Hewitt - Background Information on Breton

Background information on Breton

Steve Hewitt [email protected]

1. Historical and sociolinguistic background

Breton, the only Brythonic (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) Celtic language to have preserved the original name, OB brethonec, ModB brezhoneg, is thought to have been brought to Armorica (NW peninsula of France) by immigrants from Britain in the 5th-7th centuries. The traditional view is that the sparse local population was already Romanized, and that Breton thus represents a purely Insular Celtic import. Falchun, however, proposed that the aberrant SE dialect of Gwened (G, Vannes) constituted a hybrid of Gaulish and Insular Brythonic, and later came to believe that Gwened was pure Gaulish and that the remaining dialects of Leon (Lon, L: NW), Kerne (Cornouaille, K: SW and C) and Treger (Trgor, T: NE) were the result of a mixture of Gaulish and Insular Brythonic. The most recent authoritative statement on the subject is Fleuriot (1980: Chapter 3), who turned Falchuns arguments around: if Gaulish, as he agrees is likely, still survived at the time, it was most probably in the remoter north-western regions of the Osismii than among the more Romanized south-eastern Veneti. For Fleuriot, then, the KLT dialects represent a blend of Gaulish and Brythonic, and Gwened is the result of a re-Celticization of an area of Romance speech; this scenario convincingly accounts for certain traits that are shared by Gwened and Insular Brythonic to the exclusion of the KLT dialects. While the precise origins of the Bretons are of minor concern to the average native speaker, they are of considerably more importance to cutural activists. Here it is well to remember the ideological resonance the ethnonym Gaulish has in France: following the French Revolution, the reactionary nobles of the ancien rgime were identified with the Franks, whereas the progressive ordinary Republican people was equated with nos anctres les Gaulois. It was important for the anti-nationalist Falchun to show that the Bretons were not only not a foreign element in France, but that they were in a sense doubly French, being the direct continuers of Gaulish speech. Fleuriot was more interested in highlighting the variety of influences and hence the hybrid nature of Breton language and culture, a position not always appreciated by the nationalist community. The documented history of Breton begins with Old Breton (OB), roughly 800-1200, with numerous glosses of sufficient length to reconstitute the grammar and vocabulary in some detail (Fleuriot: 1964b, 1964a); this language is quite close to Old Welsh (800-1100), with which it shares most orthographical conventions. There follows a troubled period in which only placenames and personal names are found. Middle Breton (1350-1660), with numerous texts, many devotional in nature, from 1450 on, is as different from Old Breton as Middle English is from Anglo-Saxon, and for similar reasons. The orthography, apart from a few special conventions, such as ff / /, z /, /, zz, tz //, cz, z, /t? > /, ch /x, ; /, is now French-based. There is a mass of Romance vocabulary grafted onto the native stock (Piette 1973); uniquely among the Celtic languages, there is now a fully-fledged verb have based on oblique proclitic personal pronouns plus (existential) forms of be: m-eus [to.me-there.is] I have, together with perfect tenses on the French compound tenses model: have / be + past participle: meus gweled [I.have seen.PP], on aed [I.am gone.PP]; and finally, undoubtedly from contact with Old French, a strong tense-second (T-2) constraint, which interacts in interesting ways with the traditional Insular Celtic predicate-subject-object PSO order, as we shall see below. Middle Breton is a relatively standardized language which, with the exception of forms of be (vez, etc.), does not mark initial consonant mutations: da prenaff to buy /da brn/; Middle Breton verse abounds in internal assonance reminiscent of Welsh cynghanedd: Ivonet Omnes, ca. 1350: an guen heguen am louenas / an hegarat an lagat glas the white-cheeked one gladdened me, the kind one of the blue eyes. With the 1659 Le Sacr-Collge de Jsus (Breton catechism, with a dictionary and grammar) by Julien Maunoir, who dispenses with ff for //, uses n for / /, and introduces the iconic ch for /x, /, these two traits (absence of mutations; verse with internal assonance) disappear, and Modern Breton is deemed to begin; all writing is henceforth identifiable by dialect. Apart from these cosmetic changes, there is initially little grammatical difference. However, during the course of the 18th century, the old system of proclitic object pronouns me en gwel [I him.OBJ see] I see him gradually gives way in the KLT dialects, but not in G, to a new construction with a post-verbal person-marked preposition a of: me a=wel anea [I AFF see of.him=him.OBJ], which is structurally more similar to English. Even though it is today barely understood by KLT native speakers, the old construction is widely maintained in Standard Breton (possibly owing to its structural similarity with French). The dialects of Breton are traditionally divided into L, K, T and G; needless to say, most isoglosses do not follow the boundaries of the old (pre-1789) bishoprics exactly:

S. Hewitt, [email protected] 2 Background information on Breton

Figure 1 Traditional bishoprics, dialect areas and linguistic frontiers of Breton

