Appendix talk:West Frisian pronouns

Personal, possessive and reflexive pronouns

This appendix and West Frisian personal pronoun entries (Category:West Frisian pronouns) are somewhat contradictory. Examples:

• here: sy is 3. sg. fem. and hja 3. pl. — in the entries sy, se, hja all three forms, sy, se, hja, are 3. sg. fem. and 3. pl.
• here: hy is 3. sg. masc. — er is 3. sg. masc. too, although there are some restictions.
• here: only ús is 1. pl. oblique — us is too.
• here: "singular and plural | Second formal | jo" — but the statement "Though it is a singular pronoun" in jo sounds like it is singular only.
• here: hun is 3. pl. oblique — har and harren are too, although the entries are confusing
• here: only myn and syn are possessive pronouns -- but myntes and syntes are possessive pronouns too?

From P. Sipma's Phonology & grammar of modern West Frisian with phonetic texts and glossary (1913):

Case \ Person	1st person	2nd person	3rd person
	sg.
Nom.	ik [unaccented: 'k]	dou (in other dialect: dû; vocative: ju) (familiar) — jo (originally, still often in the written language: jy) (polite)	hy [enclitic: er]	hja — sy (the forms belong to different dialects)	it [unaccented: 't]
Obj.	my	dy — jo	him	hjar — se	it [unaccented: 't]
	pl.
Nom.	wy (lengthened with ljue (“folk”): wyljue) [unaccented: wi, we]	jimme (lengthened: jimmeljue) [unaccented: jim]	hjar — sy
Obj.	ús (lenghthened: úsljue)	jimme (lengthened: jimmeljue) [unaccented: jim]	hjar, hjarren — se

Notes:

• Sipma only has "Unaccented forms: [...] 2. [sg.] je, 3. [sg.] se, 't; [...] 3. [pl.] se", and doesn't state to which form they belong: Is je unaccented of dou and jo, or only of jo? Is se unaccented form of hja and sy (obj. se), or only of hja, or only of se? My guess would be that je is a form of jo only. For enclitic se it's more difficult: It looks like an unaccented form of sy (obj. se), but enclitic form se of non-enclitic form se sounds strange as the forms look alike.
• The text also mentions "Enclitic forms are: 2. [sg.] -st(e), accented -stou" — But maybe the enclitic forms are only -(e) and -ou with -st- being part of a verb form, or -t(e) and -tou with -st- being part of a verb form and one t being omitted in verb-pronoun combinations? Compare hawwe which has "do/dû hiest" and Sipma's example "Hiest [....]? (Would you [...]?)": It appears that -st is 2. person singular verb suffix like English -est and that the unaccented enclitic pronoun form is -(e) or -t(e).
• The text mentions "Genitives as in 197. A. 3: by jimmes (at your house), by uzes". In the section referred to it is: "An elliptic genitive [...] when the substantive hûs (house) or a noun denoting possession is understood, but not expressed".
• Sipma doesn't explain the difference of hjar and hjarren (for different cases? in different dialects? different emphasis?).

From Ph. Van Blom's Beknopte Friesche Spraakkunst voor den tegenwoordigen Tijd (1889):

Case \ Person	1st person	2nd person	3rd person
	sg.
Nom.	ik	dû (normal) — jy, je (polite; grammatically plural)	hy, er	hja, hju, se	it
Gen.	fen my (myns)	fen dy (dyns) — fen jo	fen him (syns)	fen hjar, fen hir (hjars)	fen him
Dat.	my or oan my	dy or oan dy — jo or oan jo	him or oan him	hjar, hir, se or oan hjar, hir	it, him or oan him
Acc.	my	dy — jo	him (hin)	hjar, hir, se	it, him
	pl.
Nom.	wy	y, jimme	hja, se
Gen.	fen ús (uzes)	fen jimme	fen hjar
Dat.	ús or oan ús	jimme or oan jimme	hjarren
Acc.	ús	jimme	hjar or hjarren, se

Notes:

