|
| |
| |
| |
Chapter Thirteen
Special Subjects
In the preceding chapters, a survey has been given of the activities in the field of Netherlandic linguistics, grouped according to periods and general subjects. It is perhaps not out of place in this final chapter, to review some special subjects that were much discussed since 1920. For the most part these subjects deal with ‘history’, and some of the studies have been mentioned elsewhere in this book.
| |
Diphthongization of Old West Germanic î and û; ‘Expansion’
O.W.G. î has developed, in modern Standard Netherlandic, into a diphthong which was levelled to the older diphthong ei, but which is distinguished in writing as ij. We find this diphthong in the dialects in a broad belt from south-east to north-west, and it is in the areas that lie outside this belt that the old monophthong has been preserved.
O.W.G. û is also represented in Standard Netherlandic by a diphthong, written ui [öy], the dialects having this diphthong are roughly those that have the diphthong resulting from O.W.G. î. In the nondiphthongizing area the situation is more complicated, the diphthongization having been preceded by a change from û to [y.], rendered in Modern Netherlandic orthography by u in open and uu in closed syllables. The older phase [u.], orthographically represented as oe, still survives in some regions, especially in the east. Thus the word for ‘mouse’ in the diphthongizing area is pronounced muis (apart from phonetic variants), but in the non-diphthongizing areas either moes or muus.
Now, G.G. Kloeke, in his Hollandsche Expansie (The Hague, 1927), mentioned in Ch. X, defended the theory that ui (and also ij) had been introduced into Holland and thus into Northern standard language by the many southern immigrants who, in the second half of the 16th century, settled in Amsterdam and other northern towns, and that the Hollanders imitated the southern speech, which they thought to be more cultivated than their own. Incidentally, this view had already been expressed by J. te Winkel. A later idea of Kloeke's was that uu was developed in lower social circles, especially maritime ones, and spread eastward, so that moes had to retreat before muus.
| |
| |
In addition, Kloeke maintained that many words in Hollandic with oe < O.W.G. û were not, as was generally thought, borrowed from eastern dialects, but were autochthonous ‘relics’ of a period when oe was general in Holland. C.B. van Haeringen was of the opinion that the semantic ‘colour’ of these words pointed rather to borrowings (Relict of ontlening?, N.Tg. XXI, 132 ff, reprinted Neerlandica, 158 ff), but M. Schönfeld strongly supported the relic-theory by considering, in his Oe-relikten in Holland en Zeeland (Amsterdam, 1932), some toponyms with oe as relics.
W. de Vries vehemently opposed both the expansion and the relic theories in a number of articles (most of them replied to by Kloeke), of which we have only room to mention Is de uu voor oe Holland in- en uitgevoerd? and his article against Schönfeld, Oe-relikten in Holland en Zeeland? (Ts. XLVIII, 18 ff).
A good survey of this discussion is to be found in De opbouw van de algemeen beschaafde uitspraak van het Nederlands (Amsterdam, 1937) by W. Gs. Hellinga, who contests southern influence in the diphthongization. Hellinga's book is also important for its stressing of the conscious ‘building’ of cultivated language, a process which the author considers to be greatly influenced by spelling. Another protest against Kloeke's theory was raised by W.A.F. Janssen in De verbreiding van de uu-uitspraak voor westgermaansch û in Zuid-Oost-Nederland (Maastricht, 1941), which was based on regional dialect data, and the publication of which led to a debate with Kloeke.
Some of the details in Kloeke's theory may, it is true, have to be rectified, but that the expansion theory, not only in the case of uu, but also in that of other isoglosses, is now generally accepted, is due to his investigations. The oe/uu question is clearer and simpler than that of the diphthongization, the problem as to whether it was genuinely Hollandic or Brabant import having perhaps been formulated too simplistically. The truth is probably on both sides, autochthonous tendencies were no doubt promoted and stimulated by the example of the immigrants, whose civilization was superior to that in which they found themselves.
The idea of ‘expansion’ also came out in a discussion opened by Kloeke in the Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten XVIII, 217 ff, on the origin of the diminutive ending, which in modern Standard Netherlandic is -tje, but is capable of remarkable variations that depend on the word to which it is added, as against -ke(n) which is predom- | |
| |
inant in southern dialects. Kloeke explained -tje as a palatalization of -kîn, and situated the starting point of this palatalization in North-Holland, from which province he considered it to have ‘expanded’. W. de Vries attacked this view, pointing in particular to facts in the province of Groningen which required a different explanation and in general to internal factors influencing local development there and elsewhere. A long-drawn debate between the two scholars ensued, in which their views came somewhat nearer to each other. Conclusive to a certain extent was the extensive geographical publication by W. Pée, Dialectgeographie der Nederlandsche Diminutiva (2 vols, nr. IV of the series ‘Uit het Seminarie voor Vlaamse Dialectologie van de Universiteit te Gent’, 1936-38), in which the publications on the subject were reviewed. Pée takes -kîn as the general starting point from which all actual forms developed in accordance with phonetic tendencies existing in each dialect.