[Please seek permission to reproduce from: www.geobreizh.com: [email protected]] However, some features do coincide closely with these traditional provinces. For instance, the following pronunciations of newe new (cf. Welsh newydd) will immediately identify speakers as being from the following areas: L /nvz/, T /newe/, G /n/, K /neve/, CE /ne/. Falchun, working with Le Rouxs Atlas Linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne and a map of Roman roads extant in medieval times, identified an area of linguistic innovation radiating out from the central town of Karaes (Carhaix). There is thus a broad central NE-SW band of innovative dialects of T and K along which intercomprehension is relatively easy; this is flanked by two peripheral dialects, L and G, with G being particularly different from the rest. The latter two areas having traditionally produced more priests than elsewhere, post-Maunoir written Breton came to have twin standards, based on L and G, rather than a linguistically more central norm reflecting usage along the NE-SW axis. L thus came to be used in T and K, but this is not to say that it was actively accepted by speakers of those dialects as a workable literary norm for them. Beginning in the early 19th century with Le Gonidec, but especially since 1925 and the Gwalarn (literary journal, North-West) movement, Standard Breton has become increasingly divorced from traditional, spontaneous forms of the language, with the result that most native speakers find it rather difficult to follow without special study. There is no standard spoken form of Breton; in formal situations, native speakers who are literate in Breton usually speak their own dialect as clearly as possible, occasionally substituting more standard morphology for excessively local forms; learners for the most part apply more or less French phonology to what they see in writing, with the result that their oral production is barely comprehensible to native speakers. The history of Breton orthography is complex (cf. Hewitt 1987 and 2005, and especially Wmffre (2007). Le Gonidec (1807, 1821) introduced k and g for traditional French-based c ~ que, qui; g ~ gue, gui, and several other innovations. For the rest of the 19th century, Breton writing was divided into traditionalist and reformist camps. The reformist KLT Emgleo ar skrivagnerien / Entente des crivains of 1908-1911 introduced w in place of o, u, and unjustifiably systematized voiceless -p, -t, -k in other than nouns or verb-stems, but voiced -b, -d, -g in nouns and verb-stems, so brezoneg Breton language, brezonek Breton adj.; just a little earlier, in 1902, traditional G orthography was standardized. In 1941, under Nazi auspices, KLT and G were artificially combined in a Peurunvan fully unified orthography widely known as ZH (zh: KLT z ~ G h). In reaction against ZH, Falchun promulgated in 1955 the Skolveurieg / Orthographe universitaire (OU) orthography, with parallel standards for KLT and G; it generalized -b, -d, -g where warranted by derivation, introduced an ambiguous h for both h and


ch, and systematized the indication of new lenition: f-, s-, ch-, chw- >f-, z-, j-, hw-. In 1975, a third Etrerannyezhel / Interdialectale (ID) orthography was launched, making a three-way distinction s, z, zh (with provection: ss, zz, sh), w for T /w/, G //, voiced finals like OU, but no new lenition. At present, ZH, linguistically the least suitable, as it violates several native-speaker phonological intuitions, dominates, with at least 85%; OU has 10-12%; and the remaining 3-5% use ID. I use a personal refinement of ID, an Etymological (E) orthography, which has several extra supradialectal conventions that accurately predict dialect reflexes, and which links up better with Middle Breton and Welsh.1 In any case, there is well under 1% functional literacy (the ability to write a simple personal letter) in Breton among native speakers; if a particular orthography were well known and actively used by a significant number of native speakers, that would be the obvious choice, but that is not the case. In the interests of consistency and comparability for non-specialists, all examples here are given in E. Forms reflect majority usage, but may differ in some details from Standard Breton. The sociological history of Breton is one of a gradual decline in active use from the higher social classes downwards, with a catastrophic acceleration in language shift since the Second World War, and especially the 1960s and 1970s. In 1900, there may have have been as much as 60% effective monoglots in Lower, Breton-speaking, Brittany. Of the largely monoglot Bretons who went to fight in the trenches in the First World War, those who survived came back with a working knowledge of French, thus introducing generalized bilingualism for the first time. Total numbers probably peaked at around 1.11.3 million in the 1930s, with some 100,000 monoglots (mainly women) still in 1950, and some 600,000-750,000 speakers even in the 1970s. No linguistic questions are asked in the French census, as any reference to ethnic identity is deemed to be anti-Republican. However, surveys (see Broudic, all references) suggest that current numbers of proficient speakers probably stand at around the 300,000 mark, of whom two-thirds are over 60; the 3-20 age group has well under 1%. On top of this, there are large numbers of semi-speakers and people with a good passive knowledge: ne=vin ked gwerzhed e brezhoneg [NEG I.will.be not sold in Breton] I cant be sold (tricked, duped, caught out) in Breton; indeed, one of the hallmarks of the linguistic situation today is the large numbers of such grey speakers. The very youngest native speakers from traditional, spontaneous (non-activist) backgrounds, in areas with relatively strong language vitality such as central and southern T, are today in their 20s. An important factor to bear in mind is the widespread sense of shame connected with Breton, to which a strong stigma has long been attached by French elites. The activist community is very largely composed of French-dominant learners. Total numbers are probably around 5,000-10,000, with perhaps a further 10,000 or so who have had some exposure to the language. There is a recognizable learners Breton, which is strongly French in phonology, syntax and phraseology, but highly puristic in vocabulary. The cumulative effect of this is to make communication in Breton between such activists traditional native speakers laborious at best. A common attitude among learner-activists, who cannot align two sentences without making serious grammatical mistakes or idiomatic blunders, is that popular Breton is so degenerate and shot through with French that it is hardly worth saving; they maintain that they, the activists, are the only future of the language, an attitude which does little to endear them to ordinary native speakers. Approximately 3% of schoolchildren in Brittany have some exposure to Breton, whether in voluntary Breton classes in regular French state schools, in bilingual Breton-French state schools, or in the private all-Breton Diwan system (currently a little over 3,000 pupils from pre-school to secondary school lyce). The presence of Breton in the media is insignificant a little over one hour per week on television, and 10-12 hours a week on public radio; only one local radio, Kreis Breizh (Central Brittany) in ST-NEK, a particularly strong area for Breton, broadcasts a good part of the time in (local) Breton. In short, the general outlook for Breton as a community language, rather than the language of networks of aficionados, is rather bleak.

