Possessor truncation in kinship terms in Dutch dialects
Gertjan Postma
TET ６９ (２): １５９–１９４ DOI: １０.５１１７/TET２０１７.２.POST
Abstract Possessor truncation in kinship terms in Dutch dialects In this study we report a hardly noticed, poorly studied, and non-understood property of kinship terms in many Dutch dialects: a distinct, more impover- ished possessor inflection in kinship terms, which was coined “possessor truncation” in Goeman et al. (2008). After reporting dialect-geographical, diachronic, and morphological properties of possessor truncation, we give a morphosyntactic account inspired on determiner drop in kinship terms in Italian. Possessor truncation in Dutch and determiner drop in Italian can be unified under the assumption that kinship terms generate their referential role within in the sub-lexical domain, while ordinary nouns merge these argumental properties in the supra-lexical domain.
Keywords: kinship terms, possessive pronouns, inflection, chain reduction, referential role, morphosyntax, distributive morphology, Dutch, Italian
１ Introduction
As was observed in Goeman et al. (2008), some Dutch dialects have a deviant possessive pronoun inflection in kinship terms.
(1) a onze knecht our-infl servant.masc b ons vader our-ø father.masc
VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 159 TAAL & TONGVAL
The difference in inflection between onze ‘our’ in (1a) and ons in (1b) cannot be attributed to gender as both nouns are masculine nouns.１ The suggested dimension seems to be that masculine kinship terms show this “subtractive effect”, as Goeman et al (2008) call it. Goeman et al, however, leave open the possibility that it is a phonological effect, as a voiceless plosive in (1a) might have a different effect on a preceding schwa than a voiced fricative in (1b). Moreover, they notice that onze vader is not a very appropriate word to elicitate, as it is also used as a fixed, and possibly deviant, phrase in a well-known Christian prayer. In this study, we show that this effect is not an artifact in these words but occurs systematically in some (but not all) Dutch dialects. Moreover, we argue that it is not a semantic effect but a morphological effect that only holds in 3-gender dialects. This paper has two parts. In the first part we report our 2012 research on the morphosyntax of possessor truncation. This is given in section 2-4. It was the basis of our semantic study on fake indexicals in Dutch presented in Postma (2012). In section 5 we add some theoretical considerations on the -th- morpheme in response to the account given in Scholten (2015).
２ The data
In the introduction we have given some data from Goeman et al. (2008) on possessor trunctation. Goeman et al. do not exclude the possibility it is a phonological effect. We made a more systematic investigation of the effect. To preclude phonological effects, we focus on possessive inflection in words with sonorant onsets. Secondly, we avoid the prayer effect by con- sidering the MAND elicitation of mijn vader ‘my father’ and compare it with another masculine noun with a sonorant onset, such as mijn mond ‘my mouth’. If the word mond has not been elicitated in the corpus, which occasionally occurs, we used the word hond ‘dog’, which has masculine gender as well. Typical forms in Northern Dutch are given in (2) and (3). The code in brackets is the Kloeke code of the location.
160 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
While there is no difference between the possessive inflection in mond and vader in the dialect of Bellingwolde (Groningen province) in (2), we ob- serve that there is an inflectional contrast in the dialect of Eibergen (Over- ijssel province), given in (3): the possessive pronoun has a truncated form in the case of father. The effect is also present in Southern Dutch (i.e. below the river Rhine): some dialects display the truncation effect, others don’t. Typical forms in Southern Dutch dialects are given in (4) and (5).
To make the effect a bit concrete, I give the situation for Limburgian (Kerkrade dialect, Q121p), taken from MAND. The Kerkrade dialect has three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter). In ordinary nouns, the possessor shows gender agreement as given in (6).
Instead of the expected minge vader ‘my father’ and ming moder ‘my mother’, we encouter forms as in (7):
(7) a. mi vader ‘my father’ b. mi moder ‘my mother’ c. mi kink ‘my child’
These masculine and feminine nouns display the form mi that we normally see in neuters, cf. (6c,7c).２ We refer to this reduced form mi instead of minge/ming as the “truncated form”. We may asssume that truncation also occurs in neuters, despite the fact that it is not visible in the Kerkrade dialect. In the dialect of Grubbenvorst, for instance, where feminine nouns and neuter pattern together in possessives (min deur ‘my door’, min hemd ‘my shirt’), both truncate to mi N in kinship constructions: mi moder ‘my mother’ and mi kind ‘my child’. Not only is the pronoun without inflec- tional suffix, the final consonant of the root, e.g. the n-part of the singular possessor min/din/sin is truncated. Similar effects when the possessor is plural or feminine (‘our’, ‘your.pl’, ‘their’, and ‘her’), although the truncation is less obvious. The question is then what the nature of this truncation is
POSTMA 161 TAAL & TONGVAL and what triggers it. It only occurs in kinship terms. So it might be a semantic effect of encoding some anthropological dimension. It occurs in masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns, albeit not always visible in the latter. The other question is in what dialects the effect occurs. To that purpose, we made an exhaustive dialect extraction from the MAND database, which dialects had possessive truncation in these two masculine words (given in appendix 1, cf. datasheet) and projected them in a dialect map.３ The results are rendered in (8).
(8)
The dialects can be classified in four groups. There are dialects without any effect, for instance Eelde in Drenthe, that has [mĩmˑɔ̃nt] and [mĩvoːd̞ə], underlying /min+mond/ ‘my mouth’ and /min+vader/ ‘my father’. These dialects are indicated with the horizontal dashes. These mainly occur in the North and the West. For a part, reduced contrast is to be expected in the North and the West, as these dialects have less inflection in nouns. Furthermore, there are dialects that clearly have a distinction between possessors of kinship and possessors of other nouns. These come in two types: there are dialects that drop an inflectional morpheme before the kinship term, as illustrated in (3), (5) and (7) above. These mainly occur in Southern Dutch, but also the Twente dialects near Germany, north of the River Rhine, belong to this class. These are indicated in dark squares. The other type encompasses dialects that have an effect in the sense of phonological reduction from a full vowel to schwa, i.e. some segmental material of the possessive root was truncated in the kinship term, e.g. Aalsmeer that has [mainm̲ ɔnt] versus [mə faːdər]. In these cases, a pho-
162 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS nological reduction effect is a possibility, but it might also have a morpho- logical status. These dialects are indicated by grey bars. Finally, we have a small set of dialects that replace the word vader ‘father’ with another term such as pa and pap ‘dad’. Lexical replacement of the cognate of ‘father’ systematically leads to loss of the opposition.４ These are located in the South and form an enclave in the area with the truncation effect (indicated with black dots). We, therefore, suggest that these dialects have had the opposition, but started to use a new lexeme, which for some reason blocks truncation. As we will see, these new nouns do not belong to the appro- priate nominal class.
３ Possessor truncation and gender
For most Dutch dialectologists, the cartographic pattern in (8) is familiar. It follows an important isogloss in the Netherlands: the isogloss between the 3- gender dialects in the South/ East and the 2-gender dialects of Holland and Frisia. The dialect map below is taken from Van Ginneken (1925), cf. (9). The dashed areas are the dialects with three genders (in indefinite noun phrases).
(9)
The similarity with Map 8 is striking. This could mean that the possessive truncation in kinship terms correlates with a morphosyntactic property that is related to the masculine-feminine gender opposition, which has been lost in the North. This leads us to think that the truncation effect is a morphosyntactic interaction between gender and possession, rather than
POSTMA 163 TAAL & TONGVAL with some anthropological dimension. One should, however, notice that the similarity of the truncating dialects isogloss and 3/2-gender isogloss is especially due to the inflectional type (dark squares). It might mean that the effect is only visible in dialects with sufficiently rich morphological systems. Rich inflectional systems correlate with the 3-gender system, as inflection is what encodes gender. If we, however, take also the (phonolo- gical) reduction effect into account (yellow bars), the similarity between the maps is still present, but much less strong. Finally, there is a second sociological demarcation that parallels this line: a religious border between predominantly Catholic and the predominantly Protestant areas. The map is given in (10). Notice that the map only displays the Netherlands. The entire Belgian space is left out as it is predominantly Catholic.
(10)
Fig 8. Catholic (dark) and Calvinistic areas (rest) in the Netherlands (Knippenberg 1992).
The correlation of possessor trunctation with religion might be an argu- ment for an anthropological explanation: the family structures in the Catholic areas might be distinct. This parallel is quite striking indeed, but it correlates less strongly with possessor truncation than the morphosyn-
164 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS tactic gender dimension. So we conjecture that, although it is possible that possessor truncation might encode some anthropological feature and fa- mily relations in certain societies, it is more probable that possessor trun- cation is a morphosyntactic phenomenon.
４ Possessor truncation diachronically
Possessor truncation is a poorly studied phenomenon. It is briefly men- tioned in a few dialect grammars: Bezoen 1938, Pauwels 1958, De Schutter 1966, De Schutter & Nuyts 2005) without providing a synchronic or dia- chronic account. For that reason, it is difficult to study it dialect-geogra- phically and diachronically. Fortunately, we have Winkler’s Dialecticon, which includes the Parable of the Prodigal Son for a representative set of Dutch and Low German dialects. In the Parable the words ‘father’, ‘son’ , and ‘brother’ occur various times: ‘father’ 5-10 times, ‘son’ 3-5 times, ‘broth- er’ 1-2 times, dependent on the wording of the texts. Moreover, this parable was elicitated again by Scholtmeijer in 1996. This makes it possible to study possessor truncation diachronically. Curiously, truncation does not occur in all kinship terms. The word ‘son’ and its cognates is typically excluded. In this section we study the behaviour of ‘son’ versus ‘father’ and ‘brother’ in 6 Limburgian dialects.５ We do so for two time points: 1874 and 1996. The data (given in appendix 2, cf. datasheet) are summarized in (11).
(11) Possessive inflection in Limburg 1874 full truncated brother 0 10 son 21 0 father 0 39
So while ‘brother’ and ‘father’ only occur with the truncated form, ‘son’ only occurs with the fully inflected form. This is the situation in 1874. Hundred years later, in 1996, the effect is weaker, but still present (cf. 13 on the next page). In ‘son’, the truncated inflection is still absent, but ‘father’ and ‘brother’ migrate to the ‘son’ class. It seems that ‘brother’ is more sensitive to this than ‘father’. But whenever ‘father’ is replaced by the new form pap, it migrates to the son-class as well. This has happened completely in the town of Sittard. Notice that intervocalic /th/ has often been dropped giving rise to vajer and broor. In the case of ‘father/mother/brother/sister/daughter’, this dental
POSTMA 165 TAAL & TONGVAL morpheme is historically a morpheme denoting kinship (Philippa 2003-2009, s.v. vader) and might still play a role synchronically.６ If we lump the etymo- logical -th- forms together and oppose them to the form without -th-, ‘son’, we get a correlation table in (12) for 1874.
