2nd person I

frú

\\>it j !t>ér !

frik yk(k)r y3r

pronouns

frér

frín

yk(k)r

ykkar

y5r

Modern Faroese 2nd person

yâar pronouns

tú

teg

taer

tin

tit

tykkum

tykkum

tykkara

tygum

tygum

tygum

tygara

Chapter 18: Icelandic Old Icelandic

The oldest surviving records in Icelandic are from the second half of the twelfth century; runic inscriptions in Iceland are sparse and all date from after 1200 (Haugen 1976: 141). Noreen (1923) takes the 'classical' Old Icelandic period as approximately 1150 to 1350. 18.1.1 2nd person dual and plural nom. forms with initial pIn the oldest Icelandic records it and er are the usual 2nd p. dual and plural nom. forms. The 2nd p. dual and plural nom. pronouns pit, piò and per with initial p- developed from reanalysis of verb ending and pronoun enclitically, e.g. in the plural (Noreen 1923: §465): komejjer (you (plural) come) > kome J>ér, komejj J>er The new forms were at first rare in Icelandic, not replacing the older it and er completely until after 1350 (Noreen 1923: §464). Similar forms are found in Old Norwegian and in Faroese — see 16.1.1 and 17.3.1. For further discussion of sandhi and examples of similar developments in the personal pronouns in other Germanic languages see chapter 2 — 2.5.2.

349

Old Icelandic

Old Icelandic

ΝΟΜ.

ACC.

ek, eg, rare ék

mik, mig

mér

min

2

tú

t>ik, t>ig

J)ér

tin

3 S M

harm

harm

3 S F

hon, early also hón, later also hun

3 S Ν

tat

J) at

1 D

vit, νφ

D

2

it, φ, esp. later J>it, t i 3

1 Ρ

ver later also vaér

2

ér, esp. later J)ér

ytr

ytr

yt(u)ar

3 Ρ

Jseir (t>er)

tá

Jjeim (tem)

teir(r)a (ter(r)a)

3 Ρ F

]>ώτ (ter)

Jjaér (ter)

teim (tem)

teir(r)a (ter(r)a)

3 Ρ Ν

tau (taug)

tau (taug)

teim (]?em)

teir(r)a (ter(r)a)

1

s S

Ρ

M

hana (ιearly also hána)

DAT.

honom (early also hónom), hçnom, hçnom henne

GEN.

hans

hennar

J)í

tes(s)

ok(k)r

ok(k)r

okkar

yk(k)r

yk(k)r

ykkar

OSS, 0 S S

OSS, 0 S S

(rare ¿ss)

(rare ¿ss)

vár

An acute accent marks length

J)UÍ,

350

Icelandic

Modern Icelandic 18.2.1 Dual forms In Icelandic the originally dual 1st and 2nd person pronouns became plurals. The 1st and 2nd person originally plural pronouns survive as honorific forms. 1 The pronominal dual number distinction was not lost completely in Icelandic until into the eighteenth century (see Arthur 1964: 242, Gu5mundsson 1972: 87f.). Guâmundsson (1972: 87f.) believes that dual usage began to be lost probably after about 1600, and assumes earlier examples of the dual as plural to be errors. In the Guôbrandsbiblia, in agreement with other sources from the sixteenth century, the dual-plural distinction is largely maintained (Bandle 1956: 347f.). Runólfur Jónsson in his grammar from the seventeenth century (see Arthur 1964: 242) distinguishes fully between the dual and plural. Guâmundsson believes that the disappearance of dual usage began in southern Iceland and from there spread to other areas, according to Guâmundsson in the 1st person by about the end of the seventeenth century, early eighteenth century. For discussion of reasons for the retention of the dual forms in Icelandic and other Germanic languages see chapter 3 (3.2).

1 Though their use in Present Icelandic is limited — on the decrease in domain of the 2nd person V (etymologically plural) see also the earlier article by Jones (1965).

Modern Icelandic

ΝΟΜ. 1 s

ég [je:Y,jc(·)]

\>ύ

351

M o d e m Icelandic

ACC.

DAT.

mig mér [πιι:γ, πιιγ, m i x , [mjsir, mjsr, mjer] mi(-)l

GEN./POSS. min [mi:n]

-3u, -du, -tu [0u:, 3 γ, dy, t y ]

l>ig

J)ér

J)in

[θι:γ, θιγ]

[0js:r, θjar]

[θί:η]

hann

hann

honum

hans

[hau:, an - , an]

[han:, an·, an]

[hD:nYm]

[han's]

hún

hana

henni

hennar

[hu:n, un - ]

[ha:na, ana]

[1ιεη:ι]

[hsn:ar]

t»a8

J)a3

M:?)]

[θα(:3)]

vèr

OSS

oss

vor

[vjEir, v j e r . v j s j ]

[os:]

[os:]

[vD:r]

J)ér

y3ur

y3ur

y3ar

[eje*]

[Ι:3ΥΓ]

[I:3YF]

[i:3ar]

1 Ρ

vi3 [vi:5, vi3, viΘ, νι(·)1

okkur

okkur

okkar

[D h k:vr]

[o h k:Yr]

[D h k:ar]

2 Ρ

J>i3

ykkur

ykkur

ykkar

[θι:3, θι(:>]

[i h k:Yr, Y h k:vr]

Jjeir

\>i

2 S 3 S M 3 S F 3 S Ν 1 V 2 V

3 Ρ M 3 Ρ F 3 Ρ Ν

J)VÍ

[θ(ν)ί:]

[i h k:Yr, Y h k:Yr]

J)ess [0ES:]

[i h k:ar, Y h k:ar]

Jjeim

Jseirra

[Geiif]

[0au:]

[0ei:m]

[0eir:a]

t>aer

Jiasr

Jjeim

}>eirra

[0ai:r]

[0ai:r]

[0ei:m]

[0eir:a]

Jjau

J>au

J)eim

Jjeirra

[00y:]

[00y:]

[0ei:m]

[0eir:a]

The pronunciations are based on Einarsson (1945)

