Numerals

3.3 Numerals.

In south-western dialects the compound numerals (21-99) are pronounced as: five and fifty, six and thirty.

In Devonshire instead of ‘the second’ ‘twoth’ is used (the twenty-twoth of April).

3.4 Adjectives.

In all dialects of the south-west -er, -est are used in the comparative and superative degrees with one-, two- and more syllabic adjectives:

e.g. the naturaler

the seasonablest

delightfuller (-est)

worser - worsest (Dw.)

-      The words: ‘gin’, ‘an’, ‘as’, ‘nor’, ‘till’, ‘by’, ‘to’, ‘in’, ‘on’ are used instead of ‘than’ in the comparative forms:

e.g. When the lad there wasn’t scarce the height of that stool, and a less size on (= than) his brother…;

That’s better gin naething;

More brass inney (= than you) hadd’n;

It’s moor in bargain (= more than a bargain).

-      The word ‘many’ is used with uncountable nouns

e.g. many water / milk

-      The word ‘first’ is often used in the meaning of ‘the next’:

e.g. The first time I gang to the smiddie I’ll give it to him.

Will you come Monday first or Monday eight days?

3.5 Pronouns.

-      The forms of the nominative case are often used instead of the forms of the objective case and vice versa:

e.g. Oi don’t think much o’ they (= of them).

Oi went out a-walkin wi’ she (= with her).

Oi giv ut t’ he (= it) back again.

Us (= we) don’t want t’ play wi’ he (= him).

Har (= she) oon’t speak t’ th’ loikes o’ we (= us).

When us (= we) is busy, him (= he) comes and does a day’s work for we (= us).

-      The pronoun ‘mun’ (‘min’) is used in those cases, when in the literary language ‘them’ is used:

e.g. put mun in the house

gie mun to me

I mind (= remember) the first time I seed mun.

-      ‘Mun’ is also used instead of ‘him’, ‘it’

e.g. let min alone

it would sarve un right if I telled the parson of mun

-      Instead of ‘those’, ‘them’ is used:

e.g. I mind none of them things.

Give us them apples.

Fetch them plaates off o’ th’ pantry shelf.

-      In the south-western dialects at the beginning of the sentenu the personal and impersonal pronouns are often dropped.

-      “Whom” is never used in the south-western dialects. Instead of it ‘as’ / ‘at’ is used:

e.g. That’s the chap as (or what) his uncle was hanged.

The man’ at his coat’s torn.

-      The nominative case of the personal pronouns is also used before ‘selves’:

e.g. we selves (Somerseshire, Devonshire)

-      The standard demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ is used in the south-western dialects as: ‘this’, ‘this here’, ‘thease’, ‘thisn’, ‘thisna’.

-      The standard demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is used in the south-western dialects as: ‘thatn’, ‘thickumy’, ‘thilk’:

e.g. I suppose I could have told thee thilk.

-      ‘Those’ is never used in the south-western dialects.

“thir’ ans” is used instead of it.

3.5.1 Demonstrative adjectives and pronouns in a Devonshire dialect.

I’d like to give not only the grammatical description of adjectives and pronouns in the south-western part of England, but the pronunciation of demonstrative adjectives and pronouns found in the dialect of south zeal, a village on the northern edge of Dartmoor. Martin Harris made his research work in this field:

“The analysis is based on a corpus of some twenty hours of tape-recorded conversation, collected in the course of work for a Ph.D. thesis, either in the form of a dialogue between two informants or of a monologue on the part of a single inform­ant. The principal informant, Mr George Cooper, has lived for some eighty-five years in the parish, and has only spent one night in his life outside the county of Devon.

For the purposes of this chapter, only one phonological point needs to be made. The /r/ phoneme is retroflex in final position, and induces a preceding weak central vowel [∂] when occurring in the environment /Vr/, (thus [V∂r]), when the /V/ in question is /i:/ or /ε/. (These are the only two vowels relevant within this work.). The transcription used for the actual forms should not give rise to any further problems. In the case of the illustrative ex­amples, 1 have decided to use a quasi-orthographical representation, since the actual phonetic/phonemic realization is not directly relevant to the point under discussion. The prominent syllable(s) in each example are illustrated thus: “.

We may now proceed to look at the actual forms found in the dialect (Table 1):

The relative frequency of these forms is shown in Table 2.

