--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> > In the North, however, where Viking influence was stronger,
> > we find N. <thei>/<they>, <thai>, G. <theyre>, <thair(e)>,
> > DA. <theim>, <thaim>, from Norse <þei(r)>, <þeirra>, <þeim>.
> > There is no influence on the article/demonstrative, which is
> > <tho:(s)> in the North just as it is in the South.
>
> What of substandard English _them_ 'those'? Does this derive from ON
> or OE?
>
Colloquial Swedish (once substandard) uses 'dom' for both
(written) 'de' "they"/"those" and 'dem' "them"/"those" as well as
for 'de' "the" pl. No trace of of it in Danish, though, afaIk.
The reason probaly is that the pronunciations of 'de'
and 'det' "it"/"the" n.sg. merged when final t's were dropped in the
Svea dialects (basically around Stockholm). In Danish, Norwegian and
Scanian the same development of 'det' > /de/ (but still
Sjælland /dedh/) led to 'de' being pronounced /di/, possibly a loan of
the Dutch demonstrative 'die' (/e/ > /i/ is otherwise unmotivated in
Danish).
BTW what is the connection between English non-emphatic /dh&/,
emphatic /dhi/ vs. Dutch article 'de' /d&/, demonstrative 'die' /di/?
One more BTW: on German TV yesterday I heard another 'mit die <adj>
<noun>' with acc. 'die' for correct 'den'. How common is this 'error'
in colloquial German (after eg. 'mit')?
Torsten