Summary and Conclusions 19.1.1 Pan-Germanic corpus This study investigates the forms and development of the personal pronouns in all the Germanic languages from the earliest records to the present day, and presents a Pan-Germanic corpus for the personal pronouns with chapters on Gothic, Older runic, English, Frisian, Dutch, Afrikaans, Langobardic, High German, Low German, Yiddish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic. Although a few detailed studies exist for the personal pronouns of individual Germanic languages or dialects, or of single developments, this volume for the first time brings together and examines the complete attested development of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages as a whole. The aim of this study was twofold: to give a comprehensive investigation of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages from the earliest records to the present day, and, from this Pan-Germanic corpus, to give a detailed analysis of the complex morphology of the personal pronouns and to put forward a comprehensive theory of change for the personal pronouns. In contrast to much of the earlier research on the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages which has often concentrated on a single language, single period, or a single development only, or viewed the pronouns in isolation, this study attempts to give a comprehensive investigation of the personal pronouns by including all the Germanic languages and their whole attested development, and by examining the pronouns within the language system in which they are spoken. The advantages of this Pan-Germanic empirical basis have proved significant — such benefits have already been seen in linguistics as a whole in the fruits of more global research of language universale and typology — and investigation of personal pronoun forms and developments in all the Germanic languages has it is believed enabled better explanation of pronoun forms and developments in individual languages, and allowed underlying and general and systematic principles of personal pronoun morphology and change to be identified more clearly.

Summary and Conclusions

353

19.1.2 The personal pronouns in connected speech A number of the findings of this study demonstrate clearly the importance of connected speech in explanation in the personal pronouns, and change in + and - accent forms is an important cause of the synchronic morphological irregularity of the pronouns. An emphasis on speech is, however, important in historical linguistics in general, not only in personal pronouns, and is as relevant diachronically to language change as it is synchronically, and a factor which must be particularly borne in mind given the written bias of historical records. A study of the personal pronouns must take account of their variation in accent and consider them in connected speech. The isolated written or citation form of a personal pronoun is in connected speech the exception rather than the rule, and investigation based on isolated pronouns is of little value in explaining the processes that operate in connected speech. The important difference between personal pronouns (and similar function words) and lexical or content words is immediately apparent in examples such as I-you-we-him versus eye-yew-wee-hymn for instance. The accent variation of the personal pronouns is shown in this study to be a major factor in a number of developments — and a factor in many cases overlooked by earlier studies. One clear example of the importance of accent variation and connected speech in explanation in the personal pronouns is the demonstration of the widespread significance of accent variation in case levelling. — What comes up time and again in much of the case levelling in the personal pronouns is not a straightforward generalization of (for example) the dative form and loss of the accusative form, but rather a functional reinterpretation of the case forms according to accent as +accent and -accent forms. This is discussed in chapters 2 and 3 with examples in the individual language chapters. A further clear example of the importance of examining the personal pronouns in connected speech is the significance of sandhi in personal pronoun change: for example German 1st and 2nd p. plural nonstandard/ dialectal mir, dir, Nynorsk me, de, Icelandic 2nd person piS, per, and Swedish 2nd person ni. Such examples illustrate that not only can a -accented form derive from an orthotone pronoun as in e.g. English [im] from him, or [3:, a] from her, but that also the reverse process of development of an orthotone pronoun from a clitic form can occur. Types of sandhi development in the personal pronouns are discussed in chapter 2 (2.5.2). A convention +accent(ed) and -accent(ed) is introduced in this study to handle accent variation in the pronouns. The use of the variables + and -accent(ed) — i.e. relative rather than absolute terms — as for example

354

Summary and Conclusions

the T - V convention also used here, is very useful in a diachronic and cross-linguistic study where absolute dichotomous terms such as accented and unaccented or inferior and superior etc. are sometimes less helpful, and this convention has indeed enabled simpler and neater explanations of a number of changes (see e.g. 2.7, 3.1, 6.6.3,14.1.2). Reference is also made to the (en-, pro-) clitic status of pronouns, for example where developments derive specifically from clitic use, as in the sandhi forms above, and to specific emphatic forms such as ikke. 19.1.3 Complex morphology Chapters 1 and 2 concentrate respectively on personal pronoun morphology and on personal pronoun change. The morphological analysis in chapter 1 examines the degree of regularity-irregularity and the complex morphological type of the pronouns. And in chapter 2 a theory of personal pronoun change is put forward which allows many of the changes in the pronouns for the first time to be explained in the same theoretical framework. The morphology of the pronouns with considerable irregularity is not accounted for by standard morphology in handbooks which generallyspeaking concentrate on regularity. This study — as well as examining personal pronoun morphology in detail — attempts to account for this complex

morphology.

A fundamental characteristic of the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages — and a central one for personal pronoun morphology — is that they are short — there are no long personal pronouns at all in the Germanic languages. A main function of the personal pronouns and indeed of other pro-forms is to abbreviate — i.e. it is the rationale of the personal pronouns to be (relatively) short — there would be little point in personal pronouns being as a rule longer than the noun phrases they substitute. Furthermore, the personal pronouns are generally among the most frequent words in the Germanic languages — for example in the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English virtually all the subjective and objective personal pronouns occur in the first one hundred most frequent words. One of the most obvious consequences of high frequency of use is that a frequent form is more likely to be short rather than long. — Both these points are important factors in the short, portmanteau morphology of the pronouns. A further distinction — confused by a number of authors on the personal pronouns — is between shortness and ambiguity — it is by no means the case that very short forms do not occur in the pronouns, compare u [y] 2nd p. V in Dutch and I [i] 2nd p. plural in Danish for example — the relevant factor here is not how short a personal pronoun is, rather whether or not it is ambiguous — i.e. a short form is not necessarily ambiguous, though of course the shorter it is or becomes, the more ambi-

