AE prefix a-
Joachim Pense
dialects (and older variants of English, but I'm not sure).
Examples:
Lorretta Lynn (Song title):
Don't come home a-drinkin' (with lovin' on your mind)
Don Martin: "Out West": "Am I to understand that when your big toe
starts a-hurtin' it's a sign of good luck, mister?"
What's the story of this a-? Is it only used with the -ing-form? What's
its meaning? Maybe perfective and/or inchoative aspect (as in the examples?)
Joachim
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> There is a verbal prefix a- that I relate to American English regional
> dialects (and older variants of English, but I'm not sure).
It's not particularly American. Maybe it's more common in AmE, but I've
not nticed that it is.
>
> Examples:
>
> Lorretta Lynn (Song title):
> Don't come home a-drinkin' (with lovin' on your mind)
>
> Don Martin: "Out West": "Am I to understand that when your big toe
> starts a-hurtin' it's a sign of good luck, mister?"
>
> What's the story of this a-? Is it only used with the -ing-form?
As far as I know, yes.
> What's its meaning? Maybe perfective and/or inchoative aspect (as in
> the examples?)
I think it's just for euphony.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
A Frog He Would A-Wooing Go:
http://www.landofnurseryrhymes.co.uk/htm_pages/A%20Frog%20He%20Would%20A-Wooing%20Go.htm
The nearest sense in the OED is:
a-, prefix1
With verbs, implying motion onward or away from a position; hence
(originally with verbs of motion) adding intensity.
There are no quotations.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Joachim Pense
Is the a- productive in modern standard-variants of English?
Joachim
Default User
news:8ie56h...@mid.individual.net...
A popular sticker from years back, "If this van's a-rockin', don't come
a-knockin'".
Brian
--
Day 625 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>
>Is the a- productive in modern standard-variants of English?
It is not used frequently.
Joachim Pense
Am 22.10.2010 22:10, schrieb Peter Duncanson (BrE):
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:35:30 +0200, Joachim Pense<sn...@pense-mainz.eu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is the a- productive in modern standard-variants of English?
>
> It is not used frequently.
>
>
What do people like Loretta Lynn or Don Martin in his Wild-West parody
want to express when they use this prefix? "Add intensity", as in your
OED quote?
Joachim
Emungo
> Am 22.10.2010 21:20, schrieb Peter Duncanson (BrE):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:58:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
> >> On 2010-10-22 20:39:26 +0200, Joachim Pense<s...@pense-mainz.eu> said:
>
> >>> There is a verbal prefix a- that I relate to American English regional
> >>> dialects (and older variants of English, but I'm not sure).
>
> >> It's not particularly American. Maybe it's more common in AmE, but I've
> >> not nticed that it is.
>
> >>> Examples:
>
> >>> Lorretta Lynn (Song title):
> >>> Don't come home a-drinkin' (with lovin' on your mind)
>
> >>> Don Martin: "Out West": "Am I to understand that when your big toe
> >>> starts a-hurtin' it's a sign of good luck, mister?"
>
> >>> What's the story of this a-? Is it only used with the -ing-form?
>
> >> As far as I know, yes.
>
> >>> What's its meaning? Maybe perfective and/or inchoative aspect (as in
> >>> the examples?)
>
> >> I think it's just for euphony.
>
> > A Frog He Would A-Wooing Go:
>
> > The nearest sense in the OED is:
>
> > a-, prefix1
>
> > With verbs, implying motion onward or away from a position; hence
> > (originally with verbs of motion) adding intensity.
>
> > There are no quotations.
>
> Is the a- productive in modern standard-variants of English?
>
> Joachim
Yes, though often done for some effect. Take the column by 'Glenda
Slagg' in Private Eye: current column includes "a-dancin' and a-
prancin'", "a-stumblin' and a-bumblin', a-huffin' and a-puffin'". It's
a pastiche, but it does identify a feature of the pastiched style (the
faux colloquial tone of comment columns in middle-brow tabloids) and
most relevantly for your question it is possible to combine the a-
prefix with any verb in -ing and be understood.
Brian M. Scott
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in
<news:mgo3c6duub8qshuf6...@4ax.com> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>>> Examples:
> a-, prefix1
> There are no quotations.
But the etymological notes show that it's not the same thing
as in these examples. The <a-> in question is actually the
first preposition <a> in the OED, a reduced form of <on>.
The relevant sense category is II:
With a verbal noun or gerund, forming part of a verbal
expression. (Now usually written with a hyphen or as
one word with the verbal noun.)
An example of the full form of <a-wooing>, from 1595: 'His
short gowne ... which he had lente to Tho. Atkinson for iij
dayes to ride on woweinge with'.
Brian
James Hogg
It's a worn-down form of the preposition "on". It is also found in
expressions like "twice a day" and in words like "aboard, alive, asleep,
nowadays".
--
James
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:58:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
>
>
> >On 2010-10-22 20:39:26 +0200, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> said:
>
> >> There is a verbal prefix a- that I relate to American English regional
> >> dialects (and older variants of English, but I'm not sure).
>
> >It's not particularly American. Maybe it's more common in AmE, but I've
> >not nticed that it is.
>
> >> Examples:
>
> >> Lorretta Lynn (Song title):
> >> Don't come home a-drinkin' (with lovin' on your mind)
>
> >> Don Martin: "Out West": "Am I to understand that when your big toe
> >> starts a-hurtin' it's a sign of good luck, mister?"
>
> >> What's the story of this a-? Is it only used with the -ing-form?
>
> >As far as I know, yes.
>
> >> What's its meaning? Maybe perfective and/or inchoative aspect (as in
> >> the examples?)
>
> >I think it's just for euphony.
>
>
> The nearest sense in the OED is:
>
> a-, prefix1
>
> With verbs, implying motion onward or away from a position; hence
> (originally with verbs of motion) adding intensity.
>
> There are no quotations.
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
> (in alt.usage.english)
No, in fact the a- in question is listed as
a, prep.1
and you have to go down to sense 11:
"Expressing action, with a verbal noun or gerund taken actively. Now
arch. and regional"
and they also note that it's now usually written as a prefix with a
hyphen.
Just to repeat points made elsewhere in this thread:
- It's not specifically American
- It's archaic, dialectal, non-standard, but still known and used as a
signifier of rusticity
- Historically it's a reduced form of "on".
Ross Clark
Don Phillipson
> wrote:
>>
>>Is the a- productive in modern standard-variants of English?
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:bsr3c6l0l7vj7bif8...@4ax.com...
> It is not used frequently.
Hold on now . . .
1. Before a verb, prefix A- is much less common than in some
archaic or regional dialects, but nevertheless is still currently
used before certain verbs;
2. While prefix A- remains extremely common (normal) in
many adjectives, e.g. aloft, asleep, astern, and so on, and
other types of word besides as away.
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> also asked:
> What do people like Loretta Lynn or Don Martin in his Wild-West parody
> want to express when they use this prefix? "Add intensity", as in your
> OED quote?