1 In E, s zh correspond closely to Old Breton s d th /s / and Modern Welsh s dd th /s /. In what follows, /v / are /v / with greater friction /vh h/; // is variously /h hx / and regularly /x/ under final obstruent devoicing. Old Breton (OB) / / > Middle Breton (MB) / v >/ are v v ch; OB /f s x/ > (medially and finally) MB /v z / are f zh s ch; OB /-fh- -h- -sh- -xh-/ > MB /f s x/ (/f s/ also in loans from French) are ff zzh ss ch; MB and Modern Breton (ModB) / / are ch j; OB /oi/ > MB /oe/ is oa. Modern dialect reflexes, where different from MB, are as follows: -Vv N //, SW /w/, SE //; -Vv- /v/, SE //; --, - /-/, NW /z/; -- /-/, NW /s/; -zh-, -zh /z/ SE /h/; -zzh- /s/ SE /h/; f- /f/ NE /v/; s- /s/ NE, C, CS /z/; j- //, NE, C //; where not already voiced (NE, C, CS), initial f-, s-, j- are more amenable to the initial lenition (voicing) mutation than are ff-, ss-, ch-; oa (including in goa, choa) /wa/, NW /oa/, SE /we/; ch- NW /xw/, NE, C /w/, SW /, f/, SE /h/; gw- N /gw/, C, SW /g/, SE //; /w/; -w- W /v/, NE /w/, CE /-/, SE //; -iw, -w, -ew, -aw, -aou /iu, eu, o, ao, u/, SE /iy, ey, y, ay, y/; -Vrw W /Vro/, NE /Vr/, SE /Vry/; ao /o/, NW /ao/, SE /u/; ae /e/ NW /e/; a // NW /a/; u /y/; eu / /; ou /u/; /a/ and widely //. While it is usually possible to convert E automatically into ZH, the converse is not true because ZH blurs a number of distinctions made in E:

E f ff zh zzh s ss ch ch ga goa cha choa -b -d -g Cw- -w(-) v ZH f z1 s zh sh z2 s ch gwa choa -p -t -k w v

1 a number of instances of etymological are zh in ZH. 2 E s: ZH s-, -z-, -z+, -s (+ = nouns and verb stems; = all other categories).


2. Linguistic background

Breton, like all other Celtic languages, has grammaticalized initial consonant mutations which are historically the complex result of final vowel loss and sandhi; these will be indicated here, whenever a mutation has applied, with =, , , etc: dibri [eat.INF], otibri [PROG eat.INF] eating, a=zebr [AFF eat] eats; penn, mafenn [head, my head], etc.; see abbrevations naturally, these symbols are not used in normal written Breton. The three tense particles, a= direct affirmative tense particle AFF (after subject, object, infinitive), e indirect affirmative tense particle AFF (after other elements, such as prepositional phrase, adverb, etc.), ne= negative tense particle NEG, and the progressive infinitival particle o ( in some areas) PROG are often elided in normal tempos, but the initial consonant mutations they trigger remain. In the central NE-SW dialects, e is usually replaced by a=, with the result that all tensed forms with an initial lenitable consonant have lenition (this tendency is not reflected here). Basic Breton word order2 may be succinctly described with the following formula (see abbrevations): (X) (AUX) P S O and T-2 (tense-second), where X may be S, O, PO, ADV, etc., and T attaches either to AUX, if there is one, or to the simple verb V; the negative tense particle ne NEG is ambivalent: it may either itself fill the X slot or allow some other element to its left. There is a primary division into an information-neutral bare presentation with an initial P (the whole utterance is relatively new), and various lead-in presentations with in intial position some other element X, which, in a secondary division, may be either thematic (given, scene-setting) or rhematic (new, focus, contrast, emphasis, etc.). One of the most common elements to fill the X slot is actually the subject, such that SPO order is more frequent than PSO, even if it is not necessarily the most neutral from the point of view of information structure. The interaction of this framework with the T-2 constraint means that, quite uniquely among languages, the Breton simple affirmative sentence in bare presentation does not have the simplest structure, but usually undergoes one of two transformations. With simple verbs, there is Dummy Auxiliary Creation in order to get T into second position, such that (1a) without the initial adverb neuse becomes (1b):

(1a) neuse etebr an=dud krampouzh so AFF eat the people crpes so people eat crpes

(1b) dibri a ra an=dud krampouzh eat.INF AFF do the people crpes people eat crpes

With auxiliary structures (auxiliary be/have + past participle; copula + predicate; existential operator eus + existential entity), there is Auxiliary-Predicate Inversion (2a, 3a, 4a) become (2b, 3b, 4b):

(2a) neuse e meus gweled so AFF I.have seen.PP so I have seen

(2b) gweled e meus seen.PP AFF I.have I have seen

(3a) neuse e h-eo bras so AFF is.3SG big it is big

(3b) bras eo big is.3SG it is big

(4a) neuse so tud so be.EXIST.AFF people so there are people

(4b) tud so people be.EXIST.AFF there are people

2 For a fuller account of Breton verbal syntax, see Hewitt 1988, and especially Hewitt 2002b; for VSO vs VGN (verb-given-new) word order typology, see Hewitt 2002a.