Summary and Conclusions

355

guity becomes a possibility. Ambiguity as a factor in change in the personal pronouns is taken up in chapter 2. Theoretically, the morphology of the personal pronouns is analysed in this study as representing two different systematic types: either systematic in terms of marking property- connections, or systematic in terms of marking property-differences. Either on the one hand representing properties by morphological patterning, i.e. shared properties in pronouns are indicated by shared formatives, as in for example the Old English 3rd person pronouns he-heo-hit-hi etc.; or, on the other hand, rather than indicating a connection between pronouns in terms of properties shared, marking differences in property between pronouns by suppletion — i.e. a personal pronoun is distinct from other pronouns with which it shares a property or properties, as in he-she-it-they for example. This study further discusses how + and - accent forms of the same pronoun can also vary in their connection to one another. Not only can the personal pronouns show suppletive distinctions between separate pronouns (i.e. not derivable by general synchronic rule), but also separate, non-synchronically-derivable variants of the same pronoun may occur, for example (Saterlandic) Frisian 3rd p. sing. masc. hie-er, 3rd p. sing. fem. ju-ze, or 3rd p. plural jo-ze. Furthermore, the correspondence between + and - accent forms, even if synchronically phonologically derivable, is not necessarily a simple one. The reference of unaccented pronouns — i.e. to given, anaphoric or indefinite referents or antecedents rather than new, focus, or contrastive reference — can perhaps be termed agreement (and in other languages may be absent). — The fact that more information is given from context (text or situation) means that in some cases unaccented forms may maintain fewer distinctions than accented pronouns. This illustrates clearly the complexity of personal pronoun morphology, both in terms of the complex combination of formative patterning and suppletion between pronouns and — given their accent variation — the possible complex between + and - accent forms of the same pronoun. Furthermore, as also shown in the Introduction (0.1.3) and in 1.1.1, not only is the morphology of the personal pronouns formally complex, but it is also grammatically and semantically complex. As well as correspondences between form and meaning, the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages can show in their degree of suppletive morphology a correspondence between form and function. — Not only can there be a connection between form and meaning in the morphology of the personal pronouns in the sense of regular category/property correspondences, but there also can be a connection between form and function in the greater degree of suppletive morphology in the personal pronouns as a result of the factors put forward in chapter 1.

356

Summary and Conclusions

The author shows in chapter 1 that the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages-do not form a system of regular inflectional formatives, nor, however, are they all suppletive either. The occurrence of suppletive forms in the personal pronouns, as well as the fact that many must be learnt individually, although not the rule in the grammar, is not exceptional at all in language as a whole, however. The personal pronouns are primarily representative, i.e. portmanteau forms rather than active indicators of each category/property: one personal pronoun cannot usually be derived from another just as one lexeme cannot usually be predicted from another. The personal pronouns are generally (co)referring terms, both grammatically, and semantically to the external world — (in their core meaning) I = the speaker, we = a group (greater than one) to which I belong, du = the addressee, he = the male person, er = the grammatically masculine referent etc. — and therefore it is perhaps not surprising that also formally the personal pronouns show similarities both with inflectional morphology and with the lexicon. This duality is discussed further in chapter 2. 19.1.4 Personal pronoun change This study puts forward a comprehensive theory of personal pronoun change. This theory of pronominal change is based on the Pan-Germanic corpus discussed above, and views the pronouns in the language as a whole and in the context of change in the language as a whole — not simply in the pronouns in isolation — an approach which contrasts with much of the earlier research on the personal pronouns. Each theoretical point is illustrated with examples in the individual language chapters. A fundamental principle demonstrated in this thesis is the connection between category/property distinctions in the language outside the personal pronouns and those in the personal pronouns, and more specifically the connection between category/property distinction in noun phrases and in personal pronouns. This is shown to be a major explanatory factor in personal pronoun change. The connection between category/property distinctions in noun phrases and in personal pronouns is immediately apparent from a comparison of the personal pronouns in the various Germanic languages: those languages which on the whole retain more of their original noun phrase inflection, such as Modern Icelandic or New High German, generally also maintain more formal distinctions in the personal pronouns; and conversely, those languages which on the whole have lost more of their original noun phrase inflection, generally also in the personal pronouns show greater loss of formal distinctions, contrast Modern English, Afrikaans, or Modern Swedish for example. The relevance of noun phrase distinction is that syntactically personal pronouns

Summary and Conclusions

357

function like noun phrases — that the pronouns parallel or follow distinction in noun phrases is clear from their pro-form nature. Change is frequently a gradual process, not only in the spread in the language community, but also in the language itself. — A distinction may be lost in noun phrases, and (then) in some pronouns, and (possibly) eventually in all forms. Similarly for example, changes in morphological to syntactic distinction take place over a long timescale and do not represent an either-or, but rather an increase-decrease where both may be relevant. This diffusion of grammatical change is an important feature of change affecting the personal pronouns, and is one of the reasons for synchronic irregularity: change is not necessarily synchronized in all forms. Why personal pronouns often retain distinctions longer or maintain distinctions lost or absent elsewhere in the language is discussed in 2.2.4. A further distinction in the personal pronouns made by this study is between grammatical categories/properties such as (nominative, accusative, dative, genitive) case, or (masculine, feminine, neuter) grammatical gender, and natural categories/properties such as person, natural gender, and T/V, based on real-world entities. This distinction has been shown to be an important factor and a key to the understanding of a number of developments in the personal pronouns. These two types of category are not necessarily mutually exclusive — both can be relevant in personal pronouns — in the Germanic languages the selection of the 3rd person gender forms is frequently governed to varying degrees by both grammatical and natural gender. Furthermore, both types of category — for example person, case and T / V — can be indicated in the same pronoun. The relevance of these factors to change in the personal pronouns is discussed in a number of types of change put forward in 2.2-2.4 in chapter 2. As stated, these types of change are all part of the same theoretical framework. The first two types Change Type [A] and Change Type [B] involve loss (or absence) of distinction in the personal pronouns, the third Change Type [C] redistinction or new distinction, and the fourth Change Type[D] analogy. In Change Types [A] and [B] it is shown that personal pronouns cannot indefinitely uphold a grammatical category/property-based distinction alone, and loss in noun phrases means that personal pronouns are left with a grammatical category/property-based distinction which has little or no noun phrase parallel — and it is in this context that many of the developments in [A] and [B] take place. That person, T / V etc. can and do remain categories in personal pronouns even when not distinguished in noun phrases or even elsewhere in the language at all can be explained by their real-world nature — they are not dependent on distinction made in noun phrases.