Probably not: instead they wish to invoke common English ballad
usage (cf. "Froggy he would a-wooing go") and thus the sentimental
implications of the popular ballad.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Joe Fineman
> There is a verbal prefix a- that I relate to American English
> regional dialects (and older variants of English, but I'm not sure).
>
> Examples:
>
> Lorretta Lynn (Song title):
> Don't come home a-drinkin' (with lovin' on your mind)
>
> Don Martin: "Out West": "Am I to understand that when your big toe
> starts a-hurtin' it's a sign of good luck, mister?"
It is a special use of the old preposition "a", which is a worn-down
form of "on". See OED, a, prep. 1, 13. Thus, "a-drinking" = "on
drinking", i.e., in the process of drinking.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Hammer a million nails, and they won't call you a :||
||: carpenter. But just suck one cock -- :||
Joachim Pense
Am 22.10.2010 23:27, schrieb benl...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> - It's not specifically American
> - It's archaic, dialectal, non-standard, but still known and used as a
> signifier of rusticity
So me finding it in Country Music, and a Wild-West parody cartoon is
consistent with that.
> - Historically it's a reduced form of "on".
Would that on- express inchoativity (preserved in Martin's "starts
a-hurtin'", and lost in Lynn's "come home a-drinking)?
Or indeed just rusticity?
Joachim
Trond Engen
> Peter Duncanson (BrE):
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>
>>> Joachim Pense:
Ah, something said snap. Since 'a-living' etymologically is "on living",
a prepositional phrase, the verbform involved is the verbal noun rather
than the participle. I now remember seeing argued (and it might have
been around here) that it was through a reanalysis of this construction
as a prefigated verbform, which later lost -- or could occur without --
its prefix, that the -ing participle came about.
--
Trond Engen
Brian M. Scott
<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
<news:i9t31i$9q$00$1...@news.t-online.com> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> Am 22.10.2010 23:27, schrieb benl...@ihug.co.nz:
[...]
>> - Historically it's a reduced form of "on".
> Would that on- express inchoativity (preserved in Martin's "starts
> a-hurtin'", and lost in Lynn's "come home a-drinking)?
> Or indeed just rusticity?
Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
<spr�c wepende / on wepinge> 'spoke weeping / in the
act of weeping';
<com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
riding';
<geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
the act of riding'; and
<w�s feohtende / on feohtinge> 'was fighting / in the act
of fighting'.
Brian
Trond Engen
As a non-native half-speaker I should keep low, but I'd say that the
inchoativity is in 'starts' rather than 'a-hurtin''. To me the a- adds a
feel of intensity, or maybe rather duration. Making the Lynn example
slightly disconcerting, actually.
--
Trond Engen
Joachim Pense
Am 23.10.2010 01:01, schrieb Brian M. Scott:
>
> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
Did Middle-English a have a tendency to develop prefixes for verb-forms?
I am thinking about the i- "Augment" denoting perfect participle (?) -
here is goode ale yfounde; sumer is icumen in. (cognate to German ge-?)
Are there similar prefixes that florished in ME, but were eliminated later?
Joachim
Joachim Pense
My speculation had been that the a- might indicate beginning or end of
an action, and "starts" is redundant. But following Brian, this seems to
be a wrong speculation.
Joachim
abzorba
> Am 23.10.2010 01:06, schrieb Trond Engen:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Joachim Pense:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
My guess is that the main thing driving this usage is matters to do
with poetic scansion. Try saying most of the lines quoted here without
the -a, and see how awkward they become. Note too that in most of
these cases there is an element of jocular badinage and impromptu
doggerel. One would not use the -a prefix in serious discussion. I
think much the same sort of thing goes on with the use of the word
"ain't" in a lot of folk and pop. The word is very rare in ordinary
spoken English, but someone can sing "It ain't necessarily so" without
seeming affected. Now try singing "It isn't necessarily so" and you
will see how important scansion is.
Peter Moylan
I have always read that as "summer is a-coming in". It had never
occurred to me that it might be a perfect participle, but indeed the -en
ending seems to suggest a past participle. It will be interesting to
hear from anyone who knows the real answer.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Brian M. Scott
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote in
<news:hv2dnU1fzvrK31_R...@westnet.com.au> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>> Am 23.10.2010 01:01, schrieb Brian M. Scott:
>>> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
>>> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
>>> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
>> Did Middle-English a have a tendency to develop prefixes
>> for verb-forms? I am thinking about the i- "Augment"
>> denoting perfect participle (?) - here is goode ale
>> yfounde; sumer is icumen in. (cognate to German ge-?)
>> Are there similar prefixes that florished in ME, but
>> were eliminated later?
> I have always read that as "summer is a-coming in". It had never
> occurred to me that it might be a perfect participle, but indeed the -en
> ending seems to suggest a past participle. It will be interesting to
> hear from anyone who knows the real answer.
The <i-> of <icumen> is the same element as the <y-> of
<yclept> 'called' and <yclad> 'dressed', from OE <ge->; it
is indeed cognate with German <ge->. In ME its use was
extended to verbs of French origin, e.g., <ybaptised>,
<yblamed>, <ipassed>.
Brian
Jerry Friedman
[a-verbing]
> My guess is that the main thing driving this usage is matters to do
> with poetic scansion.
I think you've got a point there.
> Try saying most of the lines quoted here without
> the -a, and see how awkward they become. Note too that in most of
> these cases there is an element of jocular badinage and impromptu
> doggerel. One would not use the -a prefix in serious discussion.
Unless one were a country person, maybe.
I think that in standard English, it lasted longest after "go". For
instance, "We go a-hunting", a section heading in _Around the World
with the Children: An Introduction to Geography_ (1917) by Frank
George Carpenter.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KU0AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false
> I
> think much the same sort of thing goes on with the use of the word
> "ain't" in a lot of folk and pop. The word is very rare in ordinary
> spoken English,
Depends on who you associate with.
> but someone can sing "It ain't necessarily so" without
> seeming affected. Now try singing "It isn't necessarily so" and you
> will see how important scansion is.
"It's not" would work, though at the cost of an extra sibilant. I
think dialect was a more important factor. Now "I'm not misbehaving./
I'm saving my love for you."--that just doesn't scan.
--
Jerry Friedman
R H Draney
>
>My guess is that the main thing driving this usage is matters to do
>with poetic scansion. Try saying most of the lines quoted here without
>the -a, and see how awkward they become. Note too that in most of
>these cases there is an element of jocular badinage and impromptu
>doggerel. One would not use the -a prefix in serious discussion. I
>think much the same sort of thing goes on with the use of the word
>"ain't" in a lot of folk and pop. The word is very rare in ordinary
>spoken English, but someone can sing "It ain't necessarily so" without
>seeming affected. Now try singing "It isn't necessarily so" and you
>will see how important scansion is.