The paradigm as outlined in Tables 1, 2 presents few mor­phological problems. The two pairs of forms /ði:z/ and /ðis/ and /ðejz/ and /ði:z/ do, however, need examination. In the singular of the adjective, the two forms /ði:z/ and /ðis/ are both frequent, being used mostly in unstressed and stressed position respectively. However, some 30 per cent of the occurrences of each form do not follow this tendency, so it does not seem profitable to set up a stressed: unstressed opposition, particularly since such a division would serve no purpose in the case of /ðat/ and /ði-ki:/. With the ‘first compounds’, the form /ði:z ji:r/ outnumbers /ðis ji:r/ in the ratio 1 in the adjective position.

When functioning as a pronoun, /ði:z/ is rare as a simple form and never occurs at all either within a first compound (although ‘first compounds’ are so rare as pronouns that no generalization can usefully be made, see Table 2) or within a ‘second compound’, where only /ðis ji:r ji:r/, never /ði:z ji:r ji:r/, is found. Thus /ðis/ seems to be more favoured as a pronoun, and /ði:z/ as an adjective; this, of course, is only a tendency.

In the plural, the position is more clear-cut. The normal adjec­tive plurals are /ðejz/ and /ðejz ji:r/, which outnumber /ði:z/ and /ði:z ji:r/ by a large margin (see Table 2). Such cases of the latter as do occur may perhaps be ascribed to Standard English influence, since /ði:z/ is clearly used normally as a singular rather than a plural form. The absence of any reflex of /ðejz/ as a plural pronoun is discussed below.

The other forms present little morphological difficulty. There is only one occurrence of /ði-ki:/ as a pronoun, although as an adjective it almost outnumbers /ði:z/ and /ðat/ together, so it seems to belong primarily to the adjectival system. The normal singular pronouns are either the simple forms or the ‘second compounds’, the ‘first compounds’ being most unusual.

In the plural of the adjective, the simple forms are much more frequent than their equivalent ‘first compounds’, whereas in the plural of the pronoun, there is apparently only the one form /ðej/. The status of this form is discussed below.

The following are examples of those demonstatives which are not further discussed below. The uses of /ðat/ as a singular adjec­tive, of /ði-ki:/ as a singular or plural adjective, and of all the pronouns are fully exemplified in the syntactic section, and thus no examples are given here.

/ði:z/

I come down “here to live in this little old “street.

Well; “this year, I done a bit “lighter.

Now “this season, tis “over.

This was coming “this way.

/ðis ji:r/

There’s all this here sort of “jobs going on to “day.

I was down “there where this here “plough was up “here.

Iðejzl

These places be alright if you know where you’m “going to.

They got to pay the “wages to these people.

I do a bit of “gardening . . . and likes of all these things.

/ðej/

What makes all they “hills look so well?

Where “Jim was sent to, they two “met.

“They won’t have all they sort of people up there.

Tell “Cooper to “shift “they “stones “there.

We may now turn to the functions of those forms whose uses are identifiably different from those of Standard English.

The most striking feature of the demonstrative system is that, in the singular adjective system at least, there is apparently a three-term opposition /ði:z : ðat : ði-ki:/, in contrast with the two-term system of Standard English. It seems fair to say that the role of /ði:z/ is similar to that of 'this' in Standard English (but see note on /ði:z ji:r/ below), but any attempt to differentiate /ðat/ and /ði-ki:/ proves extremely difficult. There are a number of sen­tences of the type:

If you was to put “that stick in across “thicky pony . . .

where the two forms seem to fill the same function. The virtual absence of /ði-ki:/ from the pronoun system, together with the fact that /ði-ki:/ is three times as frequent as /ðat/ as an adjective, would suggest that /ði-ki:/ is the normal adjectival form in the dialect, and that /ðat/ has a greater range, having a function which is basically pronominal but in addition adjectival at times. This is further supported by the fact that when presented with sentences of the type:

He turned that “hare “three “times and “he caught it.

the informant claimed that /ði-ki:/ would be equally acceptable and could indicate no distinction. Thus there are pairs of sent­ences such as

I used to walk that there “two mile and “half.

You'd walk thicky “nine “mile.

or again

That finished “that job.

I wouldn’t have “thicky job.