358

Summary and Conclusions

It cannot be expected, indeed the evidence from the personal pronouns shows, that a grammatical category/property-based distinction lost in noun phrases will be maintained indefinitely in the personal pronouns — grammatical distinctions lost in noun phrases are eventually lost in personal pronouns — however some real world-based category/property distinctions, such as person or natural gender distinctions, may be maintained in pronouns even if absent from noun phrases to facilitate clearer reference. (T/V, on the other hand, is socially deictic.) — Note the occurrence of other real world-based categories/properties in pronouns to facilitate reference: in the Germanic languages personal/nonpersonal and animate I inanimate often come under the heading of natural gender, and proximity is a category in this-that. However, this does not mean that all real world-based categories/properties are obligatory in personal pronouns: that also real world-based distinctions can be lost is shown by the loss of the dual as an inflectional property in the language as a whole including the pronouns, and also the loss of T / V distinction in the pronouns in English. Maintenance of clear reference — both grammatical and real world — is taken up further in Change Type [C] in discussion of ambiguity as a factor in change in the personal pronouns. Examples of Change Type [A] where category/property distinction is lost or obsolescent from the language as a whole are the loss of the dual number, and the loss of gender distinction in the 3rd person plural in many of the Germanic languages. These category/property distinctions are no longer expressed inflectionally, and, unlike Change Type [B], the distinction is not made by other means. A number of developments in the personal pronouns are accounted for by [B] where a distinction is adequately indicated outside the personal pronouns, for example by word order or by verb morphology: this is the case for example with subj.-obj. or nom.-acc.-dat. distinction in personal pronouns in Germanic languages where morphological nom.-acc.-dat. distinction has been lost in noun phrases and subject and (direct, indirect) object are indicated syntactically rather than inflectionally. In languages which maintain some noun phrase nom.-acc.-dat. indication, both noun phrase or pronominal inflection and syntactic indication of case can be relevant. A further example of [ B ] is where person/number are indicated by verb morphology: for example in High German, levelling of 3rd p. sing, fem. and 3rd p. plural siu, sie, sia, sio etc. to (NHG) sie was distinguished (in the nominative) by verb morphology, compare also (Modern) Dutch zij and West Frisian hja/sy, but contrast for example English she and they, nonstandard/dialectal Dutch 3rd p. plural hun, hullie, zullie etc. (Afrikaans hulle), and Swedish 3rd p. plural dom, where subsequent restoration of pro-

Summary and Conclusions

359

nominal (3rd person) sing.-plural distinction may be explained by Change Type [C]. With loss of a distinction in Change Types [A] and [B] it is shown how a number of types of development can take place in the personal pronouns — furthermore, this study demonstrates how these apparently disparate developments can in fact be connected by the same underlying theory. Types of development in the personal pronouns in Change Types [A] and [B] are: Functional merger of forms, such as functional merger of dual and plural forms in a number of the Germanic languages; Loss of form(s), such as (subsequent) loss of dual forms in a number of the Germanic languages, or loss of the 1st and 2nd p. sing, accusative forms in much of West Germanic, e.g. English mec, âeé; If phonological merger no subsequent therapeutic change, such as English 2nd p. subj./obj. ye/you, or Nynorsk 3rd p. plural subj./obj. dei\ and Functional reinterpretation — a major feature of change in the personal pronouns — such as originally dual forms as plurals in a number of the Germanic languages. A major feature of change in the personal pronouns is Functional reinterpretation of personal pronoun forms to a new use. Functional reinterpretation is clear in cross-linguistic comparison of pronoun forms which may differ syntactically, semantically or pragmatically for example — Do you still smoke? Me?! — *Rauchst euch immer noch? Mir?!, or Könnten Sie mir sagen . . ? — *Could they tell me . . ? One example of functional reinterpretation here as illustration (and a counterexample to the unidirectionality hypothesis in grammaticalization theory) are the English 3rd person singular gender forms: English no longer has a grammatical masc.-fem.-neuter distinction — the personal pronouns he-she-it (him-her etc.) are reflexes of this, but their use is governed by different (natural rather than grammatical gender) criteria. A further example (and counterexample to unidirectionality) already mentioned is functional reinterpretation of originally case forms according to accent, where the original (case) function of the pronouns is lost or obsolescent, and the pronoun case forms are reinterpreted as + and - accent forms. Functional reinterpretation in the personal pronouns is discussed in chapter 2 (2.7). Loss of distinction in the personal pronouns as in Change Types [A] and [B] is by no means the only type of development in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. The author argues the importance of therapeutic change in the personal pronouns, and in Change Type [C] the importance of ambiguity as a factor in change in the personal pronouns is discussed. It is shown that factors which determine whether homonymie forms are ambiguous are whether or not a category/property is still valid, and whether or not, or to what degree the distinction is indicated by other means — i.e. factors also relevant in Change Types [A] and [B], Unlike 'homonymy', i.e. formal sameness, which is a fixed concept,

360

Summary and Conclusions

ambiguity is a variable which allows diachronic differences or differences from language to language, such as the significance of word order or extent of verb inflection for example, to be accounted for; and further for example, for the possibility of category/property hierarchy, and for accented-unaccented use. Syntactically as well as semantically forms such as threw(y)¡through(P), down(P, V)/down(N), blue(A)/blew(V), an{det)/ i4nne(N), and indeed I/eye/aye, you/yew/ewe, we/wee, him/hymn etc. are unlikely to occur in the same context and to result in a homophonic clash — these forms, although formally alike, are on other levels separate and their formal identity thus disambiguated. Further, as e.g. bough-bow or veil-vale illustrate, ambiguity also depends on the frequency of use of homonymie forms — a factor already mentioned above as significant in the personal pronouns — if homonymie forms are comparatively infrequent then ambiguity is unlikely to be a problem, even if they can occur in identical contexts. — In the small word class of the highly frequent personal pronouns, however, where forms with very similar functions and reference occur frequently in similar or identical contexts, ambiguity is much more likely to be a hindrance to comprehension. As with the other types of change put forward in this study, in Change Type [C] developments on the surface as diverse as for example Case form change of oblique pronouns as subj. forms, such as Swedish and Norwegian 3rd p. plural dom, dem etc., Number form change of dual pronouns as plural forms, e.g. Icelandic ¡>iâ etc., Faroese tit etc., Norwegian dykk etc., and German es, (g)it etc., Generalization of a distinct variant such as Continental Scandinavian 3rd p. plural di etc., Innovatory plural forms such as English 2nd p. plural yous(e), y'all, Dutch jullie etc., and Borrowing as English 3rd p. plural they, West Frisian 3rd person sy — and the problematic English she — may be explained by the same underlying theoretical framework. Morphologically, relatively few of the developments in Change Type [C] show therapeutic change by addition of regular inflection. One reason for this is that — as pointed out above and discussed in chapter 1 — often the personal pronouns have comparatively little regular, consistent inflectional pattern and consequently often there is very little inflectional pattern in the personal pronouns to follow. Furthermore, there is often little or no appropriate noun phrase pattern to follow either as some real-world distinctions (such as person) made in personal pronouns are absent in noun phrases, and, in ambiguity in nominative singular forms, the nominative singular in noun phrase inflection may be unmarked/ markerless in case, number and/or gender. However — as shown by for example English you-s(e) (plural) (or it-s — gen./poss.) — where a pattern does exist, changes in the pronouns may follow this pattern. Rather than by regular inflection, a number of the changes in [ C j show a type of therapeutic change akin to the lexical replacement discussed by Gilliéron