Cf:
"Can't take my eyes off of you" - American (Frankie Valli, The Lettermen)
"Can't take my eyes o-off you" - British (Engelbert Humperdinck, Kiki Dee)
"Can't take my eyes over you" - Filipino (Zhang Fei)
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Mark Brader
>> a-, prefix1
>>
>> With verbs, implying motion onward or away from a position; hence
>> (originally with verbs of motion) adding intensity.
>>
>> There are no quotations.
By the way, the reason there are no quotations is that they would be
under the words formed using this prefix. The entry writes them with
the prefix set off by a hyphen, but it's just expressing the presence
of the prefix, not saying that it's normally hyphenated. At least,
that's my interpretation of it.
Ross Clark:
> No, in fact the a- in question is listed as
>
> a, prep.1
>
> and you have to go down to sense 11:
Ah! That's the one. Well found.
> "Expressing action, with a verbal noun or gerund taken actively. Now
> arch. and regional"
>
> and they also note that it's now usually written as a prefix with a
> hyphen.
There's also sense 13:
# Action: with a verbal sb. taken actively.
# a. With "be": engaged in. arch. or dial.
# (In literary Eng. the "a" is omitted, and the verbal sb. treated
# as a participle agreeing with the subject, and governing its case:
# to "be fishing, fighting, making anything". But most of the southern
# dialects, and the vulgar speech both in England and America, retain
# the earlier usage.)
"Sb." means noun, of course. There are quotations from 1523 to 1845
(the last from Benjamin Disraeli). The last two read "You'd have
thought 'twas the Bishops or Judges a coming" and "A-dropping wages,
and a-raiding tommy like fun".
# b. With verb of motion: to, into; to "go a fishing, come a wooing,
# fall a laughing, crying, fighting", to "set the bells a ringing",
# to "send children a begging". Arch. or dial. save in a few phrases,
# as "to go a begging" (mostly of offices); and with "set" as "to set
# the clock a going, the bells a ringing, folk a thinking", where "a"
# is often omitted.
Quotations from 1526 to 1788 (the last from Thomas Jefferson). The
last one reads "We were rarely able to set the loan a going again".
After the last actual quotation is what appears to be an example,
just marked "Mod." (modern) with no author, and reading "Such positions
rarely go a begging."
(All of the above copied by hand from the OED1 Compact Edition, so
I may have introduced errors.)
> Just to repeat points made elsewhere in this thread:
>
> - It's not specifically American
I think it might be more widespread in American usage, though.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
"History tells us that the Boston 'T' Party was succeeded
the next day by the Boston 'U' Party, where American rebels
yanked all the extraneous U's out of words like 'colour'
and threw them into Boston Harbour. Harbor. Whatever."
--Adam Beneschan
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Joachim Pense
Am 23.10.2010 09:47, schrieb Mark Brader:
>
> Ross Clark:
>> No, in fact the a- in question is listed as
>>
>> a, prep.1
>>
>> and you have to go down to sense 11:
>
> Ah! That's the one. Well found.
>
>> "Expressing action, with a verbal noun or gerund taken actively. Now
>> arch. and regional"
>>
>> and they also note that it's now usually written as a prefix with a
>> hyphen.
>
> There's also sense 13:
>
> # Action: with a verbal sb. taken actively.
(lots of good information and quotes snipped)
Thank you. Things become clearer now. I still feel a bit unsure about
the actual meaning/usage. "Expressing action" doesn't seem to tell me
much, if applied to a verb.
Joachim
James Hogg
Other languages express continuous action in a way similar to this
"a-doing". Icelandic uses the presposition "a�" (at) with the infinitive:
�g er a� vinna (I am working).
Irish uses the preposition "ag" (at) plus the verbal noun:
T� Se�n ag �l (Se�n is drinking)
--
James
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> > Am 23.10.2010 09:47, schrieb Mark Brader:
>
> >> Ross Clark:
> >>> No, in fact the a- in question is listed as
>
> >>> a, prep.1
>
> >>> and you have to go down to sense 11:
>
> >> Ah! That's the one. Well found.
>
> >>> "Expressing action, with a verbal noun or gerund taken actively. Now
> >>> arch. and regional"
>
> >>> and they also note that it's now usually written as a prefix with a
> >>> hyphen.
>
> >> There's also sense 13:
>
> >> # Action: with a verbal sb. taken actively.
>
> > (lots of good information and quotes snipped)
>
> > Thank you. Things become clearer now. I still feel a bit unsure about
> > the actual meaning/usage. "Expressing action" doesn't seem to tell me
> > much, if applied to a verb.
>
> Other languages express continuous action in a way similar to this
> Ég er að vinna (I am working).
>
> Irish uses the preposition "ag" (at) plus the verbal noun:
>
> --
> James
Maori: ke-i te haere (is-at the go) "is going"
James Hogg
> On Oct 23, 9:51 pm, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>>> Am 23.10.2010 09:47, schrieb Mark Brader:
>>>> Ross Clark:
>>>>> No, in fact the a- in question is listed as
>>>>> a, prep.1
>>>>> and you have to go down to sense 11:
>>>> Ah! That's the one. Well found.
>>>>> "Expressing action, with a verbal noun or gerund taken actively. Now
>>>>> arch. and regional"
>>>>> and they also note that it's now usually written as a prefix with a
>>>>> hyphen.
>>>> There's also sense 13:
>>>> # Action: with a verbal sb. taken actively.
>>> (lots of good information and quotes snipped)
>>> Thank you. Things become clearer now. I still feel a bit unsure about
>>> the actual meaning/usage. "Expressing action" doesn't seem to tell me
>>> much, if applied to a verb.
>> Other languages express continuous action in a way similar to this
>>
>> Irish uses the preposition "ag" (at) plus the verbal noun:
>>
>> --
>> James
>
> Maori: ke-i te haere (is-at the go) "is going"
That extends this particular Sprachbund quite a long way...
--
James
John Lawler
That's because "expressing action" isn't the meaning; it's
just a short gloss to remind you. The meaning varies from
predicate to predicate, because the meaning of the predicates
differs. What counts as "action" for one predicate is different
from what counts as "action" for a different one. Plus there
are always local idioms and metaphors that twist particular
uses to new senses. Consider what "go (a-)begging" means
when referring to (say) jobs. The "activity" is rather abstract,
to say the least.
Like everything else morphological in English, the a-
prefix is full of creaky archaisms, bizarre prohibitions,
local idioms, and dead metaphors. English morphology
is a very ancient set of ruins that still poke up in the
center of the language, like the city in Wittgenstein's
quotation below.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler
"Our language can be seen as an ancient city:
a maze of little streets and squares, of old
and new houses, and of houses with additions
from various periods; and this surrounded by
a multitude of new boroughs."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein,
'Philosophische Untersuchungen'
Joachim Pense
Am 23.10.2010 18:05, schrieb John Lawler:
>>
>> Thank you. Things become clearer now. I still feel a bit unsure about
>> the actual meaning/usage. "Expressing action" doesn't seem to tell me
>> much, if applied to a verb.