(12) 1874 Limburg full truncated +th 0 49 -th 21 0
The cross table implies that possessor truncation significantly correlates with the etymological presence of the -th- morpheme in masculine kinship terms (p-value < 0.00001). So if the morpheme -th - is really the cause of the truncation, reduction of the morpheme by intervocalic glide formation or deletion must have been still synchronically productive. Hundred fifty years later, the opposition of untruncated possessors and full possessors in kinship terms in these Limburgian dialects still exists but it is subject to erosion.
(13) Possessive inflection in Limburg 1996 full truncated brother 5 7 son 24 0 father 17 30
In many cases, ‘father’ and/or ‘brother’ have migrated to the son-class. The dialects of Roermond and Weert retain the original situation. In Maas- tricht, ‘father’ has joined the son- class, in Stamproy and Venlo ‘brother’ ([broor]) has joined the son-class, while in Sittard both ‘father’ and ‘broth- er’ has joined the son-class. This dialect has lost the phenomenon alto- gether. It did so, by replacing vader ‘father’ by pap ‘dad’.
５ The morphosyntactic status of the th-morpheme
We are left with the circumstance that a specific set of nouns (some kin- ship terms) in Southern dialects have deviant possessive inflection. The ruling dimension cannot be the extra argument in ‘father’ (as Scholten 2015 assumes), since mam, pap or other two-place predicates like ontvangst (‘reception’,masc)oroverwinning (‘victory’,fem)donotparticipatein possessor truncation. It cannot be the kinship dimension as such, since
166 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS not all kinship terms show the effect (‘son’ does not participate). It cannot be gender, as ‘son’ does not participate while ‘mother’ does participate. The only way to describe this special class of nouns is by assuming that they establish a separate nominal class. In view of the observed correlation with the -th- morpheme, it is attractive to identify this nominal morpheme as a class marker in the sense of Bernstein (1993) and Picallo (2005).７ Class markers have a relation with the D-domain, which hosts the noun’s referentiality. Schoorlemmer (2009) contrasts Romance (plus West-Flemish), which have systematic class markers, like /-a/ in Italian la bocc-a ‘the mouth’, with Germanic (minus West-Flemish) which are, Schoorlemmer assumes, without class markers. Schoorlemmer reserves a distinct label for class markers (WM) and the determiner (D). While in Romance class markers８ merge immediately to the NP-root as word mar- ker (WM) in (14a), this function is taken over in Germanic by the D projec- tion (14b), external to the nominal domain. A second difference is that D agrees with the class marker WM in gender in Romance, D is remerged in Germanic.９ Schoorlemmer’s two configurations are given in (14).１０
(14)
The difference between the two structures is, however, not so extreme as suggested by the labeling. In both cases the referential role is inserted low, i.e. below the adjective (AP). The difference is only whether the referential role, which we systematically label with D, is inserted ‘late’, i.e. after closure of the NP phase as in (14b), or ‘early’, i.e. before closure of the NP phase as in (14a). If it is inserted before closure, the low D can get joint spellout with the noun. If it is inserted after closure of nP, the lower D retains its phono- logical independence and is sensitive to DELETE after movement.１１ If we indicate the NP-phase level with nP (Svenonius 2004, Bošković 2008, Guisti 2015), we get the structures in (15ab).
POSTMA 167 TAAL & TONGVAL
(15) a.
b.
The fact that the two structures are closely related, makes it probable that the distribution over the two language types, Romance (plus West-Flem- ish) on one side and Germanic (minus West-Flemish) on the other side, might be less categorical. There is no apriori reason why Germanic would not have the structures of type (15a), or Romance the structures of type (15b), under the asumption that the variable insertion point of D, low or high with respect to the NP phase, is an option of UG. Now, as we concluded above, the Dutch dialects with possessor trunca- tion do have (at least) one class marker: -th-. This has the shape of the Dutch determiner de and the fact that it is spelled out together with N indicates that it is inserted in the spellout domain of N, i.e. it is realized in
168 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS the “Romance” structure (15a). We assume that D is in the first projection above NP, which is nP. This is a combination of the Romance strategy using agree in (14a) and the Germanic strategy of having D inserted at the slot of the class marker, as in (14b) taken from Schoorlemmer (2009).
(16) a.
b.
Now what is the -n(e) part in mijn/(dijne)/sijne in the possessor system in West Germanic? It is this part that is tructated in kinship terms. If we identify this -n-part with the determiner, we can unify the two strategies in Dutch under the assumption that remerge of low D always takes place and that the difference is captured at the spellout level: a high spellout of
POSTMA 169 TAAL & TONGVAL the D-chain in mi-ne zoon ‘my son’ and a low spellout in mi vader ‘my father’, as represented in (17).
(17) a. mine zoon [DP -ne [nP mi [ø] [NP zoon]]] high spellout |______| b. mi vader [DP -ø [nP mi [der] [NP va-]]] low spellout |______| Evidence for the empty morpheme in zoon ‘son’ and other masculine kin- ship terms comes from the fact that they take the deviant -s plural inflec- tion: zoons. S-plurals typically occur in Dutch with nouns that end in an -el/-er/-en suffix. If we analyze this as [zoon-ø-]s with an empty class mar- ker, we understand the deviant -s-plural. Other masculine kinship terms comply to this pattern, such as broers ‘brothers’, neefs nephews, ooms ‘un- cles’, but not feminine kinship terms: nichten/*nichts ‘niece’, nor in the regional/archaic snaren/*snaars ‘sister in law’. Evidence for the relation between -n(e) and D in kinship terms comes from Italian. As is well-known, kinship terms in Italian, such as padre ‘father’, madre ‘mother’, sorella ‘sister’, fratello ‘brother’ drop the determi- ner (Alexiadou 2003, Penello 2002, Cardinaletti 1998, Giusti 2015:149).
(18) a. la mia bocca the my mouth b. *la/ø mia madre the my mother c. *il/ø mio padre the my father d. *la/ø mia sorella the my sister
In Italian, the article cannot be present in the case of kinship terms in (18b- d) with overt possessor.１２ Parallelism to the possessor truncation in Lim- burgian is established if we identify the (inflected) -n morpheme in mine mond with the article, as represented in (19).
(19) a. [DP -ne [nP mi ø [NP mond ]]] mine monk
[DP la [nP mia ø [NP bocca ]]] la mia bocca
b. [DP -ø [nP mi -der [NP va- ]]] mi vader
[DP -ø [nP mio -dre [NP pa- ]]] mio padre
170 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
Evidence for the relation between the first projection above NP and the referential domain can be drawn from double articles in Swedish. Accord- ing to Schoorlemmer (2009), the definite article is inserted low and re- merged, let us assume for scope reasons,１３ as illustrated in (20).１４
(20) a. d-et stora hus-et the big house neuter bd-en stora bil-en the big car nonneuter
c. [DP d-X [AP .... [DP X[NP noun ]]]]
d. [DP d-X [AP .... [NP noun - X ]]] (with N-to-X)
Schoorlemmer assumes that this is cross-linguistically the case. What is special about Swedish is that the lower copy is not deleted. The reason is that hus has incorporated into -et. Since the DELETE operation needs a sufficient lexical integrity (in this case of of -et) to execute (Nunes 2009), the necessary condition for DELETE is not met after incorporation of hus into et: huset. The higher copy -et cannot be deleted either as it incorpo- rates into the d- morpheme, which is base-generated high (d- is not part of the article in Swedish, which is -en/-et). A double spellout is the result. In Dutch the article itself includes the d- morpheme. In ordinary cases, the lower copy is deleted. However, in special cases where the noun incorpo- rates into it, the lower de copy cannot be deleted and gets spelled out. This strongly suggest that the -th- morpheme in Dutch kinship terms is the referent, that it is generated low, and that it is remerged into the D-do- main.
(21) [DP -D-[nP mi -D- [NP vaar ]]]
As long as mi does not incorporate into the higher D copy, the higher copy can delete while the lower cannot, because N has incorporated into it: it lacks sufficient lexical integrity for the DELETE operation.
(22) a. [DP -ø [nP mi [NP våder ]]] low spellout of D mi våder
b. [DP -ne [nP mi [NP pap-ø ]]] high spellout of D mine pap
c. [DP -n [nP mi [NP vader]]] double spellout of D mijn vader
d. [DP -ø [nP mi [NP pap-ø ]]] no spellout of D *
The phonological reduction of the intervocalic -th/d- in vader, moeder, etc. in Dutch dialects will have consequences for the stability of the construc- tion in (22a).１５ In the cases of the phonological (intervocalic) reduction ə from broeder [brudər] ‘brother’ to broer [bru r], from vader to vaar, etc.,
POSTMA 171 TAAL & TONGVAL or in the case of lexical replacement of vader by the loanword pap,the lower copy ultimately deletes and hence it has become impossible to leave the higher copy without spellout. The nouns now participate in the con- struction of (22b). The two other logical possibilities are standard Dutch (double spellout) in (22c) and, finally, no spellout (22d), which is ungram- matical. There is semantic evidence of a lower copy of the referential index in kinship terms. As was noticed in Scholten (2015), kinship terms behave deviantly in NP-coordinations. While coordinations of other animate nouns have only one referent, of which the two nominal predicates are predicated as in (23a), kinship terms give rise to a dual reading, illustrated in (23b).
(23) a mijn buurman en vriend one referent my neighbour and friend ιx [NEIGHBOUR(x,1) ∧ FRIEND (x, 1)] b. mijn broer en zus two referents my brother and sister ι(x,y) [BROTHER(x, 1) ∧ SISTER(y, 1)]
The contrast in behaviour of such NP coordinations indicates that ordinary animate nouns have their referential role external to NP, and hence exter- nal to NP coordinations, while kinship terms derive their referentiality from inside the NP. This referentiality is hosted in low D. We hypothesize that the differences in kinship terms between the various Dutch dialects are only a dimension of spellout: high (mine pap), low (mi vader), or both high and low (mijn vader), while neither high nor low is excluded. Double spellout is only possible in variants without morphological m/f gender oppositions. These are the dialects without possessor truncation.
Apparently, the m/f opposition present in Limburgian, but absent in Stan- dard Dutch, licenses chain reduction of the D-chain (high or low) in some way (24a1/2). In the absence of a m/f opposition (dialects with common
172 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS gender), no chain reduction is allowed (24b). Nunes (2001) defines chain reduction of a movement chain as a way to comply to the linearization procedure as given in the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA).