Summary and Conclusions

361

on the basis of the data of the Atlas linguistique de la France — i.e. by a complete change of form — though in this case a pronominal form. Where in Gilliéron's examples therapeutic change by suppletion is by lexical replacement, or in English go-went by verbal replacement, in the personal pronouns developments in [C] which show therapeutic change by suppletion show pronominal replacement — i.e. distinct forms are taken from the pronouns themselves. Not all therapeutic change in the pronouns in [C] involves the use of redundant forms for repair; however, use of redundant forms is seen in oblique pronouns as subj. forms, in dual pronouns as plural forms, in generalization of distinct variant forms, and in the borrowing of foreign or dialect forms. The systematicness of suppletive morphology in that forms are distinct from those with which they share a category/property or categories/ properties — as opposed to marking correspondences as with patterning morphology — is discussed in chapter 1, and in Change Type [C] in chapter 2 it is argued how a number of developments because of ambiguity — i.e. a lack of adequate distinction — can and do result in suppletion. This thus demonstrates one of the ways in which suppletive morphology in the personal pronouns can arise. The systematicness of developments in [G] and the frequent lack of morphological parallel show how developments which result in suppletive distinctions cannot simply be labelled 'irregular'. The author further argues that developments in [C] are closely related to and overlap with Change Type [D] — [C] represents developments in the pronouns because of ambiguity in the language system, and [D] — analogy — represents regularization in the pronouns to the language system on a pronominal or noun phrase pattern. Analogy in the pronouns is discussed immediately after [C] in 2.4. Analogy accounts for a considerable number of developments in the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. Types of development in the personal pronouns are: Analogical extension through Analogy with noun phrase inflection, as in German ihn-en, or English you-s(e), or Analogy with pronoun forms, such as Old English ûsic, ëowic, High German unsih, iuuih and Low German ûsik, unsik, jük, jüch by analogy with mec, dec etc.; Analogical replacement, as in the replacement in Continental West Germanic languages of the 3rd p. masc. and neuter sing, genitive pronoun is, es by sin on the pattern min-din-sin\ and Possible analogy of a pronominal phonotactic pattern, which may have been a factor in reanalysis of consonantal verb endings as part of the pronoun in (some) German and Scandinavian vowel-initial 2nd p. plural and dual forms. — Such Change Type [D] developments demonstrate clearly how morphological patterning in the pronouns can be important.

362

Summary and Conclusions

Socially-motivated change in the personal pronouns is discussed in chapter 2 (2.6) with examples in the individual language chapters. Because of their use in address, the 2nd person pronouns have been termed the most personal pronoun, and the importance of social factors in the changes discussed is demonstrated by the fact that many involve 2nd person forms. The terms Τ and V (Brown & Gilman 1960) are used as abbreviations for socially-differentiated forms of address; however, Τ and V (from Latin tu and vos) are not wholly accurate, as 3rd person forms — such as German earlier 3rd p. sing. Er, or Present German 3rd p. plural Sie or Danish De — also occur as pronouns of address. Similarly the 1st person pluralis majestatis is not accurately labelled Ύ'. Further, T / V is just one aspect of pragmatic variation in pronominal usage — it is not only in address that T/V-like criteria are relevant — in the 1st person the pluralis majestatis already mentioned, or the use of us as singular in requests in colloquial English for example (Do xis a favour, Lend us a tenner etc.); and in the 3rd person, in Luxemburgish for example as feminine singular pronouns hatt and si differ semantically: si is used as a pronoun for a woman not known by the speaker and/or an older woman. Pragmatic constraint as opposed to variation of pronominal usage can be illustrated by Swedish, where until comparatively recently title and name were used in place of, or in avoidance of pronominal address; and in 3rd person reference note the constraints in using 3rd person pronouns, especially she, to refer to a person in their presence, if their social prestige or degree of respect is very high, even in their absence. Possible types of socially-motivated change in the personal pronouns are: Loss of form(s), as in English thou (thee-thine, thy) and Dutch du (ιdi-dijns); 2nd p. plural form —» singular (only), as in Standard Dutch jij (jou-jouw) and West Frisian jo {jowes)\ New plural form, as in Dutch jullie and English regional y'all, yous(e)\ New plural form from dual, as in Icelandic piâ etc.; and Title as personal pronoun, as possibly in Dutch 2nd person V u from Uwe Edelheid. In 2.8 sources of new personal pronoun forms are discussed. Types of development are: From a demonstrative, as in the Scandinavian 3rd p. sing, neuter and 3rd p. plural pronouns, some Frisian dät, dat, dât etc., and Afrikaans dit for example, and also outside the Germanic languages; From a reflexive, as in the replacement in Continental West Germanic languages of the 3rd p. masc. and neuter sing, genitive pronoun is, es by sin; Borrowing, loan translation, as in English they (them-their) from Scandinavian, and probably West Frisian sy from Dutch; Compounds - blends, as in English you + all > y'all, or Dutch -I- liede 'people' > jullie etc.; and From a title, as possibly in Dutch 2nd person V u, and also outside the Germanic languages in Spanish usted from vuestra merced for example.