>>
>> Joachim
>
> That's because "expressing action" isn't the meaning; it's
> just a short gloss to remind you. The meaning varies from
> predicate to predicate, because the meaning of the predicates
> differs. What counts as "action" for one predicate is different
> from what counts as "action" for a different one. Plus there
> are always local idioms and metaphors that twist particular
> uses to new senses. Consider what "go (a-)begging" means
> when referring to (say) jobs. The "activity" is rather abstract,
> to say the least.
well, what's the difference between "there's a better home a-waiting"
and "there's a better home waiting"? Whats the difference in the other
cases? What is the kind of modification that a- applies to the verb?
>
> Like everything else morphological in English, the a-
> prefix is full of creaky archaisms, bizarre prohibitions,
> local idioms, and dead metaphors. English morphology
> is a very ancient set of ruins that still poke up in the
> center of the language, like the city in Wittgenstein's
> quotation below.
Are you saying, there is no general rule at all, we just cannot point
the finger at it?
Joachim
Brian M. Scott
<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
<news:i9v1g2$644$00$1...@news.t-online.com> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
[...]
> well, what's the difference between "there's a better home
> a-waiting" and "there's a better home waiting"?
Dialect and/or register. That's all.
[...]
Brian
Joachim Pense
Am 23.10.2010 18:11, schrieb Joachim Pense:
> well, what's the difference between "there's a better home a-waiting"
BTW, I like Joan Baez's version better: "there's a better life
a-waiting, if we try, Lord, if we try".
Joachim
John Lawler
I'm saying there is a general rule that it so vacuous it's useless;
in certain cases (activities involving movement and habitual
performance, like hunting) it's very specific, but in others
it's quite different, so that the overall impression is vague.
That's because it's got little or no central meaning left.
What you need is specific rules for specific cases; this is
something like the norm when dealing with verb classes.
See Beth Levin's "English Verb Classes and Alternations"
for example.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
"I conceive that words are like money, not the worse
for being common, but that it is the stamp of custom
alone that gives them circulation or value."
-- William Hazlitt, 'On Familiar Style' (1821)
andrewM
> There is a verbal prefix a- that I relate to American English regional
> dialects (and older variants of English, but I'm not sure).
>
>
> Lorretta Lynn (Song title):
> Don't come home a-drinkin' (with lovin' on your mind)
>
> Don Martin: "Out West": "Am I to understand that when your big toe
> starts a-hurtin' it's a sign of good luck, mister?"
>
> its meaning? Maybe perfective and/or inchoative aspect (as in the examples?)
>
Very interesting! Some years ago I found a comment on the song "Don't
Pass Me By" in a Russian book on the Beatles:
"See the hands a moving but I'm by myself..."
As far as I remember the author stated this was a country/blues
tradition - to add a "missing" syllabe to create the necessary rhythm
in the lyrics.
That's why there is probably no semantics in it. Is this phenomenon
found somewhere else except song lyrics/poetry?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> well, what's the difference between "there's a better home
> a-waiting" and "there's a better home waiting"?
I've always assumed that it was "awaiting", not "a-waiting". MWCD11
gives intransitive senses for "await":
1 obsolete : to wait on someone : ATTEND <on whom three hundred
gold-capped youths await -- Alexander Pope>
2 : to stay or be in waiting : WAIT <the people awaited outside
the building>
3 : to be in store <marched ... north to civilization where fame
and forturne awaited -- Tom Marvel>
"Await" was apparently borrowed in that form from Old Northern French.
The OED calls the intransitive sense of "to be in store, to be
reserved" archaic, citing it to 1633 and 1861. According to Wikipedia
(which gives it as "awaiting"[1]), the hymn was written in 1907, but
it may be a conscious archaism.
[1] They show a picture of the sheet music, but the lyrics there are,
as is common, broken by syllable, so it's given as "a-wait-ing".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It's not coherent, it's merely
SF Bay Area (1982-) |focused.
Chicago (1964-1982) | Keith Moore
Alan Munn
<91711145-16fb-4888...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
andrewM <and...@ideabulbs.com> wrote:
As others have noted, it is a regular part of some dialects of American
English, e.g. Appalachian English (and possibly Southern US English more
generally) It is therefore *not* a device used solely for song
lyrics/poetry. Since both country music and the blues are also
associated with the South, it's not surprising that the prefix would
show up in those lyrics.
Alan
Joachim Pense
Am 24.10.2010 20:04, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
> Joachim Pense<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
> news:i9sp2p$aj9$00$1...@news.t-online.com:
>
>> Is the a- productive in modern standard-variants of English?
>
> The times they are a-changing, Bob Dylan
> If you count that as modern.
>
Could be atavistic.
Joachim
Harlan Messinger
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:25:30 +0200, Joachim Pense
> <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
> <news:i9t31i$9q$00$1...@news.t-online.com> in
> alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
>> Am 22.10.2010 23:27, schrieb benl...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> [...]
>
>>> - Historically it's a reduced form of "on".
>
>> Would that on- express inchoativity (preserved in Martin's "starts
>> a-hurtin'", and lost in Lynn's "come home a-drinking)?
>
>> Or indeed just rusticity?
>
> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
>
> act of weeping';
>
> <com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
> riding';
>
> <geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
> the act of riding'; and
>
> <w�s feohtende / on feohtinge> 'was fighting / in the act
> of fighting'.
>
> Brian
Is this not the path via which the -ing form came to be the form used in
the modern English present progressive? Dutch still has -ing and German
-ung but without the participial function.
Joachim Pense
Am 24.10.2010 20:49, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
>>
>> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
>> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
>> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
>>
>> <spr�c wepende / on wepinge> 'spoke weeping / in the
>> act of weeping';
>>
>> <com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
>> riding';
>>
>> <geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
>> the act of riding'; and
>>
>> <w�s feohtende / on feohtinge> 'was fighting / in the act
>> of fighting'.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Is this not the path via which the -ing form came to be the form used in
> the modern English present progressive? Dutch still has -ing and German
> -ung but without the participial function.
the -ing form was merged from the -ende form (participle) and another
form corresponding to the German -ung form.
The -end participle is alive and well in German. "I am sleeping" 'ich
bin schlafend'. You can translate an English present progressive
literally to get a form that is not used in German, but well
understandable, and, as a matter of fact, meaning the same as a
progressive form ("I am now in a singing state"). In English, it is not
optinal, of course.
Joachim
Harlan Messinger
>
>
> Am 24.10.2010 20:49, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
>
>>>
>>> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
>>> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
>>> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
>>>
>>> <spr�c wepende / on wepinge> 'spoke weeping / in the
>>> act of weeping';
>>>
>>> <com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
>>> riding';
>>>
>>> <geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
>>> the act of riding'; and
>>>
>>> <w�s feohtende / on feohtinge> 'was fighting / in the act
>>> of fighting'.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Is this not the path via which the -ing form came to be the form used in
>> the modern English present progressive? Dutch still has -ing and German
>> -ung but without the participial function.
>
> the -ing form was merged from the -ende form (participle) and another
> form corresponding to the German -ung form.
