Note 36 — Chapter VI
Reading edition
... "Von der Schweiz an zu beiden seiten des Rheines hinab bis an Hollands gränzen, giebt es kaum einige Gegenden, wo man den Koch vom Kellner, den Herrn vom Knechte, den Hammer vom Amboſze, d.i. den Werfall (Nominativ) vom Wenfalle (Accusativ) und dem Wemfalle (Dativ) richtig zu unterscheiden vermöchte. Bald hört man nehmlich: "ich trinke rother Wein" bald: "ich habe der Esel gesehen" bald: "ich sitze auf der Baum." s.f."—Dr. Joh. Gottl. Radlof, Mustersaal aller teutschen Mundarten, ... Bonn, 1822; 2, 90.
Stalder (Schweiz. Idiotikon, 1812) gives the accusatives of der and ein as agreeing with the nominative, and under ein (1, 37) he has—Acc. wie der Nom., welches überhaupt zu bemerken ist.
When I read extracts from this Treatise before the Philological Society on 3 June, 1870, Prof. Goldstücker and Dr. E. Mall, the latter an Alsatian, both considered that this presumed substitution of the nominative for the accusative or dative case must be a misapprehension. Dr. Mall declared himself totally unaware of it. Both considered that it must have resulted from the disappearance of the inflectional -m, -n (the latter of which is the rule certainly in the Rhine region), and the degradation of the preceding e vowel into [e]. This would account for "ich trinke rother Wein," considering rother to mean 'rootǝ,' but would not account for "ich habe der Esel gesehen," in which the r must be taken as trilled, unless we consider that first den was made into 'dǝ,' and then the 'r' evolved as in the Cockney's 'idea-r of things.' Hence the original passages on which the assertions in the text are founded, have been added.—Alex. J. Ellis.