Summary and Conclusions

363

19.1.5 Further research A number of the conclusions of this volume may have wider validity to the study of pronoun systems and morphological change. One question is to what extent the factors discussed and put forward in this study for the pronouns can be applied to other forms, and whether or not they are also applicable to comparable paradigms outside the Germanic languages — the 'irregularity' of the pronouns and indeed of other core forms in many languages suggesting some common factors. One of the central areas of this thesis is the examination of complex irregular pronoun morphology. This study may thus have possible wider relevance to morphological theory and the study of morphological change in general, and in particular to other forms and paradigms whose morphology is similarly complex. In addition, a comprehensive examination of pronoun morphology and change in the documented period of (the Germanic) languages may be important in (re)examining preliterary reconstructed pronoun forms and developments. Language change should essentially be viewed as the chronological axis of variation in human language, which also includes three-dimensionally a geographical and social axis. Change is a universal of human language, and any model of human language which does not take (chronological, geographical and social) variation into account is by definition incomplete. The aim of research in language change must be theoretically towards a universal theory of language change valid for all languages, and empirically in a global perspective. Although some research has been undertaken on pronoun systems in a global perspective, this volume represents a detailed study of one group of languages and may thus contribute towards a wider understanding of pronoun systems as a whole. General and systematic principles are only clear and testable through cross-linguistic comparison, and this is as true for the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages as it is for explanation in language change as a whole. Nevertheless it must be emphasized that there is considerable variation of pronoun systems in languages of the world, and while it may well be a general property of natural languages that they possess devices for referring to entities mentioned elsewhere in or involved in the discourse — i.e. that pro-forms or pronominalization of some kind is universal — and language change as noted is of course a fundamental universal — individual pronoun forms, their usage and their meaning vary considerably in the world's languages, so universal morphological characteristics or universal factors in pronominal change require a great deal of further research. Werner (1991: 396) states 'Instead of postulating a basic uniformity in language which can be "disturbed" . . . , we should look for a consistent and comprehensive theory of language change that explains this non-uniform behaviour'. — It is this kind of consistent and comprehensive theory of

364

Summary and Conclusions

language change — for the personal pronouns in the Germanic languages — that represents one of the main contributions of this study.

Bibliography Ahlgren, P. (1978) Tilltalsordet ni. Dess semantik och användning i historiskt perspektiv, dissertation, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International (= Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Philologiae Scandinavicae Upsaliensia 12). Ahlmann, G. (1991) Zur Geschichte des Frühneuhochdeutschen in Schleswig-Holstein im Spiegel von Gelegenheitsdichtungen des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, dissertation, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International (= Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Germanistica Upsaliensia 31). Aitken, A. J. (1984) 'Scottish Accents and Dialects', in P. Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 94-114. Altmann, H. (1984) 'Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart', Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51, 191211.

Andersen, H. (1969) 'Pronomenet jeg', in K. Hyldgaard-Jensen & S. Steffensen (eds), Kopenhagener germanistische Studien, I, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, pp. 244-255. Anderson, P. M. (1987) A Structural Atlas of English Dialects, Beckenham: Croom Helm. Andersson, E. (1979/80) 'Balansen mellan grammatiskt och semantiskt genus i svenskan', Folkmàlsstudier 26, 27-48. ANS (1984) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, ed. by G. Geerts et al., Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, Leuven: Wolters. Antonsen, Ε. H. (1975) A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions, Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Sprachstrukturen Reihe A, Historische Sprachstrukturen 3). Ârhammar, Ν. (1968) 'Friesische Dialektologie', in L. E. Schmitt (ed.), Germanische Dialektologie. Festschrift für W. Mitzka zum 80. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden (= Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung. Beiheft, Neue Folge 5), pp. 264-317. Ârhammar, Ν. (1975) Die Sprachen der Insel Föhr, Münsterdorf: Hansen & Hansen. Arthur, A. R. (1964) The Icelandic Language as Described by Runólfur Jónsson in his 'Grammaticae Islandicae Rudimenta' (1651), dissertation, University of North Carolina. Awedyk, W. (1974) 'Middle English she', Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 6,125-27. Bahnick, K. R. (1973) The Determination of Stages in the Historical Development of the Germanic Languages by Morphological Criteria, The Hague: Mouton (= Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 139). Bandle, O. (1956) Die Sprache der Guâbrandsbiblia, Copenhagen: Munksgaard (Bibliotheca Arnamagnaeana 17). Bandle, O. (1973) Die Gliederung des Nordgermanischen, Basel, Stuttgart (= Beiträge zur nordischen Philologie 1). Barbour, S. & Stevenson, P. (1990) Variation in German. A Critical Approach to German Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnes, M. (1984) 'Norn', Scripta Islandica. Isländska sällskapets àrsbok 35, 23-42. Barnes, M. (1985) Ά Note on Faroese /θ/ > /h/', Scripta Islandica. Isländska sällskapets àrsbok 36, 46-50.

366

Bibliography

Barry, M. V. (1984) 'Manx English', in P. Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167-177. Baugh, A. C. & Cable, T. (1978) A History of the English Language, 3rd ed., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Behaghel, O. (1897) Die Syntax des Heliand, Prague & Wien: Tempsky/Leipzig: Freytag. Behaghel, O. (1928) Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 5th ed., Berlin & Leipzig: De Gruyter (= Grundrifi der germanischen Philogie 3). Behrmann, A. (1879) Die Pronomina personalia und ihr Gebrauch im Hêliand, dissertation, Marburg. Beito, 0 . T. (1970) Nynorsk grammatikk. Lyd- og ordlœre, Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Bellmann, G. (1989) 'Zur Metakommunikation der Pronomenverwendung', in E. Koller et al. (eds), Bayerisch-österreichische Dialektforschung. Würzburger Arbeitstagung 1986, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 335-351. Bellmann, G. (1990) Pronomen und Korrektur. Zur Pragmalinguistik der persönlichen Referenzformen, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Bendsen, B. (1860) Die Nordfriesische Sprache nach der Moringer Mundart, Leiden: E. J. Brill, reprinted by M. Sandig, Wiesbaden 1973. Bennike, V. & Kristensen, M. (1898-1912) Kort over de danske folkemâl, Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel-Nordisk Forlag. Beranek, F. J. (1965) Westjiddischer Sprachatlas, Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag. Bergmann, G. (1990) 'Upper Saxon', in Russ 1990a: 290-312. Berteloot, A. (1984) Bijdrage tot een klankatlas van het dertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands, Ghent: Secretariaat van de koninklijke academie voor nederlandse taal- en letterkunde. Bertrang, A. (1921) Grammatik der Areler Mundart, Brussels: Hayez. Besch, W. et al. (eds) (1983) Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung Π, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter (= Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1.2). Besch, W. et al. (eds) (1985) Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung II, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter (= Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2.2). Bethge, R. et al. (1900) Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte, ed. by F. Dieter, Leipzig: Reisland. Birnbaum, S. A. (1979) Yiddish. A Survey and a Grammar, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bischoff, K. (1962) 'Zu mnd. ûs und uns', in W. Schröder (ed.), Festschrift für Ludwig Wolff zumlO. Geburtstag, Neumünster: K. Wachholtz, pp. 55-72. Björkhagen, I. (1966) Modern Swedish Grammar, 9th ed., Svenska Bokförlaget/ Norstedts. Bo, L.-L. de (1892) Westvlaamsch idioticon, ed. by J. Samyn, Ghent: Siffer. Bodorff, J. V. (1875) Bidrag tili kännedomen om folkspráket pá Oland, Stockholm. Boelens, K. & Van der Woude, G. (1955) Dialect-atlas van Friesland (= RND 15). Boelens, K. et al. (1990) The Frisian Language, Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Provincial Government of Friesland. Bogren, P. (1921) Torpmälets ljud- och formlära, Stockholm. Bolinger, D. L. (1948) 'On Defining the Morpheme', Word 4/1,18-23. Bolinger, D. L. (1950) 'Rime, Assonance, and Morpheme Analysis', Word 6/2, 117136. Borchert, M. et al. (1987) Wi lear Halunder. Helgoländisches Lehrbuch, Heligoland (= Nordfriisk Instituut 85). Bourcier, G. (1978) Histoire de la langue anglaise du Moyen Age à nos jours, Paris: Bordas.