>
> The -end participle is alive and well in German. "I am sleeping" 'ich
> bin schlafend'.
I'm surprised because I'd though that that wasn't true. Given the
example you chose, I'm led to ask whether this is true across all verbs,
or for a restricted class like "schlafen" where it really connotes a
state (comparable to "asleep"), rather than an activity as the English
form does.
> You can translate an English present progressive
> literally to get a form that is not used in German, but well
> understandable, and, as a matter of fact, meaning the same as a
> progressive form ("I am now in a singing state"). In English, it is not
> optinal, of course.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'm wondering if it answers my
previous question.
Alan Munn
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
In some respects the -ende form is also still alive in English. As
Labov (and other) showed, the distribution of the (informal) -in
pronunciation of -ing patterns with its original use: speakers are far
more likely to pronounce -ing as -in in verbal contexts compared to
nominal contexts, which patterns with the uses of the original affixes.
This pattern holds in British, American, Canadian and Australian English.
Of course, there is also a layer of social stratification and some
register effects on this as well, but within social groups, the
linguistic patterning (roughly nominal vs. verbal) holds pretty
constant.)
e.g.
He was bookin' it down the street. (-ing sounds horrible here)
Take him to central booking (-in sounds horrible here)
(I chose the verb 'book' (meaning to go fast) deliberately, since it is
a relatively new word, and very informal.)
There are some odd nominal exceptions such as 'nothing', which accept
-in easily, but overall the pattern holds.
Alan
Joachim Pense
Am 24.10.2010 21:13, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
> On 10/24/2010 2:58 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this not the path via which the -ing form came to be the form used in
>>> the modern English present progressive? Dutch still has -ing and German
>>> -ung but without the participial function.
>>
>> the -ing form was merged from the -ende form (participle) and another
>> form corresponding to the German -ung form.
>>
>> The -end participle is alive and well in German. "I am sleeping" 'ich
>> bin schlafend'.
>
> I'm surprised because I'd though that that wasn't true. Given the
> example you chose, I'm led to ask whether this is true across all verbs,
> or for a restricted class like "schlafen" where it really connotes a
> state (comparable to "asleep"), rather than an activity as the English
> form does.
>
The present participle with -nd exists for all verbs. It's much more
common in attributive usage "schlafende Hunde wecken" 'wake up sleeping
dogs'. The predicative usage ("Der Hund ist schlafend" 'the dog is
sleeping') occurs very rarely and sounds artificial and clumsy. I have
to think of a situation where it would be natural. However, it is
grammatical, because the present participle on -end can be used like any
adjective.
>> You can translate an English present progressive
>> literally to get a form that is not used in German, but well
>> understandable, and, as a matter of fact, meaning the same as a
>> progressive form ("I am now in a singing state"). In English, it is not
>> optinal, of course.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'm wondering if it answers my
> previous question.
I mean we have no continuous form, but we could build one using cognate
constructs; it would be grammatical, though very uncommon, and it would
express roughly the same idea as a continuous form.
Joachim
Helmut Richter
> The present participle with -nd exists for all verbs. It's much more common in
> attributive usage "schlafende Hunde wecken" 'wake up sleeping dogs'. The
> predicative usage ("Der Hund ist schlafend" 'the dog is sleeping') occurs very
> rarely and sounds artificial and clumsy. I have to think of a situation where
> it would be natural. However, it is grammatical, because the present
> participle on -end can be used like any adjective.
I doubt that. There are adjectives that can only be used in attributive
position (or some of them as adverbs) but not in predicative position,
e.g. "deutsch", "unter", "letzt", and most participles. Some participles
form compounds that have developed into full-fledges adjectives which can
also be used as predicates: "furchteinfl��end", "zufriedenstellend". At
the moment, I do not remember any non-compound participle having such a
status, maybe there are a handful. But sentences like "ich bin schlafend"
are ungrammatical.
It is one of the features of the spelling reform that has remained
controversial: writing the words apart even in predicative position
"das ist Furcht einfl��end" as if such a position were grammatical.
See also
http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Verb/Finit-Infinit/Part1.html?lang=en
--
Helmut Richter
Joachim Pense
Am 24.10.2010 22:27, schrieb Helmut Richter:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> status, maybe there are a handful. But sentences like "ich bin schlafend"
> are ungrammatical.
Is a sentence ungrammatical that is used by nobody, but will be
understood by everybody, with no difference in meaning?
Maybe that could be named "hypothetically grammatical"?
Joachim
Harlan Messinger
>
>
> Am 24.10.2010 21:13, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
>> On 10/24/2010 2:58 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Is this not the path via which the -ing form came to be the form
>>>> used in
>>>> the modern English present progressive? Dutch still has -ing and German
>>>> -ung but without the participial function.
>>>
>>> the -ing form was merged from the -ende form (participle) and another
>>> form corresponding to the German -ung form.
>>>
>>> The -end participle is alive and well in German. "I am sleeping" 'ich
>>> bin schlafend'.
>>
>> I'm surprised because I'd though that that wasn't true. Given the
>> example you chose, I'm led to ask whether this is true across all verbs,
>> or for a restricted class like "schlafen" where it really connotes a
>> state (comparable to "asleep"), rather than an activity as the English
>> form does.
>>
>
> The present participle with -nd exists for all verbs. It's much more
> common in attributive usage "schlafende Hunde wecken" 'wake up sleeping
> dogs'. The predicative usage ("Der Hund ist schlafend" 'the dog is
> sleeping') occurs very rarely and sounds artificial and clumsy.
Well, that's what I meant: German doesn't have a present progressive
comparable to that of English. I was aware of the attributive use of the
-end form.
Harlan Messinger
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Joachim Pense wrote:
>
>> The present participle with -nd exists for all verbs. It's much more common in
>> attributive usage "schlafende Hunde wecken" 'wake up sleeping dogs'. The
>> predicative usage ("Der Hund ist schlafend" 'the dog is sleeping') occurs very
>> rarely and sounds artificial and clumsy. I have to think of a situation where
>> it would be natural. However, it is grammatical, because the present
>> participle on -end can be used like any adjective.
>
> I doubt that. There are adjectives that can only be used in attributive
> position (or some of them as adverbs) but not in predicative position,
> e.g. "deutsch", "unter", "letzt", and most participles.
You can't say "Ich bin deutsch"?
Harlan Messinger
I'm thinking (food for thought) about how "Those clothes are drying" is
an example of the present progressive but "Those clothes are stunning"
isn't.
Alan Munn
Harlan Messinger <h.usenetr...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
Yes, the latter is an adjective. And (see my previous message) this
provides a nice minimal pair on the linguistic conditioning of the
-in/-ing alternation:
Those clothes are dryin' (ok with -in)
This shampoo is very drying (* with -in)
This shampoo is dryin' my hair out. (ok with -in)
Alan
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger<h.usenetr...@gavelcade.com> wrote in
> news:8ijku5...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Well, that's what I meant: German doesn't have a present progressive
>> comparable to that of English. I was aware of the attributive use of
>> the -end form.
