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 )
3.6 Verbs.
- In the south-western dialects in the singular and in the plural in Present Indefinite the ending ‘-s’ or ‘-es’ is used, if the Subject is expressed as
a noun.
e.g. Boys as wants more mun ask.
The other ehaps works hard.
- In Devonshire ‘-th’ [ð] is added to verbs in the plural in Present Indefinite.
- The form ‘am’ (’m) of the verb ‘to be’ is used after the personal pronouns:
e.g. We (wem = we are) (Somersetshire)
you, they
- After the words ‘if’, ‘when’, ‘until’, ‘after’ Future Indefinite sometimes used.
- The Perfect form in affirmative sentences, in which the Subject is expressed as a personal pronoun, is usually built without the auxiliary verb ‘have’:
e.g. We done it.
I seen him.
They been and taken it.
- The negation in the south-western dialects is expressed with the adding of the negative particle ‘not’ in the form ‘-na’ to the verb.
e.g. comesna (comes not)
winna (= will not)
sanna (= shall not)
canna (= cannot)
maunna (= must not)
sudna (= should not)
dinna (= do not)
binna (= be not)
haena (= have not)
daurna (= dare not)
- It is typical to the south-western dialects to use too many nigotiations in the same phrase:
e.g. I yin’t seen nobody nowheres.
I don’t want to have nothing at all to say to you.
I didn’t mean no harm.
Ye’ll better jist nae detain me nae langer.
- The negative and interrogative forms of the modal verbs are built with the help of the auxiliary verb ‘do’.
e.g. He did not ought to do it.
You do not ought to hear it.
- Some verbs which are regular in the Standard language become irregular in the south-western dialects:
e.g. dive - dave, help - holp
- Sometimes the ending ‘-ed’ is added to some irregular verbs in the Past Simple:
e.g. bear - borned, begin - begunned, break - broked, climb - clombed,
dig - dugged, dive - doved, drive - droved, fall - felled, find -
funded, fly - flewed, give - gaved, grip - grapped, hang - hunged,
help - holped, hold - helded, know - knewed, rise - rosed, see -
sawed, shake - shooked, shear - shored, sing - sunged, sink -
sunked, spin - spunned, spring - sprunged, steal - stoled, strive -
stroved, swear - swored, swim - swammed, take - tooked, tear -
tored, wear - wored, weave - woved, write - wroted.
- But some irregular verbs in the Past Simple Tense are used as regular:
e.g. begin - beginned (Western Som., Dev.)
bite - bited (W. Som.)
blow - blowed (Dev.)
drink - drinked (W. Som.)
drive - drived (Dev.)
fall - falled (W. Som., Dev.)
fight - fighted (W. Som.)