Bibliography

367

Bradley, H. (1908) The Making of English, London: Macmillan h Co. Braun, F. et al. (1986) Anredeforschung. Kommentierte Bibliographie zur Soziolinguistik der Anrede, Tübingen: Narr (= Ars Linguistica 16). Braune, W./Ebbinghaus, E. A. (1981) Gotische Grammatik, 19th ed., Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte A. 1). Braune, W./Eggers, H. (1987) Althochdeutsche Grammatik, 14th ed., Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte A. 5). Braunmüller, K. (1980) 'Bifurcating Changes in Morphology: The Case of Demonstrative Pronouns in West Nordic', in E. Hovdhaugen (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, pp. 223-32. Bree, C. van (1987) Historische grammatica van het Nederlands, Dordrecht: Foris. Bremer, O. (1928) 'Urgerm. Satzbetonung im Friesischen', Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 52, 309-310. Brink, L. et al. (1991) Den Store Danske Udtaleordbog, Munksgaards ordb0ger. Britton, D. (1991) O n Middle English she, sho: A Scots Solution to an English Problem', Nowele 17, 3-51. Br0ndum-Nielsen, J. (1950) Gammeldansk grammatik i sproghistorisk fremstilling, I, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: J. H. Schultz Forlag. Br0ndum-Nielsen, J. (1951) Dialekter og dialektforskning, 2nd ed., Copenhagen: J. H. Schultz Forlag. Br0ndum-Nielsen, J. (1965) Gammeldansk grammatik i sproghistorisk fremstilling, V, Pronominer, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960) 'The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity', in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 253-76. Bruch, R. (1953) Grundlegung einer Geschichte des Luxemburgischen, Luxembourg: P. Linden (= Publications littéraires et scientifiques du Ministère de l'Education nationale 1). Bruch, R. (1973) Précis populaire de Grammaire Luxembourgeoise/Luxemburger Grammatik in volkstümlichem Abriß, 3rd ed., Luxembourg (= Beiträge zur Luxemburgischen Sprach- und Volkskunde 10). Bruckner, W. (1895) Die Sprache der Langobarden, Strasbourg: Trübner (= Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der germanischen Völker 75). Brunner, K. (1948) Abriss der mittelenglischen Grammatik, 2nd ed., Halle: Niemeyer (— Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte C. Abrisse 6). Brunner, K. (1965) Altenglische Grammatik, 3rd ed., Tübingen: Niemeyer. Bucht, T. (1970) Spráket i Härnösand, Stockholm (— Skrifter utgivna av Nämnden för svensk spràkvàrd 25. Svenskt rikssprâk i regionala skiftningar 3). Buma, W. J. et al. (eds) (1977) Westerlauwerssches Recht 1. Jus municipale Frisonum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (= Altfriesische Rechtsquellen. Texte und Ubersetzungen 6). Bynon, T. (1977) Historical Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, A. (ed.) (1948) Gysbert Japicx: The Oxford Text of Four Poems, Bolsward: Osinga (= Utjefte fan de Fryske Akademy). Campbell, A. (1959) Old English Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992) Current Morphology, London & New York: Routledge. Chiat, S. (1986) 'Children's Pronouns', in Wiesemann 1986: 381-404. Christiansen, H. (1948) Norske dialekter, ΙΠ, Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum. Christiansen, H. (1956) 'Me - vi i nynorsk', in S. Aakjaer et al. (eds), Festskrift til Peter Skautrup, Ârhus: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 175-181. Clyne, M. (1984) Language and Society in the German-speaking Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colliander, C. A. (1868) Bidrag tili kännedomen om Halländska Allmogemálet, Lund.

368

Bibliography

Comrie, Β. (1988) 'Linguistic Typology', in F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, I, Linguistic Theory: Foundations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 447-461. Coninck, R. Η. B. de (1970) Groot uitspraakwoordenboek van de Nederlandse taal, Antwerp: De Nederlandse Boekhandel. Cordes, G. (1983) 'Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik', in Cordes & Möhn 1983: 209237. Cordes, G. & Möhn, D. (eds) (1983) Handbuch zur niederdeutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Berlin: E. Schmitt. Cowan, H. K. J. (1961) 'Esquisse d'une grammaire fonctionnelle du vieuxnéerlandais (vieux bas-francique) (d'après le psautier carolingien de Wachtendonck)', Leuvense bijdragen 50, 2-54. Croft, W. (1990) Typology and Universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1991) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 3rd ed., Oxford: Blackwell. Daan, J. (1990) 'The Pronouns of Address in Dutch as a Mirror of the Relationships between People', Canadian Journal of Netherlands Studies 11, 31-35. Dahlstedt, K.-H. (1956 & 57) Inledning till Pitemdlet. Särtryck ur Norrbotten. Dal, I. (1960) 'Entwicklungstendenzen im germanischen Kasussystem', Studia Germanica Gandensia 2,125-137. Dal, I. (1983) 'Altniederdeutsch und seine Vorstufen', in Cordes & Möhn 1983: 69-97. d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., (ed.) (1961) Pe liflade ant te passiun of Seinte Iuliene, (= Early English Text Society 248). Davidson, H. (1990) Han hon den. Genusutvecklingen i svenskan under nysvensk tid, Lund: Lund University Press (= Lundastudier i nordisk sprâkvetenskap A 45). Deprez, Κ. & Geerts, G. (l980) 'Pronominale problemen: GE, U en JE in Duffel-Lier (K293-K291)', Leuvense bijdragen 69, 257-381. Devos, M. (1986) 'Het persoonlijk voornaamwoord 2e pers. enk. in het Westvlaams: geografie en historiek', in M. Devos & J. Taeldeman (eds), Vruchten van z'n akker, Ghent, pp. 167-189. Dickhoff, E. (1913) 'Der Unterschied im Gebrauch von gotisch uns und unsis', Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 54 (Neue Folge 42), 466474. Diehn, O. (1901) Die Pronomina im Frühmittelenglischen, Heidelberg: Winter (= Kieler Studien zur englischen Philologie 1). Dieth, E. (1955) 'Hips. A Geographical Contribution to the "she" Puzzle', English Studies 36, 209-217. Donaldson, B. C. (1983) Dutch. A Linguistic History of Holland and Belgium, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. DSA: Deutscher Sprachatlas, F. Wrede, W. Mitzka & Β. Martin, Marburg 1927-56. DSA (1956): Deutscher Sprachatlas, F. Wrede, W. Mitzka & Β. Martin, Einführung, 22. & 23. Lieferung, Marburg: Ν. G. Elwert Verlag. Duinhoven, Α. M. (1988) Middelnederlandse syntaxis, synchroon en diachroon, I, De naamwoordgroep, Leiden: Nijhoff. Duncan, P. (1972) 'Forms of the Feminine Pronoun in Modern English Dialects', in M. Wakelin (ed.), Patterns in the Folk Speech of the British Isles, London: Athlone Press, pp. 182-200. Durrell, M. (1979) 'Some Problems in the Morphology of the German Noun Phrase', Transactions of the Philological Society, 66-88. Durrell, M. (1990) 'Westphalian and Eastphalian', in Russ 1990a: 59-90.