(25) Chain Reduction (Nunes 2001) γ a. Let be a nontrivial chain {x1,x2...xn}. b. Delete the minimal number of elements of γ that suffices for γ to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA.
Now, without going into the details of the LCA, it might be clear that if two copies xi and xi+1 in a movement operation (COPY+MERGE+DELETE) do not form a chain, chain reduction cannot apply. One instance of this situa- tion is when the two copies are too close to each other, and hence c- command each other. This is ruled out in standard movement, which fully participates in the three components, including DELETE. We then get the so-called anti-locality effect. However, from this very perspective, double spellout and reduplication can be seen as a consequence of pre- cisely this local movement.
(26) Local movement at the phonological interface Double spellout and reduplication are consequences of too-local movement
Let us now speculate on the reasons why chain reduction is not activated in the case of dialects with m/f opposition. Let us assume that the m/f distinction comes about by a gender projection, GP, present in Limburgian but absent in Northern dialects. The presence of this GP might be the reason that a sufficient distance is created between D and the remerged copy of D in Limburgian. On the other hand, the absence of GP in Northern dialects might explain the block on chain reduction in Northern dialects. This sheds a first light on the possible mechanism that might be at stake. We realize that much work still has to be done in this new dimension of Dutch morphology, especially its relation with the masculine-feminine opposition. However, this first inventory has shown that formal linguistics might be a fruitful tool to handle this morphological dimension.
POSTMA 173 TAAL & TONGVAL
６ Conclusions
Many Dutch dialects display possessor truncation in kinship terms. Kin- ship terms have their referential role (“the article”) generated low, i.e. in the lexical domain (nP). This referential role is moved to D to get scope over the entire noun phrase (remerged). The -n morpheme in mijn/(dijn)/ zijn in Dutch dialects can be identified as D. Possessor truncation is the low spellout of the referential role, which is sensitive to morphosyntactic fea- tures, such as gender, and nominal class, and therefore dialect dependent. It only occurs in the 3-gender area (Twente + Southern Dutch minus West Flemish). The presence of -th- (father) is a necessary condition for trunca- tion, even though the morpheme might have been reduced to a glide under intervocalic lenition. Finally, possessor truncation is in decay, at least in the province of Limburg. It might be due to the decay of the th-morpheme and to the fact that deletion gets in its final stage where the intervocalic glide is not interpretable anymore as an underlying -d-.
Notes
1. Only the Southern and Eastern dialects have masculine nouns as opposed to feminine nouns. In the other dialects masculine and feminine nouns have merged into one common gender class, in opposition to neuter. 2. An anonymous reviewer reports similar truncation effects with indefinites in function of the kinship dimension, as illustrated by the contrast between the truncated (i) and untruncated (ii). (i) Ik heb gee vader/moeder nie meer +kinship truncation I have no.ø father/mother not anymore (ii) Ik heb gene vogel / geen mand nie meer. -kinship no truncation I have no.masc bird / no-fem basket not anymore This shows that indefinite determiners pattern with possessive pronouns (German ein- group). 3. There was no principled reason to limited ourselves to masculine nouns, apart form the fact that for the diachonic dimension we had to. 4. This is the picture that emerges on the basis of the MAND data (cf. data sheet) as well as native speaker judgements. Cf. https://hdl.handle.net/10744/8d7375da-3a7d-413f-aaef- 9fca0ed7b488 5. Maastricht, Roermond, Sittard, Stamproy, Venlo, Weert. 6. This will be elaborated in section 5. 7. I thank Marijke de Belder for discussion on this point. 8. Class or word markers are indicated with WM in the tree. WMP stands for word marker phrase. 9. Internal merge or remerge is the minimalist equivalent of syntactic movement.
174 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
10. Taken from Schoorlemmer (2009:230). We have added the agree relation between D and WM in Romance/West Flemish in (14a). 1 1. We assume decomposition of movement in the basic operations COPY+MERGE+DE- LETE. 12. An anonymous reviewer draws attention to the fact that the Italian kinship terms pappa,andmamma retain the article and are, hence, on a par with zoon and pap in Limburgian. 13. Schoorlemmer assumes the trigger is a semantic type mismatch. This is not the place to go into this in detail. 14. Roberts (2012) claims that the referential role is born low in general and is extracted from the NP domain (nP). 15. Conversely, the reanalysis that took place in Scandinavian, where d- is not part of D anymore, has consequences for the spellout of D in fader > far.
References
Alexiadou, Artemis (2003). Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. In Coene, M. & Y. D’hulst (eds), From NP to DP. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bernstein, Judy B. (1993). Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. PhD dis- sertation, City University of New York. Bezoen, Herman Lambertus (1938). Klank- en vormleer van het dialect der gemeente Enschede. Proefschrift Amsterdam. Bošković, Ž. (2008). What will you have: DP or NP? In: Proceedings of NELS 37, Amherst, GLSA, 101–114. Cardinaletti A. (1998). On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems In: A. Alexiadou, C. Wilder & A di Cura, Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, Amsterdam, Benjamins, pp. 17-53 (ISBN 9789027227430). Dahl, Östen. (2015). Grammaticalization in the North: Noun phrase morphosyntax in Scandinavian vernaculars. Language Science Press. Ginneken, van Jac. (1925). Handelingen. van het 11e Nedl. Philologencongres, 26 [1925]). Giusti G. (1994). Enclitic Articles and Double Definiteness: A Comparative Analysis of Nominal Structure in Romance and Germanic. The Linguistic Review, 11, 241-255. Giusti, Giuliana. (2015). Nominal Syntax at the interfaces. A comparative study of languages with articles. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Goeman, Ton et al. (2008). Morphological Atlas of the Dutch Dialects. Amsterdam University Press. Nunes, Jairo (2001). ‘Sideward movement’. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2): 303-344. Pauwels J.L. (1958). Het dialect van Aarschot en omstreken. Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek. Penello, N. 2002. Possessivi e nomi di parentela in alcune varietà italiane antiche e moderne. Verbum IV: 327-348. Philippa M. et al. (2003-2009). Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands. Picallo, Carme, (2005). ‘Some notes on grammatical gender and l-pronouns’, Fachbereich Sprach- wissenschaft, Arbeitspapier 119: 107-121. Universität Konstanz, Germany. Scholten, Jolien (2015). Split Possession in a dialect of Dutch. Talk presented at the Meeting of the Netherlands Linguistic Society, Utrecht, 7 Febr 2015. Scholtmeijer (1996). De Nieuwe Winkler. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/winkler/lijst.html
POSTMA 175 TAAL & TONGVAL
Schoorlemmer, Erik (2009). Agreement, dominance and doubling: the morphosyntax of DP. PhD Dissertation, Leiden University. De Schutter, George & Jan Nuyts (2005) Stadsantwerps - Taal in stand en land. Lanoo. Tielt. De Schutter, G. (1966). De verbuiging van het onbepaald lidwoord en van een aantal bijvoegelijke naamwoorden in Zuidnedelandse dialecten. Taal en Tongval 18, 71-99. Svenonius, Peter (2004) On the Edge. In: D. Adger, C. de Cat & G. Tsoulas (eds). Peripheries. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 259–287. Taeldeman, Johan (1980). Inflectional aspects of adjectives in the dialects of Dutch-speaking Belgium. In: Wim Zonneveld, Frans Van Coetsem and Orrin W. Robinson (eds.). Studies in Dutch Phonology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 265-292. Taraldsen, K. T. (1990), “D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian”. In J. Mascaró, & M. Nespor (eds), Grammar in Progress. GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, Studies in Gen- erative Grarnmar 36, Foris, Dordrecht. 419-432. De Vriendt, Sera & Roland Willemyns (1998). Brussel: Dialect in stad en rand. Lanoo. Tielt. Winkler, Johan. (1874). Algemeen Nederduitsch en Friesch dialecticon. Deel 1. Martinus Nijhoff, Den Haag.