The general rule is no person/number marking in the verb (tensed element); when a verb is marked for tense only, it will be glossed with : etebr an=dud [AFF eat the people] the people eat. There are two exceptions to the rule of tense-marking only: (1) when a subject pronoun may be thought to follow the tensed element, there is Subject Inclusion: *ra+me [do+I] > ran [do.1SG] or [I.do], giving rise to the personal forms of the TAM sets (including the impersonal form, a seventh form in each set referring to some indeterminate human agent French on, English one, but there is no corresponding subject pronoun see Hewitt 2002b for further details); (2) when an initial subject is followed by a tensed form in the negative, so (5a) without person agreement in the affirmative, but (5b) with person agreement in the negative:

(5a) an=dud a=zebr the people AFF eat] the people eat

(5b) an=dud ne=zebront ked the people NEG eat.3PL not the people do not eat

Historically, initial subjects in the affirmative derive from a cleft relative with subsequent ellipsis of the copula and defocusing of the initial element: it is the people who eat > [it is] the people [who] eat > the people eat. Since the negative of the first phrase is it is not the people who eat, it is pragmatically impossible to elide the copula, so the only way to provide a functional equivalent in the negative is to treat the people as an initial thematic topic, which is then echoed with a post-verbal pronominal subject with Subject Inclusion: an=dud ne=zebront ked [the people NEG they.eat not]. As a result of its unique morphological origin, the verb have always uses person-marked forms: m-eus [to.me-be.EXIST] I have. In addition, there is a strong tendency in the central NE-SW dialects to add regular personal endings in the plural: Standard Breton hon-eus [to.us-there.is] we have > *hon-eus-omp [to.us-there.is.1PL] > neusomp > neump; (hom-eus) > meusomp > meump we have. Since have is derived from be, the infinitive of auxiliary-have is simply be, to be interpreted according to context:

(6) ne meus ked chant da =vea debred NEG I.have not desire to be.INF eaten.PP I do not want to be eaten

(7) red evo deomp bea debred a-=benn nav eur necessary AFF will.be to.us be=have.INF eaten.PP by nine hour we will have to have eaten by nine oclock.

As a lexical verb meaning possess, have has a suppletive infinitive kaoud < kavoud find. In addition to the simple tenses or TAM (tense-aspect-mood) sets reviewed below (other useful terms to avoid using the slightly inaccurate tense or conjugation are screeve, coined from the Georgian mcrivi row, or French tiroir drawer), and the compound perfect tenses alluded to above, Breton has a periphrastic progressive construction consisting of be.SIT + o [PROG] + INF:

(8) ema an=dud o tibri krampouzh be.SIT the people PROG eat.INF crpes the people are eating crpes

which is very similar in range of use to English, the main divergence being that English appears to be developing in the direction of progressive > contingent situation, even state, whereas Breton appears to correlate the progressive strongly with control by the subject; for more details, see Hewitt 1986 and 1990.

3. Evolution of the Breton and Welsh TAM sets and values

Table 1 shows the evolution of the six basic Breton and Welsh TAM sets. In the middle period of both languages, the primary value of each set was quite similar, and most of the individual forms were clearly related, apart from 2SG and 2PL in sets 1a and 2a, and 2SG in set 3a.


Table 1 Evolution of the Breton and Welsh TAM sets

Middle Breton orth. ch -ff s z phon. x/ z / Modern Breton: orth. ch j ff ou s z phon.x/ f u z z/

[literary register] G: Gwened (Vannes) 1a 2a 3a 1a 2a 3a PRES/FUT PRES.SUBJ>FUT PRET PRES FUT/SUBJ PRET [literary]

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

imp.

-aff // -ez -, -a -omp -et, -it -ont -er

-iff // -y -o -homp -het -hint -her

-is -sot -as -somp -soch -sont -at

-an /~n~~-/ -ez -, -a -omp G -amp -et, -it, -och -ont G -ant -er

-in / ~ ~n/ -i -o -ffomp, -imp G -emp -ffet, -(ff)och, -ot G -et -ffont, -int G -ent -ffer, -or

[-is] [-jout] -as [-jomp] [-joch] [-jont] [-jod]

1b 2b

3b

1b

2b

3b

IMPF IMPF.SUBJ>POT PLPF >HYP IMPF POT/SUBJ HYP/2FUT 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

imp.

-enn -es -e -emp -ech -ent -et

-henn -hes -he -hemp -hech -hent -het

-senn -ses -se -semp -sech -sent -set

-enn -es -e -emp -ech -ent [-ed]

-ffenn G henn, etc. -ffes -ffe -ffemp -ffech -ffent [-ffed]

-jenn j /~/ -jes -je -jemp -jech -jent [-jed]

Middle Welsh orth. ch d f u w y

phon. / v y u / Modern Welsh orth. ch dd f u w y phon. / v u / (//: N// ~ S/i/)

(spoken forms with obligatory postclitic subject pronouns) S South Welsh; N North Welsh; [literary register]

1a 2a 3a 1a 2a 3a PRES/FUT PRES.SUBJ PRET [PRES]/FUT [SUBJ] PRET

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

imp.