• The expressions with fen and oan show that these forms aren't proper inflected forms.
• The 3. ps. pl. and 3. ps. sg. neuter look strange. Plural: fen hjar looks like a dative construction, but only hjarren and not hjar is given for dative. Neuter singular: a neuter accusative him for nominative it is strange.
• The text mentions a 2. ps. sg. vocative ju, but it doesn't (seem to) state whether it's the normal or polite form.
• The text implies that er and se are enclitic or unaccented forms for hy and hja.
• The text mentions stû (without a -) as enclitic form of dû with the examples bistû, komstû, asû, datstû, derstû, dostû, hwerstû, noustû. If that are all verb forms, then the enclitic form could be -û or -tû.
• The text seems to state that colloquially dou besides dû turned up, and that colloquially jo is also used in the nom. It also seems to state that se is also non-enclitic in dat. and acc., but it doesn't seem to mention a form sy or dialectal difference. Additionally, it seems to state that only it is the personal pronoun with him being a reflexive form. But shouldn't the genitive then rather be fen it and not fen him?
• As for 3. ps. sg. masculine accusative, table and text seem to be a bit confusing. Table has hin while text gives examples with the reduced form 'in. Does hin still exist (in the 19th century) or is it only reduced 'in?

From C. Colmjon's Beknopte Friesche spraakkunst voor den tegenwoordigen tijd (1863):

Case \ Person	1st person	2nd person	3rd person
	sg.
Nom.	ik	dû (normal) — jy (polite) [shortend: j']	hy [enclitic/unaccented: er]	hiu	it [shortend: 't]
Gen.	mín	dín — juw	sín	hir	sín
Dat.	my [shortend: m']	dy — ju [shortend: j']	him	hir	it [shortend: 't]
Acc.	my [shortend: m']	dy — ju [shortend: j']	him	hjar, hir, se	it [shortend: 't]
	pl.
Nom.	wy [shortend: w']	jimme	hia
Gen.	ús	jimme	hiar
Dat.	ús	jimme	hiar
Acc.	ús	jimme	hiar

Notes:

• Are that really genitives or possessive pronouns?
• The text mentions additional forms found "[i]n Iduna" (whatever that is).
• The text mentions enclitic forms of du and seems to state it's also merged with other words than verbs in which case it might actually be -stu or -ste. It also mentions se for hiu and hia in nom. and acc., and m'</nowiki/> as shorting of me (one)

Together with forms only mentioned by one of the authors sometimes being omitted:

	cases			reflexive	possessive (adjectival)	possessive (substantival)
	Nom.	Gen.	Obj.
1. sg.	ik unaccented: 'k	fen my, myns	my	my	myn [older: mín]	mines
2. sg. (normal)	dû (dou; vocative: ju) enclitic, merged with the verb ending -st: -stû (-stou), -ste, -st	fen dy, dyns	dy	dy	dyn [older: dín]	dines
2. sg. (polite; grammatically plural)	jy (also: jo) unaccented: je	fen jo	jo [older: ju]	jo [older: ju]	jou [older: juw], jins	jouwes [older: juwes]
3. sg. m.	hy unaccented: er	fen him, syns	him	him	syn [older: sín]	sines
3. sg. f.	hja unaccented: se	fen hjar, hjars	hjar unaccented: se	hjar	hjar	hjarres
	hju [older: hiu]	fen hir	hir	hir	hir	hirres
3. sg. n.	it unaccented: 't		it unaccented: 't	him	syn [older: sín]	sines
3. sg. indefinite	men, me	fen yen, yens	yen	yen [older: iën]	yens
1. pl.	wy (lengthened: wyljue)	fen ús, uzes	ús (lengthened: úsljue)	ús	ús	uzes
2. pl.	jimme (lengthened: jimmeljue)	fen jimme, jimmes	jimme unaccented: jim (lengthened: jimmeljue)	jimme	jimme	jimmes
3. pl.	hja [older: hia] unaccented: se		hjar [older: hiar], hjarren unaccented: se	hjar [older: hiar]	hjar [older: hiar]	hjarres [older: hiarres]

Notes:

• Based on the three sources, it appears as if hju was originally 3. sg. which got replaced by plural hja. This could also explain the difference of 3. pl. oblique hjar and hjarren: hjar could be the original form, but as it became singular too, hjarren could have been a new plural.

Compared with wiktionary:

• myn and syn probably are adjectival possessive pronouns (or "determiners"), and myntes and syntes other forms of mines and sines
• mysels doesn't (seem to) appear in the three (older) sources which could mean that it's jounger, dialectal or an error (like translating English myself literally). The sources could however mention emphasized forms like my sels, i.e. the reflexive my + demonstrative sels.
• Is hun really West Frisian or Dutch hun?