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: From P. Sipma's Phonology & grammar of modern West Frisian with phonetic texts and glossary (1913): Notes: From '''Ph. Van Blom's Beknopte Friesche Spraakkunst voor den tegenwoordigen Tijd (1889)''': Notes: From C. Colmjon's Beknopte Friesche spraakkunst voor den tegenwoordigen tijd (1863): Notes: Together with forms only mentioned by one of the authors sometimes being omitted: Notes: Compared with wiktionary:
 * here: sy is 3. sg. fem. and hja 3. pl. — in the entries, , all three forms, sy, se, hja, are 3. sg. fem. and 3. pl.
 * here: hy is 3. sg. masc. — is 3. sg. masc. too, although there are some restictions.
 * here: only ús is 1. pl. oblique — is too.
 * here: "singular and plural | Second formal | jo" — but the statement "Though it is a singular pronoun" in sounds like it is singular only.
 * here: hun is 3. pl. oblique — and  are too, although the entries are confusing
 * here: only myn and syn are possessive pronouns -- but and  are possessive pronouns too?
 * 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 which has "do/dû hiest" and Sipma's example "Hiest [....]? (Would you [...]?)": It appears that -st is 2. person singular verb suffix like English  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?).
 * 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?
 * 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'  as shorting of me (one)
 * 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.
 * myn and syn probably are adjectival possessive pronouns (or "determiners"), and myntes and syntes other forms of mines and sines
 * 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 really West Frisian or Dutch ?