-af -y -, -a -wn -wch -ant -ir

-(h)wyf -(h)ych -(h)o -(h)om -(h)och -(h)ont -(h)er

-eis -eist -awd, -as -assom -assawch -assant -at, -wyt

-af (-a i) -i (-i di) -, -a (-ith eS~oN/hi) -wn (-wn ni) -wch (-wch chi) -ant (-an nhw) [-ir]

[-wyf] [-ych] [-o] [-om] [-och] [-ont] [-er]

-ais (-es i) -aist (-est ti) -odd (-odd eS~oN /hi) -(a)som (-(s)on ni) -(a)soch (-(s)och chi) -(a)sant (-(s)on nhw) [-wyd]

1b

2b

3b

1b

2b

3b

IMPF IMPF.SUBJ PLPF [IMPF]/COND < [PLPF] 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl

imp.

-wn -ut -ei -em -ewch -ynt -it

-(h)wn -(h)ut -(h)ei -(h)em -(h)ewch -(h)ynt -(h)it

-asswn -assut -assei -assem -assewch -assynt -assit

-wn (-wnN/-enS i) -it (-et ti) -ai (-e feS~foN/hi) -em (-en ni) -ech (-ech chi) -ent (-en nhw) [-id]

< < < < < < <

[-aswn] [-asit] [-asai] [-asem] [-asech] [-asent] [-asid, -esid]

Since then, however, the two languages have diverged.3 Breton has kept all six sets, but apart from 3a preterite, which has become moribund, rather like the French pass simple, and 1b imperfect, their primary values have evolved significantly: 1a MB present/future > ModB present; 2a MB present subjunctive > ModB future; 2b MB imperfect subjunctive > ModB potential conditional; 3b OB pluperfect > MB, ModB hypothetical conditional/secondary future (future-in-past). In fact, all these uses were already present, at least secondarily, in MB, and, as we shall see, the primary MB value often remains in residual use in ModB, so the above table is a little too schematic (furthermore, the pluperfect value of set 3b is clear for Old Breton, but by MB the set appears already to have acquired the more modern values of hypothetical conditional/secondary future). It

3 On this topic, cf. Humphreys 1990.


would be more accurate to say that there has been a shift of emphasis in the primary values of the various TAM sets between MB and ModB. A special development in the value of the 3b -se- set is evident in the SE. In 1987, Breton dialectologists were startled (local speakers, naturally, had known it all along) by Evenous revelation of -ise- forms with imperfect habitual value not only for the two verbs be and have for which such a TAM set is traditionally recognized, but also for the three semi-irregular (contraction of vocalic stem and endings) verbs ober do, mond go, and dond come: rise [did.IMP.HAB], yise [went.IMP.HAB], tise [came.IMP.HAB]. Furthermore, in Enes Groe (le de Groix), Ternes (1970) found such forms for all verbs. This seems related to a general reluctance in the SE to recognize a hypothetical conditional value for set 3b, which there is secondary future (future-in-the-past) and, in some areas at least (more research is needed to see how widespread the development is, and which verbs are affected) imperfect habitual. Concerning morphological evolution between MB and ModB, the development outside G of -s- to -j- appears to be simply a case of ioticization and palatalization: /z > zj > /. There is a tendency is many areas for -j- to be devoiced to -ch-, probably as a result of a general rule devoicing obstruent clusters, so etebrjenn I would eat /tbn > tbn > tpn/, and then the -ch- forms are taken as basic. In all likelihood, the development outside G of -h- to -ff- began with verb stems ending in /-v/: MB. evhe [should.drink.IMPF.SUBJ] > ModB evffe [would.drink.POT]; many central dialects add /-v/ to verb stems ending in a vowel, so kouea, koue- fall /kwe- > kwev-/, so this would have given a number of verb stems in /-v/: /-v+h- > -f-/. Welsh, on the other hand, has undergone something of a revolution, especially in the spontaneous, oral form of the language known as Colloquial Welsh.4 Apart from the loss of the imperfect subjunctive as a distinct set, Classical Welsh, which is still cultivated in formal academic writing, in principle maintains the Middle Welsh situation. In Colloquial Welsh, sets 2a present subjunctive, 2b imperfect subjunctive and 3b pluperfect (precisely those of greatest interest to us here in Breton) have all been lost, except in fossilized phrases. Of the remaining three, 3a preterite remains unchanged. In 1a, the punctual, perfective value of future has elbowed out the cursive, imperfective value of present, and something similar has occurred in 1b, which is now normally a punctual, perfective conditional rather than a cursive, imperfective imperfect (there are residual instances of present and imperfect for sets 1a and 1b respectively, but these are now very marginal). This means that all tensed forms of the simple verb in Colloquial Welsh now have punctual, perfective value, or at least are strongly tending in that direction. So how does one express cursive, imperfective TAM values in Colloquial Welsh? Quite simply, the above drastic simplification has not affected bod be, or not to the same extent, and bod in all its TAM sets combines with various aspectual operators, yn [in5 > PROG], wedi,di [after > PERF], hen [old > long previously], newydd [new > recently], ar [on > about to], am [for > about to/intention] etc. plus infinitive, to give a wide range of periphrastic TAM constructions. Note that under this thorough-going rearrangement of the Welsh TAM system, (1) the old present/future becomes restricted to future; (2) the old progressive is expanded to become a general cursive or imperfective, which may freely be used with statives; and (3) an extended construction has come in to express specifically progressive Aktionsart; Hindi/Urdu shows a strikingly similar path of development:

Classical Welsh Old Hindi (9a) siarad-af bl-

speak-PRES/FUT.1SG speak-PRES.1SG I speak / I will speak I speak

(10a) yr wyf yn siarad bl-t h AFF am PROG speak.INF speak-PROG I.am I am speaking I am speaking

4 See Heinecke 1999 for an interesting description of the Welsh situation. He does not always distinguish clearly between the Classical Welsh and Colloquial Welsh poles, and declines to acknowledge the etymology of the various aspectual operators; his analysis of Breton is more sketchy than that of Welsh. 5 Isaac 1994 derives the progressive particle not from yn in, but from MW wnc, onc close to, which is cognate with the Irish preposition ag at used for the progressive, and probably also with Breton enk narrow, which might just possibly explain the widespread variant for the normal Breton progressive infinitive particle o < MB oz at, against (ModB ouzh).