| |
‘Ingwaeonic’
As we have seen, the idea of an expansion in later centuries, defended by Kloeke, has met with serious opposition. The idea that historical movements can be deduced from the present picture of isoglosses is, however, a much more dangerous one. To a certain extent there is a communis opinio as to an ‘Ingwaeonic’ substratum under Netherlandic, which later on was covered by a Franconian superstratum that probably moved northward from the south. This would mean that modern Netherlandic is to be looked upon as Franconian with an Ingwaeonic substratum showing itself in some ‘Ingwaeonisms’ formerly explained as ‘Frisisms’.
‘Ingwaeonic’ itself, however, is a rather vague notion, and scholars are not all of them agreed as to what it stands for. And as the term ‘Franconian’, though less vague than ‘Ingwaeonic’, is not clearly defined either, speculations on this subject are bound to remain rather hazardous, the more so as they are concerned, for the greater part, with early historical periods.
G.G. Kloeke, in his essay Zum Ingwäonismen-problem for the Festschrift-Borchling (Neumünster in Holstein, 1932), 338 ff, confesses that at first he had considered using the term ‘Wasserkantenerscheinung’ as being safer and free of an ethnological background. Later, in his Herkomst en groei van het Afrikaans (cf. Ch. IX), 145 ff, he felt inclined to drop the term ‘Ingwaeonic’, exactly because he did
| |
| |
not agree with the implications it had been given by some scholars.
K. Heeroma in his publications has been very outspoken on the subject of Ingwaeonic. As early as in his Hollandse Dialektstudies (Groningen-Batavia, 1935) he took a radical standpoint as regards ‘frisisms’, and repudiated even quite convincing examples in place-names. Later, in several articles, always brilliant and charming, he expounded his - steadily changing - views on the problem of Ingwaeonic. They cannot all be cited here, just a few milestones in the development of his ideas will be mentioned in passing. In his essay Ingwaeoons (Ts. LVIII, 198 ff) he defined the term ‘Ingwaeonic’, making a distinction between East and West Ingwaeonic, and considering Frisian as originally Saxon. Four years later, in Iets over de vroegste Nederlandse taalgeschiedenis (N.Tg. XXXVII, 1 ff), he discussed developments and levellings in the earliest periods of Netherlandic. Five years after that, in Ts. LXV, 266 ff, he opened up new perspectives by introducing the term Chaukisch, identifying Chaucic with West Ingwaeonic.
Protests against Heeroma's daring theories came from more than one side. His radical rejection of ‘frisisms’ in North-Holland was contested by G. Gosses and G. Karsten in a ‘symposion’ held by the Dialect Committee of Amsterdam, in which Heeroma himself took part (a report of these discussions is to be found in Een Friesch substraat in Noord-Holland? Amsterdam, 1942; in the Bijdragen en Mededelingen van de Dialectencommissie). Gosses also attacked what he called Ingvaeonomany in an article in Frisian for the Album-Baader (Nimeguen, 1938), 65 ff, where he held on to the old view, based on old documents, of true Frisians outside the present area of Friesland. A more moderate standpoint was adopted by M. Schönfeld in Ingvaeoons for the N.Tg. XXXIX, 55 ff, an article that owes much to the book by Th. Frings, Die Stellung der Niederlande im Aufbau des Germanischen (Halle a.d. Saale, 1944). Another cautious and sober study is that by P. Jörgensen, Das Problem der Ingwäonen, published in Philologia Frisica Anno 1956 (Groningen-Djakarta, 1957), 7 ff.
Heeroma continued to go his own way in Oostnederlandse taal-problemen (Amsterdam, 1951), where he distinguishes five successive language strata in Groningen, each marked off by its own relics. Heeroma visualizes the language situation of about 1000 as being clearly subdivided, as we can see from his article Ontspoorde frankiseringen
| |
| |
(Ts. LXI, 81 ff), in which he explains differences of sound in some Hollandic words as the result of wrong transpositions from Ingwaeonic into Franconian.
| |
Pronominal problems
Another matter that, since 1920, has been the subject of many an interesting discussion, is that of the personal pronouns of the second person, the forms of address. In Flemish Belgium and the southern provinces of the Netherlands the usual pronoun corresponding to English you is gij, its non-emphatic form ge. Originally, this gij, Middle Netherlandic ghi, was the pronoun for the 2nd person plural, the singular being du. But already in the earliest Netherlandic texts we find it used in the singular as a polite form, du being the familiar form. For a long time, this gij, with its accessory object form u, was almost exclusively the form used in writing, also in the Northern Netherlands, though in spoken Northern Netherlandic it was not used at all. This is a good example of the dissimilarity between the spoken and the written language, and at the same time an illustration of the southern influence on written Standard Netherlandic (cf. Ch. I). In the Northern Netherlands, the familiar personal pronoun of the 2nd person is jij, je, beside which U is used as the polite form. Nowadays, the older du is known in eastern dialects only; its being herded into the eastern districts has been explained as a result of ‘hollandse expansie’ by G.G. Kloeke in N.Tg. XX, 1 ff, a view which he expressed again in his Hollandsche Expansie, mentioned before.