>
> standard), or "Ich<verb> gerade" (formal). The latter is the
> translation of the present progressive you'll find in English text
> books aimed at native German speakers.
>
Oh, OK. I modify what I said to "German doesn't use -ung or -end forms
for a present progressive".
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> In article <ia1vlv$qtg$0...@news.t-online.com>,
> Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 24.10.2010 20:49, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
>
> > >> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
> > >> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
> > >> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
>
> > >> act of weeping';
>
> > >> <com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
> > >> riding';
>
> > >> <geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
> > >> the act of riding'; and
>
Have you got a reference for Labov (and others)? I'd like to see solid
evidence of this tendency, and even then I'd be skeptical about it
reflecting the original -end/-ing difference. To me, there's a subtle
register shift in your "-ing only" examples, but rather than argue
about it, it would be good to see a lot of actual usage data. It seems
to me nominals participate in this quite widely, as in readin',
writin' and 'rithmetic (or in the UK huntin', shootin' and fishin'
among the upper class). Not only nothin'/somethin'/anythin', but in
early borrowings in Pacific languages I notice that words like
'stocking' and 'shilling' show final -n. It looks as if there was an
across the board (at least lexically) ng > n shift after unstressed /
I/, followed by a lot of restoration. No doubt this is all gone into
in great detail in the Cambridge History etc, but I'd like to know
your immediate source(s).
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
Is there a synchronic relation between "stunning" (adj.) and
"stun" (v.)?
Probably not.
"She is stunning." "I was stunned by her beauty." *"Her beauty stunned
me."
Cf. "awe" and "awful" (no), "awesome" (yes, even in the current usage
where it is equivalent to BrE "brilliant," i.e. 'good').
Peter T. Daniels
Labov used that example in a talk at CUNY about two years ago, and
surely it's in print somewhere. His vol. 3 is due from Blackwell any
day now. (I forget what the pub.date was the last time I looked --
maybe it's out already.)
Alan Munn
<de6b4967-49ea-45aa...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 8:49�am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > In article <ia1vlv$qtg$0...@news.t-online.com>,
> > �Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am 24.10.2010 20:49, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
> >
> > > >> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
> > > >> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
> > > >> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
> >
> > > >> <spr�c wepende / on wepinge> 'spoke weeping / in the
> > > >> act of weeping';
> >
> > > >> <com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
> > > >> riding';
> >
> > > >> <geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
> > > >> the act of riding'; and
> >
> > > >> <w�s feohtende / on feohtinge> 'was fighting / in the act
Hi Ross,
The main reference is
Labov,W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change: Social factors,
There's a discussion of the linguistic and social factors, including a
graph of the distribution (Figure 3.4 on p. 88) from the Philadelphia
neighbourhood study.
Another overview article which also includes some acquisition data is:
Labov, W. 1989. The child as linguistic historian . Language Variation
and Change, 1:85-97.
There he says:
"This finding [grammatical conditioning (AM)] first appeared in the work
[in the 1980s (AM)] of students in a class on the Study of the
SpeechCommunity, at the University of Pennsylvania."
he then cites the following for showing the same pattern.
Shopen, T., Wald, B. 1982. The use of (ING) in Australian English.
Unpublished manuscript.
Good luck finding that one...
The most solid reference in that paper is this:
Houston, A. 1985. "Establishing the continuity between past and present
morphology" (Ch. 6). Continuity and change in English morphology: The
variable (ING). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 220-86.
> To me, there's a subtle
> register shift in your "-ing only" examples, but rather than argue
> about it, it would be good to see a lot of actual usage data.
Oh, there's undoubtably a register difference; Imagine sayin(g)
something like "I'm titratin' this chemical solution" or some such fancy
word! I only chose a really informal example to make the point clearer
(i.e. even for fairly conservative speakers, such an example sounds
awful with -ing). Since the pattern is socially stratified, there are
definitely register effects. But the grammatical effects are stable
throughout classes and registers.
The other couple of examples I posted in a later message seem quite
clear to me, and they're not particularly informal.
This shampoo is dryin' my hair out. (-in/-ing ok)
This shampoo is very drying to my hair. (*-in/-ing ok)
And of course, the pattern is variable in all speakers, never
categorical. The numbers Labov gives range from 90% for 'going' in
'going to' (not clear whether 'gonna' was included in this count), to
50% for the progressive, 40% for verbal participles and gerunds, and
then drops to 10% or less for nominal gerunds, adjectives and nouns.
> It seems
> to me nominals participate in this quite widely, as in readin',
> writin' and 'rithmetic (or in the UK huntin', shootin' and fishin'
> among the upper class).
Yes, I share your worries on some of these cases, but without overt
determiners it's actually hard to tell if these cases are nominal or
verbal gerunds. Take the following pair:
He was fishin' for trout last week. (-in/-ing ok)
Fishin' for trout is fun. (-in/-ing ok) Verbal gerund
The fishing of trout isn't allowed. (??-in/-ing ok) Nominal gerund (but
also quite formal sounding.)
(Although "No fishin' allowed" sounds fine to me, and that's clearly
nominal.)
> Not only nothin'/somethin'/anythin', but in
> early borrowings in Pacific languages I notice that words like
> 'stocking' and 'shilling' show final -n. It looks as if there was an
> across the board (at least lexically) ng > n shift after unstressed /
> I/, followed by a lot of restoration. No doubt this is all gone into
> in great detail in the Cambridge History etc, but I'd like to know
> your immediate source(s).
That's an interestin' (eek!) observation. (Not very good, right?) One
of Labov's claims is that spelling regularization caused the social
stratification. Once both forms were spelled with -ing, then the -in
pattern (which had been stable on verbals forms became socially
stigmatized.) Whether there were some other phonological conditioning
factors, he doesn't say.
Alan
Robert Bannister
No, although I can't see why you can't do it with things.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I can't see anything wrong with that last sentence, but I think the
meaning might change from "amazed me" to "knocked me senseless". Is that
too powerful a metaphor? "Her beauty knocked me for six" or some such
phrase equivalent to stunning seems okay.
>
> Cf. "awe" and "awful" (no), "awesome" (yes, even in the current usage
> where it is equivalent to BrE "brilliant," i.e. 'good').
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Joachim Pense<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
>
>> well, what's the difference between "there's a better home
>> a-waiting" and "there's a better home waiting"?
>
> I've always assumed that it was "awaiting", not "a-waiting". MWCD11
> gives intransitive senses for "await":
>
> 1 obsolete : to wait on someone : ATTEND<on whom three hundred
> gold-capped youths await -- Alexander Pope>
>
> 2 : to stay or be in waiting : WAIT<the people awaited outside
> the building>
>
> 3 : to be in store<marched ... north to civilization where fame
> and forturne awaited -- Tom Marvel>
>
> "Await" was apparently borrowed in that form from Old Northern French.