About the author
Gertjan Postma is researcher of diachronic syntax at the Meertens Institute Amsterdam. Address: Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185, 1012 DK Amsterdam. E-mail: [email protected]
176 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
Appendix 1 Datasheet: Part1
The appendix (datasheet) is also published on https://hdl.handle.net/10744/8d7375da-3a7d-413f-aaef-9fca0ed7b488 and on http://en.aup.nl/nl/tijdschriften/source-material-taal-en-tongval.html
Kinship effect in mijn mond versus mijn vader (‘my mouth/father’)inthe MAND. type Kloeke transcriptie (IPA) Kloeke transcriptie (IPA)
K087p P L QPQࡦ K087p P L Q E117p PDL QPܧnt ? E117p mԥIDޝGԥr E173p PDL QPܧnt ? E173p mԥIDޝGԥr E179q mܭ\ Pܧnt ? E179q ma vædԥr ࡚Gԥݒࡗޝܤnt ? E192p mԥ vܧL PܭE192p m GԥݐޞܤѺnt ? E193q mԥ vܧ L PܭE193q m ࡗGԥrޝ QIDܭ L QPݜѺnt ? E200p mܭE200p P ࡋ ѺL PݜѺnt / m E223p mܭޞܼ n mܧnt ? E223p mԥYDޞGԥr E227p mܭL QPܧѺnt ? E227p mԥ vܤޝࡖGԥU F145p min mܧnt ? F145p mԥ vܧޞܤ GԥU F170p PÕPܧѺ nt ? F170p mԥ vܧޞԥ dԥr ࡖGԥUޝܤF173p min mݜQWࡘ ? F173p mԥn v H002p PÕPXѺ QW ? H002p mԥvܧޝGԥr H016p PL PX QW ? H016p mԥvܧޝGԥr I025p PLQPR࡚ QW ? I025p mԥ fܤޝGUࡦ I036p min mܧࡖ ƾW ? I036p mԥ vܤޝGԥUࡢ I042p mܼޞn mܧnth ? I042p mԥQYDޞGԥr I052p mܭ L QPܧƾW ? I052p mԥ vܥޞdԥUࡢ I057p mܭL Pܧnth ? I057p mԥ vܥޝࡖGԥr ࡗGԥݐࡢޝ nt ? I099p mԥѺ Yࡩ DܧI099p mim K016p mܭ Õ PܧޝѺ ѺW ? K016p mԥ vܤޝࡖGԥU K027p mܤL Q PܧQW ? K027p mԥ vܥdԥ dԥݓޞܥࡋ Ѻnt ? K039p mԥ vܧ L PܭK039p m K060p mܭޞL Pܧ࡚࡛ nt ? K060p mԥYDޝ࡛ԥ dԥr K079p PDL QPܧ Ѻnt ? K079p mԥ vܥޞdԥr ѺGԥrޞnt ? K123p mԥYDޞܧK123p mݞࡖ jn m ࡗGԥUޝܤ nt ? L001p mԥYࡩޞi mݜܭL005p m dԥݓޞܥL YܭL008p mԥPXO ? L008a m L014p mԥѺ mܧѺnt ? L014p mԥ vܥޞdԥ ࡗGԥݒࡢޝѺ nt ? L017p mԥѺYDܧࡗÕ PޞܭL017p m L020p mܭL QPܧQWހ ? L020p mԥ fܥޝGԥr ࡖ Gԥݐܤ ࡛ ÕѺ QPݜѺ Ѻnt ? L021p mԥѺ YࡩܭL021p mԥn mݜѺnt / m dԥݓޞܥnt ? L044p mԥ vܧL Q PܭL044p m L091b mܭ L QPܧnt ? L091b mԥ vܧޞd ԥr
POSTMA 177 TAAL & TONGVAL
N014p PÕ PXѺ QW ? N014p mԥvܧޞ࡚dࡖ ԥr N056p PÕ PXѺ ࡋ ѺQW ? N056p mԥvܧޝGԥr N067p PL Pܧ࡛ nt ? N067p mԥvܧޞԥ dԥr N141p PL Pܧ࡛ n ? N141p mevܧޝGԥr N163p PL PX QW ? N163p mԥvܧޞ࡚ԥࡖ dԥr A001z PLQP\Oࡗ ԥ 0 A001z PLQWDޞࡗ A007p mi mܧޞnt 0 A007p PLQYDޞGԥr B022a PÕࡋ QK}Ѻ ࡋ QW 0 B022a PÕSހDޝѺ B029p PÕࡋ QKXѺ ࡋ ѺQ 0 B029p PÕࡋ QKDޞLѺ W B042p PÕPܧѺ ࡚ Ѻnt 0 B042p mim pabԥ B060p PLQKXQ 0 B060p min hܭL W B077p PLQKXޞQ 0 B077p min hܥޞL W B096p PLQKRޞZ Q 0 B096p PLQKDL W B101p mimܧ QWހ 0 B101p min fܧޝԥ jԥ B120p PÕࡋ QKXѺ ࡋ ѺQ 0 B120p PÕࡋ QKDޞѺ ࡗL W B127p PLQKRޞX Q 0 B127p min hܭޞL࡛ W C001a mimܧ࡚࡞ QWހ 0 C001a PLPSހ ޞ C026p mim mܧޞtѺ 0 C026p PLPS ޞ C033p minmܧ࡛ ѺQWࡖ 0 C033p PÕYRޞѺ Gԥ Uࡩ C041a mimܧnth 0 C041a PLQS ޞ C068p PÕPܧѺ ࡚࡞ nt 0 C068p PÕSDޝѺ C070a PÕPܧѺ nt 0 C070a PÕYRޝѺ GUࡦ C079p PÕPܧѺ nt 0 C079p PÕYRޞѺ ࡖGԥr ࡛Gԥݐޝܧ C085p PÕYѺ ࡩ 0 ހ࡚࡞ QWܧC085p min m C103a mi mܧQWࡗ 0 C103a PÕIܥޝGԥѺ r C105p PLޞѺPܧnt 0 C105p PÕIܧޞѺ jԥr C118p PÕPܧѺ ࡖ nt 0 C118p PÕYRޝѺ ࡛GUࡦ C128p mimܧࡋ ѺQWހ 0 C128p PÕYܧޝѺ ࡛Gԥr C131p PÕPܧQWހѺ 0 C131p PÕYܧޝѺ ࡛GԥUࡢ C149p PÕPޞܧѺ Ѻnt 0 C149p PÕYRޝѺ Gԥ C159p mimܧ࡚࡞ QWހ 0 C159p PÕIܧޝѺ ࡛Gԥr C163p mimܧQWހ 0 C163p PÕYܧޝѺ ࡛GԥUࡢ C165p PÕPܧޞѺ Ѻnt 0 C165p PÕYܧޝѺ ࡚Gԥr C176p min mܧࡋ Ѻnt 0 C176p minfܥޞdԥ C181t PLޝѺPܧQWࡗ 0 C181t PLޝѺQIܥޝGԥr C183p PÕPޞܧѺ Ѻnt 0 C183p PÕQIܧޝѺ ࡛èԥUࡢ C189p PLQPR QWK 0 C189p PLQYRޝ࡛Gԥr C192p PLޞѺPܧࡖ nt 0 C192p PÕYܧޝѺ ࡖGԥr L Gԥݓޞ࡛ԥ QIHޝܭ࡛ nth 0 D001p mܧ࡛ԥ n mޝܭD001p m GԥѺ rޝÕ YDܭѺ ѺW 0 D006p mޝࡗ Õ PݜܭD006p m E003a PLޞQPܧƾW 0 E003a PLޞQIDޝGԥr
178 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
E009p mܤL QPܧQW 0 E009p mܤѺÕ YDޝѺ ࡖGԥ E014a mܧj mܧnt 0 E014a mܧj vadԥr E019p mԥmܧQWހ 0 E019p mԥYࡢ DޝGԥUࡢ E027p mܧܼn mܧnt 0 E027p mܧܼ݄ YDޞ࡛Gԥr E030p mԥmܧQWࡧހ 0 E030p mԥѺ YDޝࡗGࡧ ԥr GԥݐޝL QYDܭnth 0 E040p mܧL QPܭE040p m ࡖGԥUޞL QYDޞܤL QPݜƾWࡩ 0 E041p mޞܤE041p m E043p mԥn mܧࡖ nt 0 E043p mԥQYDޞGԥr E050p mܤࡖ L QPܧQW 0 E050p mܤࡖ L QYDޞࡖGԥU E058p mܭޝQPܧnd 0 E058p mܭޝQYDGԥr GԥrޝѺnt 0 E060p mݞMQYDޞܧE060p mݞjn m E069p P ࡛ L QPܧQWހPԥ 0 E069p mԥ vܤޝGԥޥ E076p PHޞÕ PܧѺ nt 0 E076p mܭޞÕ YܥޝѺ ࡞GԥU࡚ ࡢ ѺGԥݐޝܤ L QYܭnth 0 E077p mܧ L QPܭE077p m Gԥݐࡢޞ L QYࡩ Dܭnt 0 E080p mܧE080p P ࡛ L QP E084p mԥmܧࡗ nt 0 E084p mԥYࡩ DޝGԥUࡢ ࡛GԥݐޝܥQYޝܭ࡛Gԥݐ / mޝܥQYޝQWK 0 E091b mܼޝQPXޝܭQWKPޝQPXޝE091b mܼ / GԥݐޝGԥݐ / mԥ YDޝL QYDޝܭnth 0 E091p mܧnth / mԥ mܧL QPޝܭE091p m GԥݐޝܤL QYޝܭm ࡛GԥݐޝܥL QYܭGԥݐ / mޝL QYDܭnth 0 E092p mܧL QPܭE092p m Ѻ Gԥݐࡢޝܭnt 0 E093p Pmࡋ Õࡋ YܧE093p PDL P E111p mܭ L QPܧQWހ 0 E111p mܭ L QIDޝGԥUࡢ E127p mܭL QP}ࡋ ƾNW 0 E127p mܭL QYDޞGԥr Gԥݐࡢޞܤ E129p P ࡛ ܼ PRѺ ࡚ ƾW 0 E129p P ࡛ ܼ vѺ E133p mԥ mܧnt 0 E133p mԥI ޝGԥr E155p mԥ mܧࡖ nt 0 E155p mԥYDޝࡖGԥr E169p mܭL QPܧnt 0 E169p mܭL QIDޝGԥr E178p PDL QPܧnt 0 E178p PDL QIDޝGԥr E181p mܭL QPܧnt 0 E181p mܭL QIDޝGԥr E183p PDL QPܧnt 0 E183p PDL QIܥޝGԥr E198h mԥ mܧnt 0 E198h mԥ fܤѺGԥU E198p mԥ mܧѺt 0 E198p mԥ fܤѺGԥU ࡖGԥݐࡢޝ L QYࡢ DܭѺnt 0 E209p mޞܧ L QPܭE209p m E211p mܤÕ PܧQWѺ 0 E211p mܤÕ YܤޝGԥUѺ E215p mܤѺܼ QPܧQW 0 E215p mܤѺܼ QYܧޝGԥU GԥݐޞܤѺnt 0 E220p mԥѺ vܧE220p PDL QP E225p mܤޞܼ QPܧQW 0 E225p mܭޞܼ n vܤޞࡖGԥU Gԥݐޞܤ nt 0 E231p mԥѺ vܧE231p mԥm Gԥݒޞࡗ MQYDܭnt 0 E232q mܧࡗ jn mܭE232q m LѺ WޞѺ ѺX Q 0 F017p PÕࡋ QKDޞF017p PÕࡋ QKݜ ࡖL WޞܤF036p min hݛn 0 F036p min h F042p PÕPܧѺ nt 0 F042p PÕIDޝGUѺ ࡦ
POSTMA 179 TAAL & TONGVAL