There are certain cases where either one form or the other seems to be required. In particular, /ðat/ is used when actually indicating a size with the hands:

Go up and see the stones “that length, “that thickness.

while /ði-ki:/ is used in contrast with /t∂-ðr/, where Standard English would normally use ‘one’ or ‘the one’.

Soon as they got it “thicky hand, they’d thruck(?) it away with the “tother.

In the adjective plural, the contrast between /ði-ki:/ and /ðej/ is not a real one, since /ði-ki:/ is found only with numerals.

I had thicky “eighteen “bob a “week.

I expect thicky “nine was all “one “man’s sheep.

When presented with /ði-ki:/ before plural nominals, the in­formant rejected them. It would therefore be preferable to redefine ‘singular’ and ‘plural’ in the dialect to account for this, rather than to consider /ði-ki:/ as a plural form; this would ac­cordingly neutralize in the plural any /ði-ki:/:/ðat/ opposition which may exist in the singular.

In the pronominal system, there is only one occurrence of /ði-ki:/:

My missis bought “thicky before her “died (a radio).

It is true that most of the occurrences of /ðal/ as a pronoun do not refer to a specific antecedent, e.g. I can’t afford to do “that, but there are a number of cases where /ðat/ does play a role closely parallel to /ði-ki:/ above.

As “I was passing “that, and “that was passing “me (a dog).

As there are no other examples of /ði-ki:/ as a singular pronoun, either simply or as part of a ‘first’ or ‘second compound’, and no cases at all in the plural, it seems fair to say that any /ðat/:/ði-ki:/ opposition is realized only in the singular adjective, and that here too it is difficult to see what the basis of any opposition might be. A list of representative examples of /ðat/, /ðat ðεr/, /ði-ki:/ and /ði-ki: ðεr/ is given below, in their function as singular adjectives, so that they can easily be com­pared.

/ðat/

All they got to “do is steer that little “wheel a bit.

You’d put in “dynamite to blast that stone “off.

Us’d go “in that pub and have a pint of “beer.

/ðat ðεr/

I used to walk that there “two mile and “half.

Good as “gold, that there “thing was.

/ði-ki:/

All of us be in “thicky boat, you see.

‘Thicky “dog’, he said, ‘been there all “day?’

Stairs went up “there, like, “thicky side, “thicky end of the wall.

Thicky place would be “black with people . . .

I travelled thicky old road “four “ year . . .

What’s “thicky “little “place called, before you get up “Yelverton?

Thicky field, they’d “break it, they called it.

He was going to put me and Jan “up thicky night.

“Never been through thicky road “ since.

/ði-ki: ðεr/

Jim Connell carted home thicky there jar of “cyder same as he carted it “up.

We got in thicky there “field . . .

The morphological status of /ði:z/ and /ðis/ as singulars, and of /ðejz/ and /ði:z/ as plurals has already been discussed. Syntacti­cally, their use seems to correspond to Standard English closely, except in one important respect: the ‘first compound’ forms are used in a way similar to a non-standard usage which is fairly widespread, in the sense of ‘a’ or ‘a certain’.

/ði:z ji:r/

He’d got this here “dog.

You’d put this here great “crust on top.

The ‘first compound’ is never used as an equivalent to Standard English ‘this’, being reserved for uses of the type above, although there is another form /ði:z . . . ji:r/, which is occasionally used where Standard English would show ‘this’, eg Between here and this village “here like.

In the plural, an exactly parallel syntactic division occurs be­tween /ðejz/ (cf Standard English ‘these’) and /ðejz ji:r/.

These here “maidens that was here . . .

I used to put them in front of these here “sheds.

They got these here “hay-turners . . .

In all the above examples, the ‘first compounds’, both singular and plural, refer to items which have not been mentioned before, and which are not adjacent to the speaker; they are thus referentially distinct from the normal use of Standard English ‘this’.

Although we can fairly say that /ði:z/ and /ðejz/ are syntac­tically distinct from their equivalent first compounds, what of the other adjective compounds /ðat ðεr/, /ði-ki: ðεr/ and /ðej ðεr/? There seems to be no syntactic division in these cases between them and their equivalent simple forms, so it is perhaps not surprising that Table 2 shows them to be without exception much less common than /ði:z ji:r/ and /ðejz ji:r/, which have a distinct syntactic role. Forms such as

Us got in thicky there “field

and

Good as “gold, that there “thing was.

do not seem any different from

Us “mowed thicky little plat . . .

and

He turned that “hare “three “times . . .