Bibliography

369

Durrell, M. & Davies, W. V. (1990) 'Hessian', in Russ 1990a: 210-240. DWB: Deutsches Wörterbuch, J. & W. Grimm, Leipzig, Berlin/Göttingen 1854-1971. Dykstra, Κ. (1977) Lyts hânboek fan de Fryske literatuer, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: De Tille (= Fryske Akademy 517). Eerzamen, F. den (1937/38) 'Over de voornaamwoorden in het Goerees', Onze taaltuin 6,132-137 & 154-162. Eggenberger, J. (1961) Das Subjektspronomen im Althochdeutschen. Ein syntaktischer Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des deutschen Schriftums, Chur: Selbstverlag J. Eggenberger. Eggers, H. (1985) 'Soziokulturelle Voraussetzungen und Sprachraum des Frühneuhochdeutschen', in Besch et al. 1985:1295-1305. Ehrentraut, H. G. (1849) 'Mittheilungen aus der Sprache der Wangeroger', in H. G. Ehrentraut (ed.), Friesisches Archiv, reprinted by M. Sandig, Wiesbaden 1968. Ehrismann, G. (1901) 'Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter', Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 1,117-149. Eichhoff, J. (1978) Wortatlas der deutschen Umgangssprachen, II, Bern & Munich: Francke. Einarsson, S. (1945) Icelandic. Grammar, Texts, Glossary, Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Eklund, B. (1982) ' "Jag sag han." Om objektsformer av personliga pronomen i nordsvenskan', in C.-C. Elert & S. Fries (eds), Nordsvenska. Sprákdrag i övre Norrlands tätorter, Umeâ, pp. 161-173 (= Acta Universitatis Umensis 49). Elert, C.-C. (1965) 'Graphs for the Morphological Relations in the Personal and Possessive Pronouns in Swedish', in S. Allén (ed.), Förhandlingar vid sammankomst för att dryfta fragor rörande svenskans beskrivning, III, Gothenburg, pp. 29-39. Elert, C.-C. (1970) Ljud och ord i svenskan, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Elmevik, L. (1977) 'De-dem-dom. En sprâkvârdsfrâga och dess historiska bakgrund', Meddelanden frán Institutionen för nordiska sprák vid Stockholms Universitet 2, 33-44. Endepols, H. J. E. (1926) 'Het pronomen doe te Maastricht', De nieuwe taalgids 20, 149. Entjes, H. (1970) Die Mundart des Dorfes Vriezenveen in der niederländischen Provinz Overijssel, Groningen. Epkema, E. (1824) Woordenboek op de gedichten en verdere geschriften van Gijsbert Japicx, Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: J. Proost. Falk, H. & Torp, A. (1900) Dansk-norskens syntax i historisk fremstilling, Olso: Aschehoug. Faltings, V. F. (1975) Liar fering-öömrang, Ödersem/Utersum. Finkenstaedt, T. (1963) You und thou. Studien zur Anrede im Englischen, Berlin: De Gruyter (= Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, Neue Folge 10 (134)). Flom, G. T. (1908) 'Contributions to the History of English I. The Origin of the Pronoun "she" ', Journal of English and Germanic Philology 7,115-25. Flydal, L. (1955) 'Eg og meg og deg og dokker', M aal og Minne, 81-84. Foerste, W. (1950) Untersuchungen zur westfälischen Sprache des 9. Jahrhunderts, Marburg: Simons Verlag (= Münstersche Forschungen 2). Foerste, W. (1957) 'Geschichte der niederdeutschen Mundarten', in W. Stammler (ed.), Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß, 2nd ed., I, Berlin: E. Schmidt, columns 1729-1898. Foerste, W. (1960) Einheit und Vielfalt der niederdeutschen Mundarten, Münster: Aschendorff (= Schriften zur Heimatkunde und Heimatpflege 4).

370

Bibliography

Fokkema, Κ. (1944) 'De nominatief jo een interne Friese ontwikkeling', Tijdschrift voor nederlandse taal- en letterkunde 63,104-115. Fokkema, K. (1948) Beknopte Friese spraakkunst, Groningen: J. B. Wolters. Fokkema, K. (1969) 'De historie van enkele pronomina in het Westerlauwers Fries', in K. Fokkema, Nei wider kirnen. Kar ιit syn forsprate skriften, Grins/Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff ( - Fryske Akademy 351), pp. 136-143. Fokkema, K. & Van der Hoek, J. J. Spahr (1967) Taelatlas fan de Waiden. Linguistic Atlas of the Eastern part of Friesland, Assen: Van Gorcum. Forchheimer, P. (1953) The Category of Person in Language, Berlin: De Gruyter. Förster, M. (1941) 'Die spätae. deiktische Pronominalform p