F043p PÕPܧQWހѺ 0 F043p PÕYѺ ࡢ DޝGԥUࡢ PLQKܭL Wހ F047p min mܧnth 0 F047p PLQIDޞGԥr F050a PÕPܧQWѺ ࡗ 0 F050a PÕIܭޝѺ F052p PÕPܧѺ nt 0 F052p PÕIDޝѺ ѺGԥr GԥݐѺ ࡢޝ nt 0 F053p PÕIDܧF053p mim F056p PÕPܧѺ nt 0 F056p PÕIDޝѺ ѺGUࡢࡦ F060p mimܧnt 0 F060p mi fܭޝGԥ F063p PLޝѺPܧnt 0 F063p PÕIѺࡩ ޝࡗѺ F065p mi mܧࡖ nt 0 F065p min vܤޝࡖGԥU F066p min mܧnt 0 F066p PÕYDޝUѺ F070p min mܧnt 0 F070p min vܭޞdԥr F074p mimܧnt 0 F074p PÕࡋ YDޝGԥѺ r F076p mi mܧnt 0 F076p PÕIDޝѺ Gԥݐࡢޝnt 0 F077p mԥѺ YDܧF077p mԥm F083p min mܧQWހ 0 F083p PLYDޝ F084p PLQYDL Mԥr 0 ހF084p mimݜQW F086p mi mܧnt 0 F086p PLYDޝࡖU F089p min mܧޞnt 0 F089p PÕYDޝѺ Gԥݒޞࡖ nt 0 F090p PLQYDܧF090p mi m F095c min mܧnth 0 F095c min vܧޝGԥr F095p PÕPܧѺ nt 0 F095p PÕQYDޞѺ ࡛ F096p mimܧࡖ QWހ 0 F096p PLYࡩ Dޞ F098p mi mܧࡖ QWހ 0 F098p PLQYDޝࡖ F100p min mܧࡖ nth 0 F100p min YDޞGԥr F103p mimܧnt 0 F103p PÕYDޝѺ ࡖ F106p mi mܧnt 0 F106p PLYDޝ F107p min mܧѺnt 0 F107p PÕYѺ ࡩ Dޞࡖ GԥݐѺޝnt 0 F107q PÕYDܧF107q mim m F108p min mܧnt 0 F108p min vadԥr F109p mimܧ nt 0 F109p mԥѺ vܧޞԥ F111p min mܧࡋ Ѻnt 0 F111p mԥ vܧ࡛ ܤUࡢ F113p mimܧnt 0 F113p PÕYDޞѺ F119p mimܧQWހ 0 F119p PÕࡋ YDޝGԥѺ ѺޝF120p PÕYD 0 ހѺQWܧF120p PÕݦѺ m F121p mܼࡗ ƾPRޝࡖѺƾNW 0 F121p mܼࡖ ƾYDޝࡗѺGԥU F124p mܼn m݉nt 0 F124p mܼQYࡩ ܧޞࡖԥ dԥUࡢ GԥݐѺޞ࡛ Ѻnt 0 F129p PÕYDܧF129p min m F132p mi mܧQWހ 0 F132p PLYDޞGԥ F133p min mܧnt 0 F133p PLQYDޝGԥ F138p min mܧࡖ QWހ 0 F138p PLYࡩ Dޝࡖ F144p PÕQPܧѺ ࡖ Ѻnt 0 F144p PL QYࡩ DޞGԥr
180 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
GԥݐѺޝ nt 0 F151p PÕ YDܧF151p min m F154p min mܧnt 0 F154p PLIࡩ DޞGԥr F156p min hܧࡖ nt 0 F156p PLQYDޞGԥr èԥݓޞF158p min YD 0 ހࡖ QWܧF158p PLQ P GԥUޞF161p PLQYD 0 ހF161p min mݜQW F165p min hܧnt 0 F165p PÕYܤޝGԥUѺ ࡢ GԥݐѺ ޞܤnt 0 F169p PÕYܧF169p mim F172p min mܧnt 0 F172p PLQYࡩ ܤޝGԥU Ѻ ࡖGԥݐޝܤnt 0 F175p PÕYܧF175p mim F178p min mܧѺnt 0 F178p PLQYDޞGԥr Gԥݒޝܥ nt 0 F179p PÕѺ YࡩܧF179p min m F181p min mܧ࡛ nt 0 F181p min vܤޞࡖGԥUࡢ F184p min mܧnt 0 F184p PLQYDޝGԥr F191p mԥn mܧnt 0 F191p mԥѺ Yࡩ ܤޝGԥU F193p min mܧnt 0 F193p min vܧޞԥ dԥr Gԥݓޝܤ nt 0 F197p PLQYࡩܧF197p min m GԥrޞF200p mimݜnt 0 F200p PLYD Gԥݓࡢܤޝܥnt 0 F204p min vܧF204p mim Gԥݐޞnt 0 F205p PÕYѺ ࡩ DܧF205p min h GԥrޝF206p PLQYD 0 ހF206p min mݜࡗ QW G001b PLQKXޞࡖQ 0 G001b PLࡗ QKܭޞL W G002p PÕPޞܧѺ Ѻnth 0 G002p PÕIDޝѺ ࡖGUࡦ G006p mimܧࡋ Ѻnt 0 G006p PÕࡋ YDޝѺ G009p PLPޞܧnth 0 G009p mifܥdԥ r G015p PÕPܧѺ nt 0 G015p PÕYܧޝGԥѺ r G015q PÕPܧѺ ࡖ nt 0 G015q PLPSDޝ G024p PÕPܧѺ ࡖ nt 0 G024p PÕIDѺ G030p min mܧࡖ nt 0 G030p PLYDޝ G032b mimܧnt 0 G032b mifܥޞdԥ G036p PÕPܧQWѺ ࡗ 0 G036p PÕࡋ QIܧޝGԥѺ r G037p PLQPR QWK 0 G037p PLQYRޝ࡛Gԥr G039p PÕPܧѺ Ѻnth 0 G039p PÕIѺࡩ ܧޝ࡛GUࡢ G048p PÕPܧQޞWKѺ 0 G048p PÕYDޞѺ G055p mi mܧnt 0 G055p PÕIܥޝѺ G060a PÕPܧѺ ࡖ QWࡗ ހ 0 G060a PÕIDޞѺ G076p mi mܧnt 0 G076p PLIDޝ G077p PÕPޞܧѺ Ѻnth 0 G077p PÕYDޝѺ ࡖ G081p PÕPܧѺ ࡖ nt 0 G081p PLޞѺIDޝ G090a min mܧnt 0 G090a PLQYDޝࡖ G091p min mܧnt 0 G091p PLQYDޝ G092p min mܧnt 0 G092p PLQIDޞGԥޥ
POSTMA 181 TAAL & TONGVAL
G095p minhܧnt 0 G095p PÕY ޝèUѺ ࡦ PLY ޝ G102p mimܧѺnt 0 G102p PÕࡋ IѺࡩ Dޝ G113p min mܧ nt 0 G113p PLYDޝ G115p PLQPRQWހ 0 G115p PLYࡩ DޞѺ G138p min mܧnt 0 G138p PLQY ޝ G139p PL QޞPܧ࡛ QWހ 0 G139p PLޞѺY ޝ G171p min mܧޝ࡚࡞QWހ 0 G171p PÕYѺ ࡢ Dޞ G172p PLQQࡦ PܧޝѺW 0 G172p PLYDޝࡖ G177p PLQࡦ PRޝѺZW 0 G177p PÕYDޝԥѺ r G180p min mܥX QWK 0 G180p mi færԥ / mi fæ G197p PL Qࡦ ޞPRޞ࡛ѺQWހ 0 G197p PÕY ޝѺ G201p PLQࡦ P݉ޝѺW 0 G201p PÕYDޝѺ Ѻ G203p PLQޞPܧnt 0 G203p PÕIDޝѺ ࡖGԥޥ G207p PLQࡦ PܧQWހ 0 G207p PÕIDޝUѺ ࡢ G209p min mܧޝѺ࡚࡞QWހ 0 G209p PÕYDޝѺ GԥrޞG221p PLQYD 0 ހG221p min mݜѺnt G233p PLQࡦ PRޝࡖѺQW 0 G233p PÕIDޝѺ G246p min mܧQWހ 0 G246p PLIDޞ G252p min mܧnt 0 G252p PÕY ޝѺ G278p min mܧQWހ 0 G278p PÕYѺ ࡩ DޝGԥ GԥݐѺ ޝ nt 0 G280p PÕYDܧG280p min m H003p mԥPX QW 0 H003p mԥvܧޝGԥr H036p mԥPX QW 0 H036p mԥYRޝԥ dԥrԥ H054p PÕPXѺ QW 0 H054p PÕ YܧޞѺ ࡚dࡖ ԥr H076p mԥ PX QW 0 H076p mԥvܧޞ࡚ԥࡖ dԥr H084p PÕ PRQWѺ 0 H084p PÕ YܧޝGԥѺ rԥ GԥrޝL QYDܭѺ ѺW 0 I004p mޝÕ PݜܭI004p m I009p PDL QPQࡦ 0 I009p PDL QPQࡦ I019p min mܧnt 0 I019p PÕYDޝѺ ࡗGԥr I021p mܭࡗ Õ PܧѺ nt 0 I021p mܭࡗ Õ YDޝGԥѺ r I028p mԥmܧࡖ nt 0 I028p mԥ vܤޝࡖGԥU I029p mܭޞࡗL Pܧ࡚࡛ nt 0 I029p mܭޞࡗL QIDޝԥ dԥr Gԥݐ࡛ࡖ ࡢޝܥƾWࡧ 0 I033p mԥvܧI033p mԥm I045p mܼn mܧnt 0 I045k mܼѺ vܥޝGԥUࡢ I047p mi mܧnt 0 I047p min vܧޝGԥr I049p mԥmܧƾWހ 0 I049p mԥ vܤޞࡗGԥUࡢ I058p mi mܧࡖ ƾW 0 I058p min vܧޝGԥr I062a PÕPܧѺ ࡖ nt 0 I062a PÕQYܤޝѺ GԥUࡗࡶ I065a mimܧ nt 0 I065a PÕYܥޝGԥUѺ ࡢ I067p min mܧnt 0 I067p PLQYࡩ ܧޝGԥr I069p min mܧޞࡖѺnt 0 I069p min vܥޝGԥr
182 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
I073p min mܧnth 0 I073p min vܥޝGԥr I076p PLPޞܧnt 0 I076p PÕYܥޝGԥUѺ ࡢ GԥݒѺޝÕ IDܭѺ nth 0 I079p mܧÕ PܭI079p m I081p PÕPܧѺ ࡖ Ѻnt 0 I081p PÕQYѺ ࡩ ܤޞࡖGԥU ࡖGԥݒޝܤnt 0 I083p mԥ vܧI083p mԥ m I085p mimܧmt 0 I085p min vܤޝGԥUࡢ I087p min mܧnt 0 I087p PÕYѺ ࡢ ܧޝGԥUࡢ I095p mԥ mܧޞѺnt 0 I095p mԥ vܧޝGԥr ࡖ Gԥ ݐܤࡋ Ѻnt 0 I106p mԥ vܧI106p mԥ m I108p mԥѺmܧޞѺnt 0 I108p mԥ Ѻvܥޞ࡛GUࡩࡦ Gԥݐࡢޝܤ Ѻnt 0 I117a PÕYѺ ࡩܧI117a mim I118p mԥ mܧnt 0 I118p mԥ vܥޞ࡞d࡚ ԥr Ѻnt 0 I125p mԥYDࡗ Gԥ ݐܧI125p mԥࡖ m I128p mԥ mܧࡋ Ѻnt 0 I128p mԥ vܥޞdԥr I140p mܼnmܧnth 0 I140p mܼ݃vܥdԥ Uࡩ I200p P PR࡚ࡖ QW 0 I200p P YR࡚ࡖ ԥ dԥr I255p mܭޞ࡛PR QW 0 I255p mܭޞ࡛nvܧޞ࡚dԥr K005p mԥn mܧnth 0 K005p mԥQYDޞGԥޥ K008p mܭޞL QPܧ࡛ nth 0 K008p mܭޞL QYDޝGԥr K014p mܭࡗ L QPܧ࡛ nt 0 K014p mܭࡗ L QIDޝԥ dԥr dԥݐࡢޞܤ ܧѺnt 0 K035p mԥѺ vܧK035p mԥ m K043p mܭ ܼn mܧԥ nt 0 K043p mܭ ܼѺ Yࡢ DޞGԥ K054p PD࡛ L Q 0 K054p PD࡛ L Q K064p mԥ mܧ࡛ nt 0 K064p mԥQ YܤޞGԥU Gԥݐޞܤ Ѻnt 0 K074p mԥѺ YࡩܧK074p mԥѺ m Gԥݐޞࡋ Ѻnt 0 K078p mԥѺ Yࡩ DܧK078p mԥn h K092p mܭࡗ L PRࡖ QW 0 K092p PHࡗ L QYDޝ࡛ԥ dԥr K094a PD࡛ L Q 0 K094a PD࡛ L Q K096p mԥѺ mܧѺnt 0 K096p mԥѺ vܥޞdԥr K098a mԥ mܧޝࡖѺQW 0 K098a mԥѺ vܤޝࡖGԥU K113p mܭ ܼmܧnt 0 K113p mܭ ܼ vadԥr K122p min hܧƾW 0 K122p min vܥdԥr Gԥrޝnth 0 K152p mݞ࡛ L QIDܧK152p mݞ࡛ L QP GԥݒޝܥL QIܭѺ nt 0 K160p mܧÕѺ PܭK160p m Gԥݒޝnth 0 K164p mԥQIDܧK164p mԥn h ࡖ Gԥݓࡢܤnԥ vܭnt 0 K183p mܧnԥ mܭK183p m ࡛ nԥ vadԥݒࡢܭnt 0 K184p mܧ࡛ nԥ mܭK184p m K187p mܭnԥ mܧnt 0 K187p mܭnԥ vܤ࡛ GԥU K188a mԥn mܧnth 0 K188a mԥn fܥޝGԥr K189p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 0 K189p mܭޝQԥvܧޝGԥr K190p mԥ mܧnth 0 K190p mԥ vܥޞdԥ Uࡢ
POSTMA 183 TAAL & TONGVAL
K229p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 0 K229p mܤLޝQԥYܧޝGԥU K237p PDޞL QԥmܧƾN W 0 K237p PDL Qԥvܧ K257p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 0 K257p mԥnԥvܧޝGԥr K278p mܭnԥmܧnt 0 K278p mܭnԥvܧޝGԥr K289p mܤޝPܧQW 0 K289p mܤޝPYܧޝX GԥU K309p mܭޝQܧnt 0 K309p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr ࡛dԥݓޞܥ i vܭnt 0 L005p mܧL PܭL008a m GԥݐѺ ࡢޝnth 0 L029p PÕYDܧL029p min m L030p PLޞѺPܧnt 0 L030p PLޞѺYDޝGԥr L033p minmܧnt 0 L033p PÕYDޝѺ ѺGԥr L034p mimܧnt 0 L034p PÕYDޝGԥUѺ ࡥ GԥѺ rޞL037p min mݜnt 0 L037p PÕYD ࡛dԥrޞܥi vܭin mݜnt 0 L052p mܭL052p m dԥݓޞܥ nt 0 L068p PLQIࡩܧL068p PLQࡦ P dԥݒޞܥnt 0 L071p min fܧL071p min m GԥrޞL082p PLQYD 0 ހL082p min mݜQW GԥޝL084p PLQYD 0 ހL084p min mݜQW dԥݓޞܥѺnt 0 L088p mݞѺn vܧL088p mݞѺn m Gԥݓࡢܤࡗ nѺ ԥ vܭࡖ nt 0 L208p mܧࡗ࡛ nѺ ԥ mܭL208p m ࡖ Gԥݒࡢܤ L Qԥ vܭnt 0 L228p mܧL228p P L Qԥ m L244p mܼnԥ mܧnt 0 L244p mܼnԥ vܤGԥU L264p mܼ nԥ mܧѺnt 0 L264p mܼnԥ vܤGԥUࡢ GԥݒޝƾN 0 L267p PLQYDܧL267p minm Gԥݒࡢ - minԥ --vޝk 0 L270p minԥYࡩ Dޞƾޞܧk - minԥ --v mޞƾޞܧL270p minԥ m Gԥݒࡢ --sޝs3 -s Yࡩ D- L281p mܭ nԥ mܧnt 0 L281p mܭnԥ vܤGԥU GԥݓࡢޝGԥݓࡢ -mi--YYDޝN-s4 0 L290p PLYDޞƾܧN- min --v mޞƾܧL290p min m -s --v L293p PLޝQPܧࡖ ݄tܨ - PLޝQ--s mܧࡖ ݄tܨ --s 0 L293p PLYDޞGԥUࡢ - PLYDޞGԥUࡢ --v L299p PLࡗ QPܧ݄tܨ - PLࡗ Q--v mܧ݄tܨ -s -s 0 L299p PLQYDޝGԥȤ- min --v YDޝGԥȤ-s -s M004p min mܧࡖnWހ 0 M004p PLQYDޞGԥ GԥݐѺޝnt 0 M040p PÕYDܧM040p mim M042p min mܧࡖ QWހ 0 M042p PLQYࡩ DޝG ԥ N003p mԥPX QW 0 N003p mԥvܧޞdԥr N006p mԥPX QW 0 N006p mԥvܧޞ࡚dࡖ ԥr N021p PL PX QW 0 N021p PL Yܧޞ࡚dࡖ ԥr N028a PHޞPX QW 0 N028a memvܧޝGUԥ N065p PÕ PXѺ QW 0 N065p PL QYܧޞԥ dԥr ԥ dԥݒޞܧ࡛ nt 0 N072p mԥvܧN072p mԥm N085p PÕ PXѺ QW 0 N085p PÕ YܧޝԥѺ ࡖ dԥrԥ N104p mԥPXࡋ ѺQW 0 N104p mԥvܧޝGԥr
184 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
N108p mԥPXࡋ ѺQW 0 N108p mԥvܧޝGԥr N145p PHQࡦ ޝRQW 0 N145p menvܧޝԥ dԥrԥ ԥ dԥݒޞܧN175p PHPR QW 0 N175p memv O080p PHPRѺ QW 0 O080p PHYܧޞѺ ࡚dࡖ ԥr O082p PHPR QW 0 O082p menvܧޞԥ dԥrԥ O183p mܭޞPR QW 0 O183p mܭޞQYRޞԥ dԥrԥ O187p P¡QPRޞQW 0 O187p PHYRޞԥ dԥrԥ O235p mܤޝ݄PRޞQW 0 O235p mܤޝ݄YDޝGԥU ԥ nvudԥݒޞO265p PÕPRѺ QW 0 O265p PL P168p mܭnԥmܧnt 0 P168p mܭnԥvadԥr - ࡛GԥݒޝܧQԥvޝQԥmont --s --s 0 Q005p PLޝQԥmont - PLޝQ005p PL ࡛Gԥݒ --s --sޝܧQԥvޝPL -Qԥ -sޞGԥr-PLޞQԥ YDޞQ020p PL 0 ނtޞQԥ -s- mݜ݄ޞPL - ނtޞQԥ mݜ݄ޞQ020p PL -s- YDޞGԥr-s- Q077p mܭޝQԥmܧnt - mܭޝQԥmܧnt --s --s 0 Q077p mܭnԥvܧޝGԥr-mܭnԥvܧޝGԥr --v --s jԥݓࡢ - minԥ --vܼޞnt --s 0 Q095p minԥYDޞܧnt - minԥ --s mޞܧQ095p minԥ m jԥݓࡢ --vܼޞYD Q168p mܤL QԥPܧQW- PܤL QԥPܧQW--v --s 0 Q168p mԥnԥvܧޝMԥr-mԥnԥvܧޝMԥr- -v --s Q179p mԥnԥmܧnt 0 Q179p mԥnԥvܧޝMԥr Qԥ-n1 -sޞMԥݓ - PLܤQԥ vޞQԥ -n1 -s 0 Q193p PLޝ࡛ѺQW- PLޝܧQԥ mޝQ193p PL Mԥݓ --vܤ࡛ѺQW-s3 -s Yޝܧm G174p minԥPRޝѺX QW 1 G174p PÕYDޝGԥޥѺ G177b minԥ mܧ࡚࡞ ѺƾW 1 G177b PLQIDޝU G224p PL Qԥ PRޞ࡛ѺWހ 1 G224p PÕࡋ YѺ ࡢ ޝ G248p PLQQࡦ Pܧnt 1 G248p PLQYDޝ G251p minԥ mܧnt 1 G251p PÕYѺ ࡩ DޝGԥ GԥݓѺ ࡢޝnt 1 G255p PÕYDܧG255p minԥ m G257p minԥPX QW 1 G257p PÕࡋ YDޞGԥѺ r G279a PLQޝPܧ࡛ nt 1 G279a PÕࡋ YDޝGԥѺ r H061p mԥnԥPX QW 1 H061p mԥvܧޝGUԥ H069p PL QԥPX QW 1 H069p PÕ YܧޝGԥѺ r H116p mԥnԥmܧ࡛ nt 1 H116p mԥvܧޝGԥ rԥ H119p PL Qԥmont 1 H119p PL QYܧޞ࡛ԥ dԥ rԥ ࡛ dԥ ݐܥ࡛ vܭQ W 1 I116c mޞܧ࡛ nԥ mܭI116c m I119p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 I119p mԥmvܧޝGԥr I126p mœnԥmܧ࡛ nt 1 I126p mԥnvܧޝ࡛Gԥrԥ I133p mܭޞ࡛nԥPRޞ࡚ࡖQW 1 I133p mܭޞ࡛YR࡚ ԥ dԥrԥ dԥ ݐࡢܧ࡛ vܭnt 1 I143p mܧ࡛ nԥ mܭI143p m I148p mܭޞnԥmont 1 I148p mܭޞQYRޞGԥr nt 1 I152a mԥ vݞࡗࡶ dݐԥܧI152a mԥ࡛ࡖ nԥ m I152p PL Qԥmܧ࡛ nt 1 I152p mԥvܧޞd࡛ ԥr
POSTMA 185 TAAL & TONGVAL
I154a menԥPR QW 1 I154a PHYܧѺ ࡚ࡖ dԥ rԥ I158p mܭޝQԥmont 1 I158p mܭޝQYܧ࡛ ԥ dԥrԥ I161p mܭޞ࡛Ѻԥ ѺPR QW 1 I161p mܭޝ࡛YRޞ࡚ԥࡖ dԥrԥ ࡛ n vݞࡗࡶ dԥ ݐԥܭnt 1 I167p mܧ࡛ nԥ mܭI167p m ࡛ Q Yݞࡗࡶ dԥ ݐܭѺnt 1 I168p mܧ࡛ nԥ mܭI168p m I170p mܭޞ࡛nԥPRޞ࡚ѺQW 1 I170p mܭޞ࡛nvܧࡖ dԥ rԥ I171p mܭޞ࡛nԥQRޞ࡚QW 1 I171p mܭޞ࡛nvܧࡖ dԥ rԥ I175p menԥmont 1 I175p PH YR Gԥr I178p mܭޞnԥPRޞQW 1 I178p mܭYRޞGԥr I184p PHޞ݄ԥmܧ࡛ nt 1 I184p menvܧޞd࡛ ԥrԥ I192p mܭޞԥ PRޞQW 1 I192p mܭޞYRޞ࡚ԥࡖ dԥrԥ I203p PHޞQԥPR࡚ࡖ QW 1 I203p PHQY°ޞ࡚GUԥ I208p mܭޝQԥPRޞࡖQW 1 I208p mܭޝQYܧࡖ dԥrԥ I216p PHޞQԥPRޞQW 1 I216p PHYRޞGԥr I220p mܧޞԥ nԥPRޞQW 1 I220p PDޞYܧޞ࡛dԥr I233p mܭޞnԥPRޞQW 1 I233p mܭޞQYRޞ࡚ԥ dԥrԥ YR࡚ࡖ ԥ dԥݒޝQԥPX࡚ ѺƾW 1 I241p PDޝI241p PD I252p mܭޞ࡛nԥPR QW 1 I252p mܭޞ࡛nvܧޞ࡚dԥrԥ I258p mܭޝQԥPR QW 1 I258p mܭޝQYܧ࡚ࡖ dԥrԥ I262p mܤࡖ Qԥmont 1 I262p mܤࡖ QYRޞԥ GԥU I273p mܭnԥPRޞQW 1 I273p mܭޝQYܧޝ࡛Gԥr I275p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 I275p mܤޝL YDGԥU K101p mܭࡗ jnԥ mܧnt 1 K101p mܭÕࡋ YܥޞѺ dԥr dԥݐޞܥѺnt 1 K108p mݞ vܧK108p mݞѺnԥ m Ѻ dԥ rޞܥK120a mæinԥ mݜ nt 1 K120a P Õࡋ Y GԥݓࡢޝܥK125p mԥ f 1 ހQWܧK125p mԥnԥ m GԥݓѺޞ ଏࡋ YDܭnt 1 K150p mܧ jnԥ mܭK150p m K155p mԥnԥ mܧnt 1 K155p mԥѺ YDޝGԥr Gԥݒܤn vܭnt 1 K163p mܧѺQԥ mޝܭK163p m ࡗGԥݐޝܤnt 1 K172p mԥn vܧK172p mԥnԥ m K173p mܭL Qԥ mܧnth 1 K173p mܭL QIܥޝGԥr K180p mԥnԥ mܧࡖ nt 1 K180p mԥ vܤࡗ GԥUࡢ GԥݓࡢޞѺQ YDޞܭnt 1 K185p mܧࡋ nѺ ԥ mܭK185p m K192p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K192p PHޝPYܧޝGԥr K194p mܭޝQԥ mܧnt 1 K194p mԥn vܤޝࡗGԥUࡢ Gԥݒࡢޝܥ vѺܭnt 1 K195p mܧnԥmޞܭK195p m K196p mԥnԥmܧnt 1 K196p mԥmvܧޝGԥr Gԥݒࡢޝܥn vܭK197p m 1 ހQWܧnԥ mܭK197p m K200p mܭnԥ mܧnt 1 K200p mܭnԥ vܤGԥU K201p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K201p mܭޝPYܧޝGԥr K204p mܭޝQԥmont 1 K204p mܭޝQԥvܧޝGԥr
186 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
K210p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K210p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr K216p mܭnԥ mܧnt 1 K216p mܭnԥ vܤGԥU K222p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K222p mԥmvܧޝGԥr K230p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K230p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr K239p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 K239p mܤޝL PYܧޝGԥU K240p mԥnԥmܧnt 1 K240p mԥvܧޝGԥr K244p mܤޝܭ QԥPܧ࡚࡛ QW 1 K244p mܤޝܭ YܧޝGԥU K247p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K247p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr K249p manԥmܧnt 1 K249p mavܧޝGԥr K251p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K251p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr K265p mԥnԥmܧnt 1 K265p mԥP YܧޝGԥr K274p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 K274p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr K275a mܤL QԥPܧQW 1 K275a mܤL YܧޝGԥU K277p mԥnԥmܧnt 1 K277p mԥvܧޝGԥr K287p mܤޝQԥPܧQW 1 K287p mܤޝYܧޝGԥU K291p mܤQԥPܧQW 1 K291p mܤYܧޝGԥU K299p PDޝ࡛Qԥmܧnt 1 K299p PD࡛ YܧޝGԥr K307p mܭޝQԥPR QW 1 K307p mܭޝP YܧޝGԥr K312p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 K312p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr K316p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 K316p mܭޞvܧޝGԥr K330p mœnԥmܧnt 1 K330p mԥvadԥr K333b manԥPR QW 1 K333b mavܧޝGԥr K342p manԥmܧnt 1 K342p mavܧޝGԥr K348p manԥmܧnt 1 K348p mavܧޝGԥr K353p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 K353p mœvܧޝGԥr K358p mܭnԥmܧnt - mܭnԥmܧnt --v --s 1 K358p mܭYDޝGԥr-mܭYDޝGԥr --v - -s K361p mԥnԥmont - mԥnԥmont --v --s 1 K361p mԥYDޝGԥr-mԥYDޝGԥr --v - -s ࡛dԥݓޞܥL054p mԥnԥ mݜ nt 1 L054p mԥ v dԥݐࡢܥL095p mԥnԥ mݜѺnt 1 L095p mԥѺ v dԥݒࡢޞܥѺYޞnt 1 L110p PLܧL110p minԥ m dԥݒޞܥntѺ 1 L119p PLQ YޞL119p minԥ mݜ L148p mܭnԥ mܧnt 1 L148p mܭѺ vܤGԥU L151p mԥnԥ mܧޞnt 1 L151p mԥn vܤGԥU L153p mܭL Qԥ mܧnt 1 L153p mԥYࡩ ܤࡖ ԥ GԥU L157p mܼƾԥ mܧࡖ nt 1 L157p mܭ ܼ n vܤGԥUࡢ ࡗGԥ ݓޞnt 1 L160p PLQYDܧL160p minԥ m L163p minԥ mܧޞѺnt 1 L163p PÕࡋ IܥѺ t L180p mܭnԥ mܧnt 1 L180p mԥѺ vܤࡖ GԥUࡢ L183p mܭnԥ mܧnt 1 L183p mܼޝѺYܤGԥUࡢ Gԥݒࡢܤnt 1 L187a min vܧL187a minԥ m
POSTMA 187 TAAL & TONGVAL
ࡗԥ dԥݒࡢޞQW 1 L191p PLQYDޝܧL191p minԥ m L200p mԥnԥ mܧ nt 1 L200p mܭn vܤࡖ GԥUࡢ L204p mܼ࡛ࡖnԥ mܧnt 1 L204p mܼ࡛ࡖ vܤGԥݎ GԥݓࡢޞQW 1 L214p PLQYDޝܧL214p minԥ m L224p mܭnԥ mܧnt 1 L224p mܭn vܤGԥU Gԥݒܤnt 1 L237p mԥn vܧL237p mԥnԥ m Gԥݒܤnt 1 L240p mԥnԥ vܧL240p mԥnԥ m GԥݓѺ --vޝGԥݓѺ - PÕYDޝࡖQW--s 1 L245b PÕYDޝܧࡖQW- minԥ --v mޝܧL245b minԥ m ࡖGԥݓޝࡖGԥݓ -mi--YYDޝW- 1 L249p PLYDޞQޞܧW- minԥ --v mޞQޞܧL249p minԥ m s4 -s --s ࡖ Gԥݓܤnt 1 L262p mܼn vܧL262p mܼnԥ m Gԥݒࡢޝnt 1 L265p mܼQYDܧL265p mܼnԥ m GԥݓࡢޝGԥݓࡢ -mi--YYDޝt- 1 L266p PLYDޞ࡛ƾޞܧt - minԥ --v mޞ࡛ƾޞܧL266p minԥ m s1 -s --s Gԥ ݓࡩޝGԥѺ ݓࡩ - PÕѺ --YYDޝnt --s 1 L271p PÕYDޞܧnt - minԥ --v mޞܧL271p minԥ m --v L285p mܼ࡛ nԥ mܧޝQW-mܼ࡛ nԥ --v mܧޝQW--s 1 L285p mi vܧޝGԥȤ- mi --v vܧޝGԥȤ --v ԥ dԥݒޝܧԥ dԥݒ - minvޝܧnt --v --s 1 L286p minvܧQԥmޞnt - PLܧQԥmޞL286p PL --v --s Gԥݒޝs- 1 L288a PLQYD- ܨt݄ܧminԥm - ܨt݄ܧL288a minԥm GԥݒࡢޝGԥݒࡢ -mi--YYDޝtࡡ -s1 1 L288p PLYD݄ޞܧtࡡ - minԥ --s m݄ޞܧL288p minԥ m -s --v Gԥݒ --vޝܧGԥݒ -mԥvޝܧnt --v --s 1 L314p mԥvܧnԥmܭnt - mܧnԥmܭL314p m --s L320p minԥ mܧޞ݄tܨ - minԥ --s mܧޞ݄tܨ - 1 L320p PLYDޝGԥUࡢ -mi--YYDޝGԥUࡢ - -s -s v12--ޝGԥݓࡢ - PLޞYࡩ DޝL325p PL 1 -- ܨt݄ܧminԥ --v m - ܨt݄ܧL325p minԥ m Gԥݓࡢ --vޞs Yࡩ D GԥݓޝGԥݓ -mi--YYDޝL329p PLYD 1 ܨt݄ޞminԥ --v mݜ - ܨt݄ޞL329p minԥ mݜ -s -s -s -s Gԥݒޝܧnԥmont 1 L355p mԥvܭL355p m L356p PLޞQԥmܧnt - PLޞQԥmܧnt --v --s 1 L356p mԥnԥSDޝ-mԥnԥSDޝ--v --v -- GԥݒޝYDޝGԥݒ - PHޝYDޝQԥmont --v 1 L360p PHޞQԥmont - PLޞL360p PL v Gԥݒ --vޝIDޝGԥݒ - PLޝIDޝQԥmont --v --s 1 L368p PLޝQԥmont - PLޝL368p PL --s - GԥݒޝQԥYDޝQHPRQW 1 L371p PLޝL371p PL Gԥݒ --v --sޝQԥYDޝPL GԥݒࡢޝGԥݒࡢ -mi--YYDޝth-- 1 L381p PLYD݄ܧth - minԥ --s m݄ܧL381p minԥ m s --s Gԥݓࡢ - min --vޝL387p PLQYD 1 - ހt݄ޞܧminԥ --v m - ހt݄ޞܧL387p minԥ m Gԥݓࡢ --sޝs YD- Gԥݒ --sޝܧGԥݒ -mԥvޝܧnt --v --s 1 L413p mԥvܧ࡛ nԥmܭnt - mܧ࡛ nԥmܭL413p m - Mԥݒ --vޝYDޞMԥݒ - PLޝYDޞQԥnont --v --s 1 L416p PLޝQԥnont - PLޝL416p PL
188 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
-s -- G¡ݒޝG¡ݒ - PH࡛ L YDޝL423p PH࡛ L Qԥmont - PH࡛ L Qԥmont --s --s 1 L423p PH࡛ L YD v --s ࡗGԥݓࡢޝࡗGԥݓࡢ -mi--YYDޝL432p PLYD 1 ܨ࡛݄tޞܧQԥ --s mޝPL - ܨ࡛݄tޞܧQԥ mޝL432p PL -s -s -s -s ݐԥޝM007p PLQYD 1 ހࡖ nWܧM007p minԥ m M009p minԥ mܧࡖnWހ 1 M009p PLYDޝࡖ M010p minԥ mܧnt 1 M010p PÕIDޝGԥѺ GԥݒޝM013p minԥPX QW 1 M013p PLQYD N038p PL Qԥmܧnt 1 N038p PL YܧޝGԥr N078p PL Qԥmunt 1 N078p PL Yܧޞ࡛ԥ dԥrԥ N130p PL Qԥmunt 1 N130p PL Yܧޞԥ dԥr O018p PHޞQԥPRޞQW 1 O018p PHޞQYܧޞࡖdԥr O046p mܭޞnԥPRޞQW 1 O046p mܭޞvܧޞ࡚dࡖ ԥr O057p mܭޞnԥPRޞQW 1 O057p mܭޞYDޞGԥr O061p P ޝQԥmont 1 O061p P ޞYRޞԥ r O063p mܤQԥPR QW 1 O063p mܭޝQYܧޝ࡚Gԥ࡛ r O069p P Qԥmܧnt 1 O069p P YܤXࡗ GԥU O093p mܭޞnԥPRޞࡖѺQW 1 O093p mܭޞQYRޞԥ dԥrԥ O098p mܭޞ࡛nԥPR࡚ࡖ QW 1 O098p mܭޞ࡛PYRޞ࡚ԥࡖ dԥrԥ O113p mܭޞ࡛nԥPRޞࡖQW 1 O113p mܭޞ࡛nvܧࡖ ԥ rԥ O139p mܭޝQԥPRޞQW 1 O139p mܭޝQYRޞGԥr O148p mܭnԥmont 1 O148p mܭYRޞGԥr O152p PRޞܤ QԥPRQW 1 O152p mܤYRޞ࡛ԥ U O162p mܤޞԥ QԥPRޞQW 1 O162p mܤޞYDޝࡖGԥU O165p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 O165p mܤޝL YDGԥU O202p mܭnԥPRޞ࡚ࡖQW 1 O202p mܭޞQYXޞ࡚ԥࡖ dԥr O208p mܭޞnԥPRޞ࡚ࡖQW 1 O208p mܭޞQYRޞ࡚ԥࡖ rԥ O217p mܭޝQࡦ ޝPRQW 1 O217p mܭޝQEULޝYԥn O228p manԥmont 1 O228p PDYRޞMԥr O232p mܤޞԥ QԥPRQW 1 O232p mܤޞԥ QYRޞ࡛ԥ U O239p mܭnԥmont 1 O239p mԥYXޝܧ r O276p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 O276p mܭYRޝܧ r P002p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 P002p mܤޝYܤޝGԥU P016p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 P016p mܤޝYܧޝGԥU P018p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 P018p mܤࡖ L YܧޝGԥU P025p mܤޝQԥPܧQW 1 P025p mܤޝY°ޝࡗGԥU P039p mܭnԥmont 1 P039p mܭnԥpa P041p mܤޝQԥPܧQW 1 P041p mܤޝYܧޝGԥU P047p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 P047p mԥvܧޝGԥr P050p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 P050p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr P055p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 P055p mܭvܧޝGԥr
POSTMA 189 TAAL & TONGVAL
P078p mܤL QԥPܧQW 1 P078p mܤYܧޝGԥU P080p mܤL QԥPܧQW 1 P080p mܤL YܧޝGԥU P088p mܤL QԥPܧQW 1 P088p mԥnԥSDޞ P102p mܭޝQԥmܧnt 1 P102p mܭPYRޝGԥr P112p mܭnԥmont 1 P112p mԥvܧޝU P117p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 P117p mܭޝYܧޝGԥr P124p PDL Qԥmܧnt 1 P124p mܤޝYRޝGԥU P133p mܤޝL QԥPܧQW 1 P133p mܤL YRޝGԥU P136p mܤޝL QԥPRQW 1 P136p mܤޝYRޝGԥU P145p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 P145p mܭvܧޝGԥr P174p mܭnԥmܧnt 1 P174p mܭvadԥr P199p mܤޝQԥPܧQW 1 P199p mܤޝYRޝU P212p mܭnԥmont 1 P212p mܭvܧޝU P214p mܭnԥmont 1 P214p mܭvܧޝU Q002p mœnԥmܧnt 1 Q002p mԥvܤޝGԥU -- GԥݒޝܧivܭGԥݒ -mޝܧivܭnt --s --s 1 Q003p mܧinԥnhܭnt - mܧinԥnhܭQ003p m v --s - G¡ݒ --vޝG¡ݒ - PLYDޝQԥmont --s 1 Q009p PLYDޝQԥmont - PLޝQ009p PL -s GԥݒޝGԥݒ - PÕࡋ Ѻ --YYࡩ DޝQ035p PÕࡋ YѺ ࡩ D 1 -- ܨt݄ܧminԥ --v m - ܨt݄ܧQ035p minԥ m s --v Q071p mܭnԥnhܧnt - mܭnԥnhܧnt --v --s 1 Q071p mԥvܧޝGԥr-mԥvܧޝGԥr --v - -s Q075p mܭnԥmܧnt - mܭnԥmܧnt --v --s 1 Q075p mܭnԥvܧޝGԥr-mܭnԥvܧޝGԥr --v --s Gԥݓ--sޝGԥݓ -mԥYDޝQW--v 1 Q099p mԥ YDޝܧQW- minԥ --v mޝܧQ099p minԥ m -GԥݓܤGԥݓ- mi --v vܤk 1 Q121p mi vޞƾޞܧQ121p PLƾԥ m -v Q162p mܤޞL QԥPRQW- PܤޞL QԥPRQW--s 1 Q162p mܤޞL YܧMԥU- PܤޞL YܧMԥU--v --v ࡖGԥݓࡢޝܤW--s 1 Q198p mԥ vޝƾܧW-mԥnԥ mޝƾܧQ198p mԥnԥ m - Gԥݒ --vޝGԥݒ - PLYDޝQԥmont --s --s 1 Q200p PLYDޞQԥmont - PLޞQ200p PL -s L316p PLޞQԥmܧnt gg L316p PLޞQԥSDޞ O255p mamont gg O255p mܤޝSܤ O286p mamܧnt gg O286p mܭޝQԥpܤ P099p mܭnԥmܧnt gg P099p mܭnԥpa P108a mܭnԥPR QW gg P108a mܭnԥpܤޝ࡛ P118p mܭnԥmont gg P118p mԥnԥpa P155p mܭnԥmܧnt gg P155p mܭnԥpܤ P177a mԥnmܧnt gg P177a mԥnԥSDޞ P179p mܭnԥmܧnt gg P179p mԥnԥSDޞ P188p mܭnԥmܧޞnt gg P188p mܭnԥSDޝ
190 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
P219p mܭnԥmܧnt gg P219p mܭޞnԥpܤ P220p mԥnԥmܧnt gg P220p mԥnԥSDޞ Q032p minԥ mܧ݄tܨ - minԥ --s mܧ݄tܨ -- gg Q032p minԥ pܤS- PLQԥ--YSܤS- s -v Q078p mܭnԥmont gg Q078p mܭnԥSDޞ Q083p mԥnԥmܧnt gg Q083p mԥnԥSDޞࡗ Q091p minԥmont - minԥmont --v --s gg Q091p menԥSDޞ-menԥSDޞ--v --v Q112p minԥ mܧQޞW- minԥ --v mܧQޞW--s gg Q112p minԥ pܤS- PLQԥ--YSܤS- -v Q156p mܭnԥmܧnt gg Q156p mܭnԥSDޞ Q171p mԥnԥmܧnt gg Q171p mԥnԥSDޞࡗ
POSTMA 191 TAAL & TONGVAL
Generalizations: ∙ There is a kinship effect in masculin nouns: kinship terms loss their possessive flection ∙ The effect is limited to the 3-gender area
language variants with m/f opposition have an inalienable effect with kin- ship terms
192 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017 POSSESSOR TRUNCATION IN KINSHIP TERMS IN DUTCH DIALECTS
Datasheet Part 2 - Possessive trunctation in Limburgian (Winkler, 1874 versus Scholtmeijer 1996)
Statistics
Winkler-old (1874) Winkler-new (1996) Maastricht long short Maastricht long short broer 0 2 broer 0 2 zoon 2 0 zoon 4 0 vader 0 8 vader 8 0
Roermond long short Roermond long short broer 0 1 broer 0 2 zoon 5 0 zoon 4 0 vader 0 7 vader 0 8
Sittard long short Sittard long short brour 0 1 brouwer 2 0 zoon 3 0 zoon 4 0 vader 0 8 pap 9 0
Stamproy long short Stamproy long short broer 0 2 broor 1 1 zoon 3 0 zoon 4 0 vader 0 6 vader 0 8
Venlo long short Venlo long short broer 0 2 broor 2 0 zoon 5 0 zoon 4 0 vader 0 7 vader 0 7 Weert long short Weert long short broer 0 2 broer 0 2 zoon 3 0 zoon 4 0 vader 0 3 vader 0 7
POSTMA 193 TAAL & TONGVAL
—— Gelderen long short broer 0 2 zoon 4 0 vader 0 5 long short Dusseldorf broder - + jong + - vader - + dinne jong vs di broder/si vatter
No effect Emmerik Meurs
194 VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2017