There is certainly no apparent correlation with any notional de­gree of emphasis.

In the case of the singular pronouns, the ‘first compounds’ are extremely rare, cf.

He done “well with that there. (/ðat ðεr/)

He went out “broad, this here what’s “dead now. (/ði:z ji:r/).

The basic opposition here is between the simple forms and the ‘second compounds’ /ðis ji:r ji:r/ and /ðat ðεr ðεr/. Here the syntactic division is fairly clear: the second compounds are used in certain adverbial phrases, particularly after ‘like’, where the demonstrative refers to no specific antecedent:

Tis getting like this here “here.

I’ve had to walk home “after that there there.

and also, with reference to a specific antecedent, when particular emphasis is drawn to the item in question.

I’ve had the “wireless there, this here “here, for “good many years.

One of these here “crocks, something like that there “there.

In all other cases, the simple forms are used.

“This was coming “this way.

Then he did meet with “this.

That’s “one “bad “job, “that was.

/ðat/ is used particularly frequently in two phrases, ‘likes of that and ‘and that’.

He doed a bit of “farmering and likes of “that.

I got a “jumper and that home “now.

The last question is one of the most interesting. Is there really only one form /ðej/ functioning as a plural pronoun? At first sight, this would seem improbable, given that there is a plural adjective form /ðejz/ and that the 'this':'that' opposition is main­tained elsewhere in the system. However, all attempts to elicit such a form failed, and there is at least one spontaneous utterance where, if a form /ðejz/ did exist as a pronoun, it might be ex­pected to appear:

There’s “thousands of acres out there would grow it better than they in “here grow it.

Taking all these factors together, we tentatively suggest that the opposition ‘this’:’that’ is neutralized in this position, even though this seems rather unlikely, given the adjectival system.

But there is another point. It is in fact difficult to identify oc­currences of /ðej/ as demonstratives with any certainty, because the form is identical with that of the personal pronoun /ðej/ (Stan­dard English ‘they’ or ‘them’).

We may observe at this point that in the dialect, the third plural personal pronoun forms are /ðej/ and /∂m/. The first form is used in all stressed positions and as unstressed subject except in in­verted Q-forms; the second is used as the unstressed non-subject, and as the unstressed subject in inverted Q-forms. Thus we find:

/ðej/

“I had to show the pony but “they winned the cups.

I could chuck “they about.

That’s up to “they, they know what they’m a”bout of.

They’d take ‘em back of your “door for half-a-crown.

/∂m/

They expect to have a “name to the house, “don’t ‘em?

Where do ‘em get the “tools to?

That was as far as “ever they paid ‘em.

I stayed there “long with ‘em for more than a “year.

When considering /ðej/, we find a series of utterances such as the following in which a division between personal and demonstrative pronouns would be largely arbitrary.

I could “throw ‘em. chuck “they about.

“They in “towns, they go to concerts,

Us finished up with “they in ...

They do seven acres a “day, now, with “they.

There is “they that take an “interest in it.

I could cut in so straight (as) some of “they that “never do it.

Although, following the system of Standard English, we have so far differentiated between /ðej/ as a stressed personal pronoun and /ðej/ as a demonstrative pronoun, it is clearly more econom­ical, in terms of the dialectal material, to consider the two functions as coalescing within one system: STRESSED /ðej/; UN­STRESSED /∂m/. This system would operate in all positions where Standard English would show either a third person plural personal pronoun, or a plural demonstrative pronoun. Similarly, there is a dialectal system STRESSED /ðat/ UNSTRESSED /it/ in the third person singular, where the referent is abstract or non-specific, in that /ðat/ never occurs unstressed nor /it/ stressed. Thus in contrast to the last example above, we find:

I seed some of ‘em that never walked a “mile in their “lives,

where the form /∂m/ is unstressed. (Such unstressed examples are much rarer than stressed examples in positions where Standard English would show a demonstrative pronoun simply because ‘those’ is normally stressed in Standard English.)

We should note finally, however, that this analysis of the material does not in any way explain the absence of a plural pronoun /ðejz/, any more than the linking of /ðat/ with /it/ precludes the existence of a singular demonstrative pronoun /ði:z/. The non-existence of /ðejz/ as a pronoun seems best con­sidered as an accidental gap in the corpus.” (№18, p.20 )