1st (3rd) singular present tense Comp-agreement; 1st singular present ik zijn/ik ben

De Visser, M. & A. Goeman (1979a): Voegwoord, relatief partikel en persoonsvorm in een dialect. Een geval van schijnbare kongruentie bij voegwoorden in de 1e persoon enkelvoud? [Naschrift door A. Goeman]. In: Taal en Tongval 31, 222-241. ●Conjunction, relative particle and finite verb in a dialect. A case of apperent agreement on subordinators in the 1st person singular?●
[my first publication on COMP-Agreement, mainly 1st person singular; an edition of a draft by M. de Visser, with a more specific analysis of my own]
Download here (zipped)

Map II Comp-agreement 1st singular present (De Visser&Goeman 1980)

This article tries to answers the question whether there exists also 1st person singular Comp-agreement, in addition to plural Comp-agreement as described by Vanacker (1949).
The dialect area of investigation is the "Land of Axel". De Visser, as a native speaker of this dialect, represents an older phase of the dialect. Therefore, he collected additional observations from 1971-1974 from spontaneous utterances of people of various age, gender, occupation and religion.
Data came from the following localities: Terneuzen (I112), Hoek (I137), Knol (I137a), Zaamslag (I138), Otene ((I138a), Reuzenhoek (I138b), Driewegen (I138c), Sluiskil (I138d), Axel ((i140) and Spui (I140b). Also data from the RND (Series of Dutch Dialect Atlasses) were used.
To answer the question, it is necessary to look at the behavior of 1st person singular present against the background of the present tense inflection in its totality, and also at the form of personal pronouns and the form of the subordinating conjunctions.
Vanacker (1949) discarded the possibility of 1st person singular agreement and explained the nasal forms by an independent and automatic phonetic process of nasalization.
It is demonstrated that 1st person singular agreement does exist.
The proof of existence of 1st person singular Comp-agreement and the observations on the pronoun '
die' opened for me the path for demonstrating the existence of full paradigms of personal forms in Comp-agreement (Goeman 1997).
The article is a posthumous reconstruction by me of the reasoning behind the annotations, the dialectal data and the interpretations by the late Michiel de Visser.
As a layman, Michiel de Visser was a keen observer of the linguistic phenomena in question, he had contact on the subject with Johan Taeldeman of Ghent University and me. His untimely death blocked his bringing the work to completion.
His notes were left to me by his widow. The article opens with section accounting for the reconstruction, and ends with a postscript where I underline the importance of clitic fusion, especially to verb forms of 'monosyllabic' verbs and to the -mostly- monosyllabic conjunctions.

Goeman, A. (1979b):
Ik zij(n) versus ik ben gedurende honderd jaar. In: M. Gerritsen (ed.): Taalverandering in Nederlandse Dialecten, honderd jaar vragenlijsten 1879-1979. Muiderberg: Coutinho, 219-230. ●Ik zij(n) versus ik ben during a hundred years●
[real time developments in the use of 1st person singular present tense
zijn versus ben; the rôle of (subjunctive) modality and subordinate sentence characteristics]
Download here (zipped)
Map III Ik ZIJN vs Ik BEN (Goeman 1979)

The historical background to the real time replacement of
ik ben by ik zij(n) in Dutch and Flemish dialects is described. This replacement is dated approximately.
Zij(n) forms, with long / î /, are historically an optative (conjunctive function).
Then the conditions for the existing alternation
ik ben - ik zij(n) and the factors that play a role in the new replacement of ik zij(n) by ik ben are discussed.
Ik ben is used preferably in main sentences, while ik zij(n) preferentially shows up at the end of subordinative sentences.
These subordinative sentences have a more modal than an indicative character, and thus a verb form (historically optative) with modal associations shows up.
Afterthought: may be there is thus a connection with the adhortative/optative, inverted (verb+enclitic) pronoun-forms as discussed in Goeman (1992).