Modern Colloquial Welsh Modern Hindi/Urdu (9b) siarad-a i bl-

speak-FUT.1SG I speak-SUBJ.1SG I will speak [that] I [may/should] speak

(10b) rw i n siarad bl-t h am I PROG speak.INF speak-IPFV I.am I speak / I am speaking I speak / I am speaking

(11) rw i wrth-i n siarad bl rah- h am I at-her PROG speak.INF speak stay-PFV I.am I am speaking (right now) I am speaking (right now)

Table 2 shows the Welsh TAM sets for bod be in the 1SG. While 2a present subjunctive and 2b imperfect subjunctive are moribund, except for set phrases, and 3b can no longer be used for the pluperfect, this still leaves 1a irregular present, 1a regular future/present habitual (especially in North Welsh), 3a preterite, 2a irregular imperfect, 2a regular 1st conditional/imperfect habitual (especially in North Welsh), and 3b 2nd conditional (there is no discernible difference between the two conditionals, unlike in Breton). It seems certain that this exuberant development of periphrastic TAM constructions in Welsh is somehow linked to the morphological and semantic simplification of the TAM sets of the simple verb.

Table 2 Welsh TAM sets for bod be (1SG)

1a IRREG 1a REG 2a 3a PRES FUT PRES.HABN PRES.SUBJ* PRET wyf byddaf bwyf bm ~ bues i

2a IRREG 2a REG 2b 3b IMPF COND.1 IMPF.HABN IMPF.SUBJ* COND.2 PLPF*

oeddwn byddwn bawn buaswn N North Welsh; *Classical, Literary Welsh The basic literary forms are shown; the colloquial forms involve variants for affirmative, negative, interrogative and responsive incorporating AFF yr, NEG nid and long-form extension yd-: Standard Colloquial I am: AFF r(yd)w i; NEG d(yd)w i ddim; INT ydw i?; RES ydw; Northern Colloquial: AFF (mir)dw i; NEG (ty)dw i ddim; INT (y)dw i?; RES yndw; Southern Colloquial: AFF w i; NEG w i ddim (also smo fi, sa i of quite different origin); INT odw i?; RES odw. Mastery of the numerous variations of the colloquial forms of bod be is half the battle in achieving fluent intercomprehension between North and South Welsh. Breton, too, has an expanded range of TAM sets for be, shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Breton TAM sets for bea/boud be (1SG)

1a IRREG 1a IRREG 1a REG 2a REG 1b IRREG ST PRES PRES.SIT* PRES.HABL FUT PRET

on emaonNW

emonSW, C =veanL

=vezinL =vinXL

oenn

1b IRREG ST 1b IRREG ST 1b REG 2b IRREG ST 2b REG 3b

IMPF IMPF.SITNW IMPF.HABL POT.HST PRES.HABXL POT.MOD HYP IMPF.HAB

XL

oann edonn

evedonn emedonn

=veenn =vnn =vehenn =veffenn

=venn =visenn =vijenn

=vichenn * In the whole of the East, only 3SG, PL: ema, emaint (the historical situation); bold: main written form. For the habitual sets, L 1a vean, 1b veenn are preferred to the more widely used 2b IRREG vnn, 3b vijenn, etc. L Leon; XL outside Leon; NW North-West only; SW, C South-West, Centre only.

In addition to the six TAM sets of the regular verb, there are 1a irregular present situative, 1a regular present habitual, 1b irregular stem imperfect situative, 1b regular imperfect habitual, 2b irregular stem potential (historical form), also borrowed outside L for the present habitual; 2b regular potential (dominant modern form created by analogy). Just as the historical 2b irregular set has been borrowed outside L for the present habitual, 3b hypothetical/secondary future has been borrowed outside L for the imperfect habitual;


indeed in G, that is now its only value. There is a popular misconception that the 2b irregular forms borrowed outside L for the present habitual actually represent a contraction of the regular 1a forms following the loss of outside L: vean > ven (most orthographies write a single n). However, this cannot be so for two reasons: (1) in vnn a strong /-n/ is heard everywhere, whereas the -an of the regular present endings is simply a nasal vowel /-, -/ in much of the country; and (2), the 2PL form is everywhere vech, which cannot conceivably be derived from veit. It seems, instead, that following the loss in pronunciation of outside L, the presental habitual ve fell together with the old irregular imperfect subjunctive > potential ve, the whole of which set was then borrowed in those areas for the present habitual. Similarly, the past habitual veenn /ven/ was identified with vi(h)enn, visenn, vijenn /vin, vizn, vin/, and in areas using vijenn, a new distinction between vije [IMPF.HAB


morphological sets SUBJ and HYP have been borrowed to express respectively the present and imperfect habitual of be and have, that will be glossed as PRES.HAB J

1a 2a 3a basic lennomp lennHomp > lennFFomp lennSomp > lennJomp

1b 2b 3b prior E lennEmp lennHEmp > lennFFEmp lennSEmp > lennJEmp

Abbreviations and symbols

(do) apersonal form: marking of tense, but not person/number

= soft mutation (lenition: voicing voiceless stops; spirantizing voiced stops)