>
> The OED calls the intransitive sense of "to be in store, to be
> reserved" archaic, citing it to 1633 and 1861. According to Wikipedia
> (which gives it as "awaiting"[1]), the hymn was written in 1907, but
> it may be a conscious archaism.
>
> [1] They show a picture of the sheet music, but the lyrics there are,
> as is common, broken by syllable, so it's given as "a-wait-ing".
>
I only think of "await" as a verb used where a person is the subject. I
may await your news with impatience, but I doubt the news would be
awaiting me.
--
Rob Bannister
benl...@ihug.co.nz
>
>
>
> "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 8:49 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <ia1vlv$qtg$0...@news.t-online.com>,
> > > Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > > > Am 24.10.2010 20:49, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
>
> > > > >> Neither; it simply means 'in the process of X-ing, engaged
> > > > >> or occupied with X-ing'. Although it really developed in
> > > > >> Middle English, it has OE roots in such equivalent pairs as:
>
> > > > >> act of weeping';
>
> > > > >> <com ridende / on ridinge> 'came riding / in the act of
> > > > >> riding';
>
> > > > >> <geseah hine ridende / on ridinge> 'saw him riding / in
> > > > >> the act of riding'; and
>
Oh who knows? It might be around here somewhere. I see Shopen alone
published something on the subject in the (now defunct) Oz journal
_Talanya_ in 1978.
> The most solid reference in that paper is this:
>
> Houston, A. 1985. "Establishing the continuity between past and present
> morphology" (Ch. 6). Continuity and change in English morphology: The
> variable (ING). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. 220-86.
Another thesis on (ING) variation is available online at:
http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~kbck/dissertation.html
I'm pretty sure the examples just given are understood nominally.
(Note the conjoining with 'rithmetic in the first.)
And the examples you gave (stunning, drying) where -in' was out (if I
may so express it) were with predicate adjectives, which I would have
thought were derived from the -end form historically.
Anyhow, I'll look in Labov and see if I can track down any of the
other sources. Thanks.
Ross Clark
Harlan Messinger
"Ich bin Deutsche(r)". But I agree with you, my question stands as to
whether one can say "Jenes Buch ist deutsch."
Joachim Pense
I recall an actual usage of predicative present participles (in an
artificial situation, a pun).
It's in Salcia Landmann's "Der j�dische Witz", quoted from memory:
Q: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Hitler und einem Leberkranken?
A: Der Leberkranke ist leberleidend, Hitler ist leider lebend.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
I think "das Buch ist deutsch" is quite correct, I wouldn't know how to
say it differently. (BTW: "jenes" sounds quaint).
Joachim
Joachim Pense
Am 24.10.2010 23:23, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
> Harlan Messinger<h.usenetr...@gavelcade.com> wrote in
> news:8ijeq8...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>> the -ing form was merged from the -ende form (participle) and another
>>> form corresponding to the German -ung form.
>>>
>>> The -end participle is alive and well in German. "I am sleeping" 'ich
>>> bin schlafend'.
>>
>> I'm surprised because I'd though that that wasn't true. Given the
>> example you chose, I'm led to ask whether this is true across all
>> verbs, or for a restricted class like "schlafen" where it really
>> connotes a state (comparable to "asleep"), rather than an activity as
>> the English form does.
>
> I'm not sure what Joachim's point is here, anyway: The present
> participle with the suffix -end exists for all verbs, but it is
> normally used as an adjective describing a state. A gerund form also
> exists, which transforms the participle into a noun. Classical example
> from philosophy: "das Seiende", the noun formed from the present
> participle of "sein", to be.
This is not called a "gerund" form. The English "gerund" describes a
form that is historically merged from a nominalized infinitive (latin
gerundium, surviving in the German nouns on -ung) and a present
participle (which, being an ajdective, can be turned into a noun as in
your example "das Seiende")
>
> However, the phrase "ich bin schlafend" is not idiomatic, it rather
> sounds like a comical direct translation from English. The idiomatic
Right, unidiomatic, but not ungrammatical.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
Am 25.10.2010 00:03, schrieb Harlan Messinger:
> Oh, OK. I modify what I said to "German doesn't use -ung or -end forms
> for a present progressive".
If it did, it would be -end forms, not -ung forms.
Joachim
Peter Moylan
>
> However, the phrase "ich bin schlafend" is not idiomatic, it rather
> sounds like a comical direct translation from English. The idiomatic
> the infinitive form though. That form is non-standard and not
> acceptable in formal writing however. The formal equivalent is "ich
> schlafe gerade" (lit. "i sleep currently").
>
Presumably none of the above could be used except by people who talk in
their sleep.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> In article
> <de6b4967-49ea-45aa...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> "benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> To me, there's a subtle
>> register shift in your "-ing only" examples, but rather than argue
>> about it, it would be good to see a lot of actual usage data.
>
> Oh, there's undoubtably a register difference; Imagine sayin(g)
> something like "I'm titratin' this chemical solution" or some such fancy
> word!
That has a definite upper class feel to it. Nineteenth century, or early
twentieth.
R H Draney
Is this like what happens when someone asks "how do you say 'Japanese' in
Japanese?"...you have to answer "it depends how you want to use it", and then
rattle off a whole list of forms:
nihon-go = "Japanese" (the language)
nihon-jin = "Japanese" (nationality of a person)
nihon-sei = "Japanese" (origin of an article or birthplace of a person)
nihon-no = "Japanese" ("of" Japan)
Or the confusion over what job Emil Jannings has in "The Blue Angel" (an English
teacher in a gymnasium, but he's not English and he's not a gym teacher)....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Helmut Richter
> Am 24.10.2010 22:27, schrieb Helmut Richter:
> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Joachim Pense wrote:
> >
>
> > status, maybe there are a handful. But sentences like "ich bin schlafend"
> > are ungrammatical.
>
> Is a sentence ungrammatical that is used by nobody, but will be understood by
> everybody, with no difference in meaning?
Is every sentence grammatical if it will be understood by everybody, with
no difference in meaning? I don't think so.
--
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
> Something clicked and I just answered my own question: one would say "Ich bin
> Deutsche(r)". But I agree with you, my question stands as to whether one can
> say "Jenes Buch ist deutsch."
Maybe. I would perhaps prefer saying "ist auf Deutsch" to specifying the
language or "kommt aus Deutschland" to specify the origin. Attributive
usage "ein deutsches Buch" is ambiguous unless obvious from context.
--
Helmut Richter
Joachim Pense
Das Auto ist deutsch.
Joachim
Harlan Messinger
many years ago from the Teach Yourself installment on German and, I
*think* from the ALM series, and remembered learning later that it was
dated, but couldn't remember the replacement. What does contemporary
German do for "that"?
James Hogg
Peter T. Daniels
> Am 24.10.2010 22:46, schrieb Joachim Pense:
> > Am 24.10.2010 22:27, schrieb Helmut Richter:
> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> >> status, maybe there are a handful. But sentences like "ich bin schlafend"
> >> are ungrammatical.
>
> > Is a sentence ungrammatical that is used by nobody, but will be
> > understood by everybody, with no difference in meaning?
