LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" LOWLANDS-L, 13.JUL.2000 (02) [E/S]

Thu Jul 13 14:57:40 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 13.JUL.2000 (02) * 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>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Andrew Eagle [K27 at compuserve.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Mutual comprehension"  [S]

John Magnus wrate:

>>Andy wrate:

>>How (hou) in Scots means 'why' an aa.

>Dis it, tho? I'v niver haurd 'hou' [hu:/fu:] uised wi the meanin o 'why' -
aye
>'how' [hou] wi this meanin. In the NE, 'how' micht mean Eng. 'why', but
'foo'
>aye means Eng. 'how'.

The CSD gies
'hoo' adv. 1= How la14-
                     2 = why 17- gen except NE cf. foo
'foo' adv 1 = how 16-
                  2 = why, for what reason 19-

Fae the abuin the meanin 'why' is a later development. An Inglis import?
E'en later in the NE, spreidin fae central Scots? /f/ bi analogy wi ither
/hw/ wirds?
Mebbies that's hou [why] ye'v no haurd it in the NE.

Aa ma wabsteid haes tae say anent the maiter is:

Hou? is often used to ask for a reason, as is why?

Hou did ye no speir at him? ( Why didn't you ask him?)
Hou no? ( Why not?)
Hou come ye teuk the job? ( Why did you take the job?)

<sned>
> I'v only haurd 'How' wi the meanin o 'Why' uised as a single-word
question in exchanges like:

>'Craig, time ti gang hame'
>'How?'

>No meanin 'bi whit means' but 'whit for'.

That wad seem tae gang alang wi the 'defineetion' 'to ask for a reason'.

A canna think o onie mair ensaumples masel cep whan A ance speirt at a pal
o mines in Edinburrie that haed juist gotten hissel a new job (in
'English') "How'd ye get the job?" wantin tae ken 'hou' he got the job ie.
the method o acquirement. He gaed on an telt us 'why' he chynged jobs. He
comes fae a Scots speakin airt in Ulster tho he himsel disna speak Scots
(apairt fae twa-three Scots wirds he uises).

>Coorse it's possible at 'how' wi the meanin 'why' is uised mair wider in
ither
>kynds o Scots. Houaniver, I'v aye jaloused at the uiss o 'hou' wi this
meanin
>is a deleiberate hyper-Scotticisation, bi Scots enthusiasts, o the
colloquial
>uiss o the English form 'how' in Scotland; an I wadna be surprised ti
finnd
>oot at (1) naebodie uises 'hou' [hu:/fu:] wi the meanin 'why', an (2)
'how' wi
>this meanin is uised only i contexts like the wee bittie speak abuin, no
wi
>the general meanin o 'why', whaur 'why', 'whit wey' or 'whit for' is uised
>raither.

Aiblins the 'hyper-Scotticisation' is juist fowk uisin siclike ootwi the
richt context. The twa-three ensaumples fae ma wabsteid isna eneuch tae
staiblish onie 'rules' fae.

>Coorse, this example o 'how'='why' is quotit aa the time as an example o
>Scots, an whan it's objectit til bi teachers or judges or whitiver, this
is
>taen as unfair persecution o Scots speakers. Houaniver, gin 'how'='why' is
>only uised in contexts like the abuin, an 'why', 'whit wey' or 'whit for'
>ithergates, it coud be at a general connotation o denial is implicit in
o't,
>an at teachers an siclike is justifeed in caain it cheek!

Ay, sic like ensaumles is aft gien. A wis juist quotin an aa. A certies
wadna claim 'hou' aye means 'why'.
Some research is nott here. Hou weel-kent is siclike in Inglis dialects?
Whan, whaur, an hou is it uised? The 'hou' thare is awfu ambiguous in ma
lugs;-)

Andy

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Mutual comprehension

The following also relates to a previous discussion of "got" and to the
question of the mutual intelligibility of languages. It is not intended as a
joke.

The current lead national news story is about an 8-year-old girl who has
possibly been abducted. At the same time the Department for Education and
Employment is running a TV ad with the message: "If you've got a way with
kids, just think how rewarding a career in child-care could be." In standard
BE this is, of course, homophonous with "If you've got away ..."

To "have [got] a way with" means "be good at dealing with". To "get away
with" has various meanings, the relevant ones here being "steal" or "escape
with".

Curiously, Chambers Dictionary only has "make away with" in this second
sense. It also omits "do away with" ("kill", "repeal", "withdraw", "cancel",
etc).

The use of verb+preposition in this sort of way is one of the similarities
(it seems to me) between English and the modern Scandinavian languages. Is
it something which spread from one to the other?

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Pepijn Hendriks [pepijnh at bigfoot.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" (was "Slavic connection")
LOWLANDS-L, 11.JUL.2000 (05) [E]

Ron,

You wrote:

>Absence and presence of palatalization is an issue where fareastern
dialects
>of Low Saxon are concerned, namely those that palatalize /k/ next to a
front
>vowel.  Most of these are now extinct, having been spoken in what is now
>Northern Poland and parts of Kaliningrad, Russia.  However, Plautdietsch
>(Mennonite Low Saxon) is the one group within this larger group that is
still
>going strong.  Thus, what are _Kind_ 'child' and _kieken_ 'to look' in most
>Low Saxon dialects are _Kjind_ or _Tjind_ and _kjiekje(n)_ or _tjietje(n)_
>respectively in Plautdietsch.  Considering examples such as Plautdietsch
>_Malkj_ ~ _Maltj_ (elsewhere _Melk_ or _Milk_), one might be led to arguing
>that no front vowel is involved, until one realizes that this [a] is still
>underlyingly /e/.  (Assumedly by a rule that applies after palatalization,
>Plautdietsch shifts /e/ to [a] and /a/ to [au].)

But if I understand this correctly, it would be a whole different kind of
palatalisation, namely a progressive one, whereas the palatalisation
resulting in _Kjind_/_Tjind_ is regressive.

I cannot speak for languages in general, but at least in the Slavonic
languages, the regressive kind of palatalisation have more common than the
progressive ones. Of the three pan-Slavonic palatalisations (prosaically
referred to as the first, the second and the third palatalisation), the
first two were progressive, which explains the alternation in Russian _mogu_
'I can' ~ _moz^es^_ 'you (2sg.) can' and Czech _ruka_ 'arm/hand, NomSg' ~
_ruce_ ["rutse] 'arm/hand, Dat/LocSg') (the results of the second
palatalisation have largely been undone in Russian, due to paradigm
levelling mostly.)

The third palatalisation, however, was regressive (explaining the _z_ in
Russian _knjaz'_ 'prince', Czech _kne^z_ 'priest', which, as we saw earlier,
was a loan from Germanic _*kuningaz_). The third palatalisation is more
disputed though, and has been grouped together with the second, sinds both
processes yield the same results. However, if I'm not mistaken, communis
opinio at the moment is that they were two distinct developments.

In this light, my point, or rather my question, is whether you're saying
here that both the progressive and the regressive palatalisations are
reflexes of the same process, or whether they were different processes,
which had in common the involvement of front vowels?

-Pepijn

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Mutual comprehension

Pepijn asked:

> In this light, my point, or rather my question, is whether you're saying
> here that both the progressive and the regressive palatalisations are
> reflexes of the same process, or whether they were different processes,
> which had in common the involvement of front vowels?

The latter ...  I think.

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 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>.
 =======================================================================
 * 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
 =======================================================================