/ hard mutation (provection: devoicing obstruents)

mixed mutation (spirantizing voiced stops, d>t, devoicing voiced fricatives)

spirant mutation (spirantizing voiceless stops (+voicing))

? questionable ADV adverb, adverbial AFF affirmative, affirmative tense particle AUX auxiliary C Centre, central E east EXIST existential F feminine Fr. French FUT future 2FUT secondary future (future-in-past) G Gwened (Vannes, SE) HAB habitual HST historical HYP hypothetical conditional (irrealis,

counterfactual) IMPF imperfect IMPV imperative INF infinitive IPFV imperfective IRREG irregular K Kerne (Cornouaille, SW, C) L Leon (Lon, NW) M masculine MB Middle Breton (ca. 1350-1660) MOD modern ModB Modern Breton (ca. 1660-present) MW Middle Welsh (ca. 1100-1450) N north N nasal mutation d > n NE north-east ne= negative tense particle (na= in Treger) NEG negative, negative tense particle NW north-west

O object o progressive infinitival particle ( in

Central Treger and other areas) OBJ object OB Old Breton (ca. 800-1200) OPT optative OW Old Welsh (ca. 800-1100) P predicate, predicate syntagm: V.T /

AUX.T PRED (PRED AUX.T) PDC predicative particle PERF perfect PFV perfective PL plural PLPF pluperfect PN person and number PO prepositional object (preposition plus

noun) POT potential conditional PP past participle PRED predicate (verb, adjective, noun) PRES present PRET preterite PSO predicate-subject-object (predicate-initial

order) RA auxiliary-do REG regular RES responsive S subject S south SB Standard Breton SE south-east SG singular SIT situative SPO subject-predicate-object (subject-initial

order) ST stem SUBJ subjunctive SW south-west T Treger (Trgor, NE) T tense: V.T(.PN), AUX.T(.PN) TAM tense-aspect-mood V verb W west X any non-predicate initial element

Bibliography and references

ALBB: see Le Roux (1924-1953). Ball, Martin J. & Fife, James (eds) (1993): The Celtic Languages, London & New York: Routledge. Broudic, Fach (1995): La Pratique du breton de lAncien Rgime nos jours, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de

Rennes. Broudic, Fach (1999): Qui parle breton aujourd'hui? Qui le parlera demain ? Brest: Brud Nevez. Broudic, Fach: website on Breton language: http://perso.orange.fr/fanch.broudic/ Even, Arzel (=J.R.F. Piette) (1956): Istor ar yezho keltiek [History of the Celtic Languages], Vol. I, Lesneven (29):

Hor Yezh, reprinted 1987. Even, Arzel (=J.R.F. Piette) (1970): Istor ar yezho keltiek [History of the Celtic Languages], Vol. II, Lesneven (29):

Hor Yezh, reprinted 1990. Evenou, Erwan (1987): Studi fonologel brezhoneg Lanijen (Kanton ar Faoued, Kernev) [Phonological study of

the Breton of Lanijen (Lanvngen) (Canton of ar Faoued (Le Faouet), Kernev (Cornouaille))], doctoral thesis, University of Rennes II.

Falchun, Franois (1981): Perspectives nouvelles sur lhistoire de la langue bretonne, Paris: Union gnrale dditions. Revised and expanded version of his doctoral thesis (Rennes, 1951) originally published under the title Histoire de la langue bretonne daprs la gographie linguistique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963.

Favereau, Francis (1992): Dictionnaire du breton contemporain, Morlaix (29): Skol Vreizh. Favereau, Francis (1997): Grammaire du breton contemporain, Morlaix (29): Skol Vreizh. Fleuriot, Lon (1964a): Dictionnaire des gloses en vieux breton, Paris: Klincksieck; new edition: Claude Evans &

Lon Fleuriot (1985): A Dictionary of Old Breton/Dictionnaire du vieux-breton: Historical and Comparative, 2 vols, Toronto: Prepcorp.

Fleuriot, Lon (1964b): Le vieux-breton. Elments dune grammaire, Paris: Klincksieck. Fleuriot, Lon (1980): Les Origines de la Bretagne, Paris: Payot. Gros, Jules, Le trsor du breton parl (Elments de stylistique trgorroise): 1. Le langage figur, 2nd revised and enlarged edition, St.-Brieuc (22): Les Presses bretonnes, 1970. 2. Dictionnaire breton-franais des expressions figures, St.-Brieuc (22): Les Presses bretonnes, 1970. 3. Le style populaire, Lannion (22): Barr Heol, 1976. Guillevic, A. & Le Goff, P. (1902): Grammaire bretonne du dialecte de Vannes, Vannes (56): Galles, reprinted

Brest: Emgleo Breiz, 1999. Heinecke, Johannes (1999): Temporal Deixis in Welsh and Breton, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Hemon, Roparz (1975): A Historical Morphology and Syntax of Breton, Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced

Studies. Hewitt, Steve (1985): Quelques ressemblances structurales entre le breton et larabe. Consquence dune

typologie ordinale commune?, La Bretagne Linguistique 1, 223-62. Hewitt, Steve (1986): Le progressif en breton la lumire du progressif anglais, La Bretagne Linguistique 2,

132-48. Hewitt, Steve (1987): Rflexions et propositions sur lorthographe du breton, La Bretagne Linguistique 3, 41-54. Hewitt, Steve (1988): Un cadre pour la description de la syntaxe verbale du breton, La Bretagne Linguistique 4,

203-11. HEWITT, Steve (1990): The progressive in Breton in the light of the English progressive, pp. 167-88 in Martin Ball;

James Fife; Erich Poppe; Jenny Rowland (eds), Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages, Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hewitt, Steve (2002a): Larabe : VSO ou VDN (verbe-sujet-objet ou verbe-donn-nouveau)?, in Anad Donabdian & Dan Xu (eds) Cahiers de Linguistique de lINALCO 3/2000, LOrdre des mots.

