Of + DO

1.2 Of + DO

The other typical feature of south-western dialects is not mentioned by Wakelin, although it stands out much more clearly in the SED data. This is the optional use of o’/ov (occasionally on) between a transitive verb and its DO. Here are some of the many examples. Stripping the feathers off a dead chicken (Orton and Wakelin) is called:

pickin/pluckin ov it (Brk-loc. 3);

trippin o’ en (= it) (D-loc. 6);

pickin o’ en (Do-loc. 3);

pluckin(g) on en - (W-loc. 9; Sx-loc. 2).

Catching fish, especially trout, with one’s hand (Orton and Wakelin) is called:

ticklin o’/ov em (= them) (So-loc. 13; W-loc. 2, 8; D-loc. 2, 7, 8; Do-loc. 2-5; Ha-loc. 4);

gropin o’/ov em (D-loc. 4, 6);

ticklin on em (W-loc. 3, 4; Ha-loc. 6; Sx-loc. 3);

tickle o’ em (Do-loc. l) (note the absence of -in(g)).

The confusion between of and on is frequent in dialects, but although on may occur where of is expected, the reverse is im­possible. The occasional use of on instead of of is therefore unimportant. What really matters is the occurrence of of, o’ or ov between a transitive verb and the DO. The presence of the -in(g) ending should also attract our attention: it occurs in all the examples except tickle o’ em, which is exceptional since, when the SED informants used an infinitive in their answers, their syn­tax was usually identical with that of Standard English, ie without of occurring before the DO: glad to see you, (he wants to) hide it (Orton and Wakelin).

Following Jespersen, Lyons makes a distinc­tion between real transitives (/ hit you: action → goal) and verbs which are only syntactically transitives (/ hear you: goal ← ac­tion). It is a pity that the way informants were asked questions for the SED (‘What do we do with them? - Our eyes/ears’) does not enable us to treat the transitive verbs see Orton and Wakelin and hear (Orton and Wakelin) other than as ODVs.

The use of of as an operator between a transitive verb and its DO was strangely enough never described by Barnes, and is casually dismissed as an ‘otiose of’ by the authors of the SED, even though nothing can really be ‘otiose’ in any language sys­tem. Rogers points out that ‘Much more widely found formerly, it is now confined to sentences where the pronouns en, it and em are the objects.’ This is obvious in the SED materials, as, incidentally, it is in these lines by Barnes:

To work all day a-meäken haÿ/Or pitchen o’t.

Nevertheless, even if his usage is in conformity with present syn­tax, it is important to add that, when Barnes was alive, o/ov could precede any DO (a-meäken ov haÿ would equally have been pos­sible). What should also be noted in his poetry is the extremely rare occurrence of o’/ov after a transitive verb with no -en (= -ing) ending, which, as we just saw, is still very rare in modern speech:

Zoo I don’t mind o’ leäven it to-morrow.

Zoo I don’t mind o’ leäven o’t to-morrow.

The second line shows a twofold occurrence of o’ after two tran­sitive verbs, one with and one without -en.

This -en ending can be a marker of a verbal noun, a gerund or a present participle (as part of a progressive aspect form or on its own), and o’ may follow in each case.

VERBAL NOUN

My own a-decken ov my own (‘my own way of dressing my darling’).

This is the same usage as in Standard English he doesn’t like my driving of his car.

GERUND

 That wer vor hetten o’n (‘that was for hitting him’).

. . . little chance/O’ catchen o’n.

I be never the better vor zee-en o’ you.

The addition of o’ to a gerund is optional: Vor grinden any corn vor bread is similar to Standard English.

PROGRESSIVE ASPECT

As I wer readen ov a stwone (about a headstone).

Rogers gives two examples of the progressive aspect:

I be stackin’ on ‘em up.

I were a-peeling of the potatoes (with a different spelling).

PRESENT PARTICIPLE ON ITS OWN

To vind me stannen in the cwold, / A-keepen up o’ Chris’mas.

After any present participle, the use of o’ is also optional:

Where vo’k be out a-meäken haÿ.

The general formula is thus:

trans. V → V + o’/0

which can also be read as

MV (main verb) → trans. V + o’/0 + DO.

Here, o’ stands for o’ (the most common form), ov and even on. In modem usage, the DO, which could be a noun or noun phrase in Barnes’s day and age, appears from the SED materials to be restricted to personal pronouns. For modern dialects, the formula thus reads:

MV → trans. V + o’/0 + pers. pron.

The o’ is here a transitivity operator which, exactly like an ac­cusative ending in a language with case declensions, disappears in the passive. Consequently, the phenomenon under discussion here has to be distinguished from that of prepositional verbs, which require the retention of the preposition in the passive:

We have thought of all the possible snags. →

All the possible snags have been thought of.

The use of o’ as a transitivity operator in active declaratives is also optional, which represents another basic difference from prepositional verbs.

Exactly the same opposition, interestingly enough, applies in south-western dialects also:

[1] He is (a-) eäten o’ ceäkes → What is he (a-) eäten?

[2] He is (a-) dreämen o’ceäkes → What is he (a-) dreämen ov?

What remains a preposition in [1] and [2] works as the link between a transitive verb and its DO. The compulsory deletion of the operator o’ in questions relating to the DO demonstrates the importance here of the word order (V + o’ + DO), as does also the similar trig­gering of deletion by passives.

Though now used in a more restricted way, ie before personal pronouns only, this syntactic feature is better preserved in the modern dialects than the

-y ending of intransitive verbs, but, in so far as it is only optional, it is easy to detect the growing in­fluence of Standard English.