LL-L: "Low Saxon" LOWLANDS-L, 23.NOV.1999 (03) [E]

Tue Nov 23 16:09:26 UTC 1999

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 23.NOV.1999 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn//lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: gdeutsch at estec.esa.nl
Subject:  LL-L: "Low Saxon" LOWLANDS-L, 22.NOV.1999 (03) [E]

Ron, you wrote (in the context of your reply to Christina Chiarcos about Low
Saxon vs. Low German):

>Bear in mind that, technically speaking, "Low German" is a catch-all label
for
>varieties of what amounts to two languages in Northern Germany: the Low
Saxon
>and Low Franconian varieties that happen to fall on the German side of the
>border.

It seems I have missed here all the time something basic:
I always thought that *all* Low Frankonian varieties are what normally is
called Dutch, that they all are outside the  boarders of Germany.
Obviously I am wrong. Could you tell me what and where are the Low Franconian
varieties in Germany? Do the speakers realise whilst referring eventually (so
I would guess) their vernacular as "Low German" that Dutch" ('Netherlandic
probably would be more accurate?

I understood Christian's concern about the shortcoming of the expression "Low
Saxon" that Lowlandic varieties in former  East Germany would see their
(former) language as e.g. "Low Prussian" which might be felt excluded by "Low
Saxon". I actually also believe that this is a drawback. However, for me the
shortcomings (you described) of the expression "Low German" are much more
severe and the usage is, in my opinion, sometimes even contra-productive if
one wants to support this language.

kind regards,
Georg Deutsch

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject:  Low Saxon

Georg Deutsch wrote:

> It seems I have missed here all the time something basic:
> I always thought that *all* Low Frankonian varieties are what normally is
> called Dutch, that they all are outside the  boarders of Germany.

We have mentioned it before, but it has never been featured as a central
theme.

> Obviously I am wrong. Could you tell me what and where are the Low
Franconian
> varieties in Germany?

Georg, I don't have the exact information here at my fingertips, and I am
hoping that another subscriber has more ready access to it.  All I can tell
you for now is that there is an area about halfway between Mönster/Münster and
Cologne where a fairly small Low Franconian wedge juts out from the
Netherlands into Germany between Westphalian Low Saxon in the north and
Ripuarian in the south.  This group is usually, if not always, included under
"Low German."

> Do the speakers realise whilst referring eventually (so
> I would guess) their vernacular as "Low German" that Dutch" ('Netherlandic
> probably would be more accurate?

Sorry.  I can't tell you that, though from what I heard and read it seems that
they are aware of the closeness of their dialects to Dutch dialects.  Of
course, these days everything is more centralized and languages tend to be
represented mostly by their standard varieties, so the distance between Dutch
(as represented by Standard Dutch) and these dialects must seem wider.

As should be expected, the Low Franconian dialects of Germany are to variying
degrees German-influenced, and, also as in the case of Low Saxon, German-based
orthographies further disguise them to make them look German.

I found a web site with a Low Franconian language sample
(<http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~naeser/probe02.htm>), from the dialect of
Geldern.  As you can see, /g/ is pronounced as in many Dutch dialects and is
written as _ch_, and _sch_ is pronounced as in Dutch and is written _s-ch_.
Note the use of _er_ as in Dutch.

"In en Hèèrs dan het en Buur wèl ümmer ed bès. Dan di làànke Ååmene, kann er
ne Piip smoke, un war allen Dingen dann düt he slàachte. Dat is èn zimlüch
chroot Fèss. Da kömt der
Slèechter s'mèrges, dan mott er 'n Brüssbock chestòkt wodde, dat Wààter mott
kòòke un dann kümt der Slèechter mit so'n dicken Hààmere und da word dat Pùck
rütchedòòn, en Touw an
Been òn uppe Pläts da ward 'ne mit den Hààmer wör de kopp gehåuen un dann
klüpp de Slèechter drupp.
     Da ward er gestòòke, un wenn dat Dier da kapòòt is da ward er öös enne
geprüft. Un dann nachher da ward er opp de Lier geha' war er ges-chruppt opp
de Lier gehange und
s'anderdààchs da ward de Wors gemach. Dat is mèè noch char nich so èinfach. Da
komen al di nåbere Wroulüü, éen de düt de ... de Flèisch drèeje en de ààndere
düt het Pöck derlòòre
und da ward da allerhand vertöölt.
     De Hååpsàgge is dat dat Pok wööl un deeke Mettworß hett. Dèèn dat Spèèk
dat lüsse se wandàge ok nimer hier. Un s-chöene S-chèenke.
     Un wenn di Wòors dann all wèrdich is da waren all di Nåberen en of di
guie Wreenden di waren ingelààie on dann motten di di Wòors komme prüüwe. Òon
dann waår da o'er dat föine
deeke Pook cheköjet.
     Dem Buur der sit dann mèistens ààchter en Aåwe, hè 'ne làànke Piip onn
der smockt sich der ene. Òon so was dat frugger, eww wandage is dat awwer en
kleen bìchen anders."

> I understood Christian's concern about the shortcoming of the expression
"Low
> Saxon" that Lowlandic varieties in former  East Germany would see their
> (former) language as e.g. "Low Prussian" which might be felt excluded by
"Low
> Saxon".

Oh, the dialects of what is now Poland and Russia?!  As far as I know, they
are a part of Low Saxon also, "Prussian" being merely a geographic reference,
i.e., the Low Saxon dialects of Prussia (versus the "High" German dialects of
Prussia).  "Prussian," of course, is a Baltic language or languages, now
virtually extinct, the last remainder apparently being Sudovian
(<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6623/>).

> However, for me the
> shortcomings (you described) of the expression "Low German" are much more
> severe and the usage is, in my opinion, sometimes even contra-productive if
> one wants to support this language.

I agree.  It certainly reinforces North Germans' misperception that they are
the only keepers of the language and that the language is inseparable from
German ethnicity.

Best regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =========================================================================