• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
A morphological restriction on parasitic participles

There is a morphological restriction on parasitic participles.


The examples of parasitic participles always involve participles of strong verbs ending in -n. Participles of weak verbs end in schwa if they belong to the JE-conjugation or in an alveolar plosive otherwise. Two examples are given in (1). The first example involves a verb belonging to the JE-conjugation. The second example in (1) involves an ordinary weak verb:

a. Giselje: de top hat gisele
spin the top has spun
Spin: the top has spun
b. Bjinne: hy hat bjind
scrub he has scrubbed
Scrub: he has scrubbed

The point is that the examples of parasitic participle are only grammatical with verbs of which the past participle ends in -n. So we have minimal pairs like the ones in (2):

a. Soe hy dat dien kinnen ha?
would he that done could.PfP have
Could he have done that?
b. *Soe it reind kinnen ha?
would it rained could.PfP have
Could it have rained?
c. ?*Soe it reind ha kinnen?
would it rained have could.PfP
Could it have rained?

Both the PPI-A construction and the PPI-B construction resist the use of weak perfect participles. The judgments are not quite clear, and the construction is of such low frequency that it defies corpus investigation. Perhaps the construction is an example of the influence of Dutch, but it is not recognised as a Dutch interference, that is, it does not have that feel. This phenomenon should be further investigated, as the remarks made here are tentative.

    printreport errorcite