>
> > Maybe that could be named "hypothetically grammatical"?
Syntacticians are always inventing sentences that are unlikely to
occur in discourse but that can be assigned a grammaticality judgment.
> I recall an actual usage of predicative present participles (in an
> artificial situation, a pun).
>
> It's in Salcia Landmann's "Der jüdische Witz", quoted from memory:
>
> Q: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Hitler und einem Leberkranken?
> A: Der Leberkranke ist leberleidend, Hitler ist leider lebend.
That's a very common type of riddle in English -- is it unusual in
German?
Peter T. Daniels
No. "Grammaticality" and "interpretability" are two different things.
(Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.)
Peter T. Daniels
He's called "professor" in both the English and the German versions.
Peter T. Daniels
Germans say that a book is translated into "American."
Helmut Richter
> Germans say that a book is translated into "American."
Even better is the original language in the first ad in
http://www.spyy.de/berlin/kids/medien.shtml
--
Helmut Richter
Lanarcam
Joachim Pense
Am 25.10.2010 13:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> On Oct 24, 11:55 pm, Joachim Pense<s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>
>> It's in Salcia Landmann's "Der j�dische Witz", quoted from memory:
>>
>> Q: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Hitler und einem Leberkranken?
>> A: Der Leberkranke ist leberleidend, Hitler ist leider lebend.
>
> That's a very common type of riddle in English -- is it unusual in
> German?
I think it is not. In the context of the pun, I didn't even ever
recognize that "XY is leider lebend" is unidiomatical.
What would be an English version?
Joachim
Joachim Pense
Am 25.10.2010 10:05, schrieb Helmut Richter:
"Das Buch ist auf Deutsch" sounds somewhat wrong in my feeling.
"Sie sagte diesen Satz auf Deutsch" (adverbially), yes.
But *"Dieser Satz ist auf deutsch", no.
Well, maybe the * should just be a question mark.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
"das da" or just "das", if context allows. "Das Buch da ist deutsch".
Joachim
Helmut Richter
As "jene" is most often used in contrast to "diese", it can then be
replaced by "das andere".
In formal style, and in formal style only, "jene" is the correct way of
expressing a contrast between a nearby and a not so nearby thing or idea.
--
Helmut Richter
James Hogg
Q: What's the difference between the human liver and Adolf Hitler?
A: The liver has but one gall.
--
James
Peter T. Daniels
Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but they really think
the story of a boy who needs to buy words so he can open his heart to
his would-be girlfriend is suitable for three-year-olds?
I tried reading *Charlotte's Web* to my nieces when they were maybe 6
and 4 (or 5 and 3?) and it was way beyond them.
Peter T. Daniels
> Am 25.10.2010 13:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:55 pm, Joachim Pense<s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
> >> Q: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Hitler und einem Leberkranken?
> >> A: Der Leberkranke ist leberleidend, Hitler ist leider lebend.
>
> > That's a very common type of riddle in English -- is it unusual in
> > German?
>
> I think it is not. In the context of the pun, I didn't even ever
> recognize that "XY is leider lebend" is unidiomatical.
>
> What would be an English version?
Ach, I can never remember jokes, I googled "what's the difference
between" and got one page of jokes (with no examples of this pattern!)
and a zillion pages with actual information. So I tried riddle
alongside the above-quotationed phrase and found a page of Jokes in
English for ESL Classes (one wishes their spelling were more careful):
Q: What is the differnce between the capital of Russia and a calf's
mother?
A: One is Moscow, the other is a cow's Ma.
Q: What's the difference between a TEACHER and a CONDUCTOR ?
A: A teacher TRAINS the MIND and a conductor MINDS the TRAIN.
Q: What's the difference between a lion with toothache and a wet day?
A: One's roaring with pain the other's pouring with rain
[and even]
Q: When does a dialect become a language?
A: When its speakers get an army and a navy.
Q: Is there a word in the English language that uses all the vowels
including "y" ?
A: Unquestionablely!
[For all the vowels in order, there's "abstemiously."]
[from a page called "Riddles for Kids":]
What's the difference between a jeweler and a jailer?
A jeweler sells watches and a jailer watches cells.
IIRC Lewis Carroll was fond of this type, and you'll probably find
some in Garrison Keillor's "Pretty Good Joke Book" (there were at
least three editions; they were often a premium during Public Radio
fundraisers).
Peter T. Daniels
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>
> > Am 25.10.2010 13:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> >> On Oct 24, 11:55 pm, Joachim Pense<s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Q: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Hitler und einem Leberkranken?
> >>> A: Der Leberkranke ist leberleidend, Hitler ist leider lebend.
>
> >> That's a very common type of riddle in English -- is it unusual in
> >> German?
>
> > I think it is not. In the context of the pun, I didn't even ever
> > recognize that "XY is leider lebend" is unidiomatical.
>
> > What would be an English version?
>
> Q: What's the difference between the human liver and Adolf Hitler?
> A: The liver has but one gall.
This only works if you're already familiar with the pattern,
Spoonerize two words -- and pronounce "got" to rhyme with "but." (But
it's not an example of switching two words to take advantage of
homophony.)
António Marques
'Das Buch ist deutsch' sounds wrong to me, but I wouldn't know how to say it
either without major changes - but then I can hardly piece togeteher any
sentence in german, mostly because of sentences like that.
António Marques
Kein problem damit. Aber mit dem buch geht es um eine andere geschichte. Dem
buch mit geht es eine andere geschichte um doch. Welcherfalls.
António Marques
Just the other day I saw a book 'traduit de l'américain'.
James Hogg
> On Oct 25, 8:25 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 25.10.2010 13:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 11:55 pm, Joachim Pense<s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
What happened to the cunning stunts? Where is the angry hen that differs
from the lawyer by clucking defiance?
--
James
Jerry Friedman
[bunch of riddles]
> Q: Is there a word in the English language that uses all the vowels
> including "y" ?
> A: Unquestionablely!
Sic?
> [For all the vowels in order, there's "abstemiously."]
And "facetiously".
--
Jerry Friedman
Oliver Cromm
To me, it sounds wrong in a similar way as "Der Hund ist schlafend",
just less so.
--
GUGELFUHR(E), f., scherz, spasz, narrheit,
GRIMM, Deutsches W�rterbuch
Joachim Pense
Which - the version with or without the "auf"? Or both?
Joachim
Leslie Danks
Not to mention the cross-eyed soldier (who shoots but can't hit) and the
constipated owl; or the evangelist (with hope in his soul) and the woman
in the bath.
What are the tell-tale signs of the onset of one's second childhood?
--
Les (BrE)
Peter T. Daniels
When I see that I wonder what they do with biPondal authors like T. S.
Eliot, W. H. Auden, Anthony Burgess, or Alistair Cooke.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Oct 25, 8:38 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [bunch of riddles]
>
> > Q: Is there a word in the English language that uses all the vowels
> > including "y" ?
> > A: Unquestionablely!
>
> Sic?
See complaint about their spelling earlier.