Hewitt, Steve (2002b): The impersonal in Breton, Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7:1-39, 2002. Hewitt, Steve (2005): Comparative table of Breton orthographies, may be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brezhoneg-L/files/Spoken%20Breton/ Humphreys, Humphrey Lloyd (1985): Phonologie, morphosyntaxe et lexique du parler breton de Bothoa en

Saint-Nicolas-du-Plem (Ctes-du-Nord) (thse de doctorat dtat), Brest: Brud Nevez. Humphreys, Humphrey Lloyd (1990): Traditional morphological processes and their vitality in Modern Breton

and Welsh, pp. 129-50 in Martin Ball; James Fife; Erich Poppe; Jenny Rowland (eds), Celtic Linguistics: Readings in the Brythonic Languages, Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Isaac, Graham (1994): The progressive aspect marker: W. yn/OIr.oc, Journal of Celtic Linguistics 3:33-39. Jackson, Kenneth H. (1967): A Historical Phonology of Breton, Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Kervella, Frasez (1947): Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg [The Big Grammar of Breton], La Baule (44): Skrido

Breizh; 3rd edition: Brest: Al Liamm, 1995.


La Bretagne Linguistique: Travaux du Groupe de recherche sur lconomie linguistique de la Bretagne (GRELB), Brest: Centre de recherche bretonne et celtique (CRBC), Universit de Bretagne Occidentale, B.P. 814, 29285 BREST Cdex.

Le Clerc, L. (1908): Grammaire bretonne du dialecte de Trguier, Saint-Brieuc (22): Prudhomme, reprint Brest: Emgleo Breiz, 1986.

Le D, Jean (1990): The semantics of the simple tenses of the verb at Plougrescant, pp. 336-41 in Ann T.E. Matonis & Daniel F. Melia (eds), Celtic Language, Celtic Culture, Van Nuys, California: Ford and Baile.

Le D, Jean (2001): Nouvel atlas linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne, 2 vols, Brest: Centre de Recherche Bretonne et Celtique (CRBC), Universit de Bretagne Occidentale (UBO).

Le Glau, Ren (1973): Syntaxe du breton moderne: 1710-1972, La Baule (44): Editions La Baule. Le Glau, Ren (1999): tudes syntaxiques bretonnes, Vols 1-3, Brest: published by the author. Le Gonidec, Jean Franois (1807): Grammaire celto-bretonne, Paris: Rougeron. Le Gonidec, Jean Franois (1821): Dictionnaire celto-breton ou breton-franais, Angoulme: Trmenau. Le Roux, Pierre (1924-1953): Atlas Linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne, 6 fascicles containing 100 maps each,

Rennes-Paris (reprinted Brest: ditions Armoricaines, 1977; available online as jpg-images at http://sbahuaud.free.fr/ALBB/).

Le Roux, Pierre (1957): Le Verbe breton (Morphologie, syntaxe), Rennes: Librairie Plihon / Paris: Librairie Champion.

Lewis, Henry & Piette, J.R.F (1966): Llawlyfr Llydaweg Canol [Handbook of Middle Breton], Caerdydd [Cardiff]: Gwasg Prigysgol Cymru [University of Wales Press] (revised and corrected edition). German translation by Wolfgang Meid (1990): Handbuch des Mittelbretonischen, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

MacAulay, Donald (ed.) (1992): The Celtic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Penaod, Goulven (1979): Dornlevr krennvrezhoneg [Handbook of Middle Breton], Quimper (22): Preder. Piette, J.R.F. (1973): French Loanwords in Middle Breton, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Ploneis, Jean-Marie (1983): Au carrefour des dialectes bretons Le parler de Berrien: Essai de description

phonmatique et morphologique, Socit dtudes linguistiques et anthropologiques de France (SELAF), Paris, 1983.

Russell, Paul (1995): An Introduction to the Celtic Languages, London & New York: Longman. Sommerfelt, Alf (1921): Le breton parl Saint-Pol-de-Lon, Paris: Champion; new edition with IPA

transcription by Franois Falchun: Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1978. Stephens, Janig (1993): Breton, in Ball & Fife (1993: 349-409). TBP1, 2, 3: see Gros, 1, 2, 3. Ternes, Elmar (1970): Grammaire structurale du breton de lle de Groix, Heidelberg: Carl Winter

Universittsverlag. Ternes, Elmar (1992): The Breton language, in MacAulay (1992: 371-452). Trpos, Pierre [1968]: Grammaire bretonne, Rennes: Simon, reprinted Ouest France, Rennes, 1980; new edition

Brest: Brud Nevez, 1994. Urien, Jean-Yves (1987): La trame dune langue: Le breton, Lesneven (29): Hor Yezh. Wmffre, Iwan (2007): Breton Orthographies and Dialects: The twentieth-century orthography war in Brittany, 2

vols, Bern: Peter Lang.

Documents

Hewitt - Background Information on Breton