After the appearance of the monograph by J.A. vor der Hake, De aanspreekvormen in het Nederlands, of which only the first part, Middeleeuwen (Utrecht, 1908) came out, it was generally accepted that the forms with j-, an older stage of those with g-, had continued to exist in the ‘Ingwaeonic’, or in vor der Hake's terminology ‘Frisian’ area. The fact, however, that in the written tradition these j-forms cannot be traced, led A.A. Verdenius to formulate a new theory, set forth in Ts. XLIII, 81 ff (reprinted in the author's Studies over Zeventiende Eeuws - Amsterdam, 1946-165 ff), namely that je and jij must have arisen, in the later medieval period, from a special process of palatalization in enclitic positions like hebdi = hebt ghi, where -di, via dži > ži, developed into ji. Verdenius' theory had the advantage that it accounted, in an acceptable way, for the peculiar fact that when the pronouns je or jij are preceded by the verb, the latter
| |
| |
has no personal ending, thus neem je, ga je as opposed to je neemt, je gaat. The theory, however, was contested by J.W. Muller in Ts. XLV, 81 ff. On the whole, Muller upholds the older views, explaining the absence of j-forms in the written tradition by considering gi as a possible spelling for phonetic ji. Verdenius in his article Over mogelike spelvormen onzer j-pronomina in Middelnederlandse en 17de-eeuwse taal for Ts. XLIX, 97 ff (reprinted in Studies over Zeventiende Eeuws, 192 ff), defended himself against Muller's arguments, but was forced to abandon his original position at several points, and Muller's view of the matter may be regarded as being more or less generally accepted. Through this renewed discussion on pronouns, Muller was led to write a summary, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis onzer Nieuwnederlandse aanspreekvormen, for N.Tg. XX, 81 ff, 133 ff, 161 ff, which in a way is a continuation of vor der Hake's book.
In this last article Muller also deals with U, which had earlier been explained as having developed from the written abbreviation UEd. or UE. for Uwe Edelheid. vor der Hake, in N.Tg. V, 16 ff, did not share this opinion, and considered U as the object form u of the pronoun gij. J.H. Kern, ibid., 121 ff, pleaded for UE., but admitted influence of the object form u. Such seems to be the general opinion for the time being, although the process is not yet clear in all its details. Seventeenth century evidence as to the use of U, Uwe, as Kloeke pointed out in his article Uit de voorgeschiedenis van het beleefde pronomen U in Verzamelde Opstellen voor Prof. J.H. Scholte (Amsterdam, 1947), 15 ff, complicates rather than simplifies the situation. This explains the perhaps over-ingenious attempt by P.C. Paardekooper, in N.Tg. XLI, 199 ff, who wanted to account for the rise of U by treating it as a mixture, in 16th century Hollandic, of Brabantic and Hollandic pronominal usage.
The familiar plural form jullie was explained by Kloeke, in his inaugural address Deftige en gemeenzame taal (Groningen, 1934) and in N.Tg. XXXV, 161 ff, as a development of joului. K. Heeroma, in Ts. LVII, 80 ff, modified Kloeke's picture of the phonetic process, but A.A. Verdenius, in N.Tg. XXXVI, 240 ff, started from jijlui, and did not exclude the possibility that joului has had its influence, especially in the object form. This last article has been reprinted in Verdenius' Studies over Zeventiende Eeuws, 299 ff. An important contribution by Verdenius is also his earlier essay Over onze vertrou- | |
| |
welijkheidspronomina en de daarbij behorende werkwoordsvormen for N.Tg. XXXII, 205 ff, reprinted Studies, 204 ff.
We spoke of the complications in connection with the personal and possessive pronouns of the 3rd person, especially in written Northern Netherlandic, in Ch. VIII, 3. c. The form of the pronoum ‘hij’, always written hij, but pronounced ie or die in enclitic position, was discussed by K. Kooiman in N.Tg. XLIII, 324 ff and by M.C. van den Toorn in N.Tg. LII, 85 ff; the latter mentions earlier publications on the subject.
A. van Loey has studied Het bezittelijk voornaamwoord ‘hun’ (Amsterdam, 1958), the original dative of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person plural. |
|
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd