Re: Danish enigma

tgpedersen wrote:

> The merger of the imperfect and perfect in the spoken language is a
> French and (South) German thing. Swiss German has almost no trace of
> the imperfect left.

In the Bavarian part of South German (i.e., Austria included), <i war>
[i va:r] means <ich... wäre> "I would be". The past tense is usu.
expressed by the perfect: <i bin gwen> [gve:n] (or <gwesen>; whereas
the neighboring Suebians say <gwese> [gve:z&]), i.e. standard German
<ich bin gewesen>.

> Dutch
> 'Ik ben hier gisteren geweest'

No [g] > [j] in Dutch? Neighboring Low German speakers would say
<jestern> ['jæst&:n] and <jewesen> [je've:z&n]; already in Rhineland
(Aachen, Bonn, Cologne). Dat is jewiß. :))

>> The big disappointment connected with this profusion of progressive
>> constructions is that it is of no help whatever for learning
> >English, as one can easily notice by listening to speakers of Dutch
> trying
> >to speak English. The standard solution is, I think, always to use a
>> progressive construction, which, unfortunately, does not get one
>> anywhere and often gives rise to misunderstandings.
>
> The progressive tense constructions in Dutch and Danish are optional.
> The English one is mandatory.

Germans also tend to be fond of the continuous aspect when speaking
English. :)

> Torsten

George