LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.30 (06) [E/LS/Cornish]

Tue Dec 31 00:44:16 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 30.DEC.2002 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
                  V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.30 (01) [E]

R. F. Hahn wrote:
>> I remain reluctant to let go of my "wild hypothesis," or "hunch,"
that the contacts were closer, more intimate than that, namely that
among the migrants dwelling *among* Frisians en route to Britain there
was a preponderance of males (such as non-first sons in search of new
land to own), and they stayed in Friesland long enough to develop
relationships with Frisian females and took them with them across the
Channel -- namely that Old Frisian influenced the early development of
Old English as a maternal language.  Is there anything that might
support
this "guess"? Reinhard/Ron<<

Ron Wheg,

Although I usually like "wild" and have a weak spot for radical
theories, I don`t think your hypothesis fits. I haven`t read or heard
anything pertaining to this idea. I`d call it a nice bedtime-story. The
similarities between Old Frisian (which is attested quite a bit later,
and actually corresponds with Early Middle English) and English seem to
be old and very unlike the result of influence from one variety. They
are the consequence of similar phonological changes in closely related
dialects/languages. In many respects, unlike their similar outcome, they
work quite differently. As pointed out in my previous post, functional
changes seem closer to some Old Saxon dialects than to English (I say
English here and not Scots, because Germanic speaking Scots still called
their language Inglis right into the later Middle Ages, which does not
mean it wasn`t Scots. It was Northumbrian on both sides of the
Scottish/English border). I shall submit the posting again, maybe for a
closer read:

Concerning the language situation: I do not believe in a period of
Anglo-Frisian linguistic unity. The West Germanic dialects along the
North Sea coast formed a continuum, tribal designations and their
political connections loose and fluctuating. I`m sure their languages
were mutually intelligible. I do not believe that the Anglo-Saxon
tribes/kingdoms have direct continental correspondents that can be
pinpointed as easily as: "the utes moved to Kent and the Angles moved
from Angeln to the Humber area". I believe people from all these areas
came to Britain and formed three initially separate areas in which their
dialects were levelled. When these respective settlements expanded and
joined the next settlement there was more levelling until an English
dialect continuum was formed. Hence Bede`s theory of three tribes. It a
simpler explanation for the historical fact of three settlement areas,
and I`m afraid it does not have much to do with tribes.

Large areas of Northern Germany is reported to have bee depopulated,
which means that the old continental dialect continuum had broken apart.
Tribes from further south were now moving northwards to take their
setlements, sometimes habitation continuity broke off for more than a
century. The inhabitants of the North Frisian isles seem to have taken
part in the emigration wave (of course they weren´t Frisians at that
time). There are also reports of areas being resettled by returnees.

The Frisian language is a relic of this old North Sea Germanic dialect
continuum. North Saxon and West Flemish developed closer to the language
of the southern newcomers, but retained a North Sea Germanic substrate.
English in its insular position also retained its North Sea Germanic
character.

Two and a half centuries later the Frisians settled in the North Frisian
isles, and another three centuries later East Frisians were invited by a
Danish king to settle and cultivate the North Frisian mainland.

I believe many of the features inherent to North Sea Germanic caused
both Frisian and Old English to undergo similar developments seperately.

Patrik V.Stiles in his extremely interesting article "Remarks on the
`Anglo-Frisian´ Thesis", establishes a relative chronology for both
Frisian and English (he explains this at length, but I will not go into
that):

"Relative Chronology for English:

(1) Long and short /a/ develop a back timbre and nasalization before
nasals. Before change (2), otherwise we would expect them to be
fronted by it.
(a) Some time thereafter the sequence short vowel + nasal +
homorganic spirant yields long nasalized vowel + homorganic
spirant.
(b) The development of the uniform plural probably follows (a),
and is to be but early for reasons of linguistic geography.
(2) Fronting of long /á/.
(3) Monophthongization of */ai/ to long /á/.
(4) Fronting of short */a/, including the development */au/ to
/aeo/.
(a) Short /a/ (only) was also fronted in unaccented syllables.
This left the way clear for unaccented /o/ to unround to /a/.
(5) Breaking
(6) Palatalization. After fronting of both long and short /a/ to
/ae/, because palatalization takes place before the reflexes. Before
i- mutation (or at least the unrounding of i-mutation products).
(7) Palatal Diphthongisation.
(8) i-mutation.

Relative Chronology for Frisian:

(1) Long and short /a/ develop a back timbre and nasalization before
nasals. Before change (2), otherwise we would expect them to be
fronted by it.
(a) Some time thereafter the sequence short vowel + nasal +
homorganic spirant yields long nasalized vowel + homorganic
spirant.
(b) The development of the uniform plural probably follows (a),
and is to be but early for reasons of linguistic geography.
(2) Fronting of long /á/.
(3) Monophthongization of +/ai/ and */au/.
(4) Fronting of short */a/.
(a) Short /a/ (only) was also fronted in unaccented syllables.
This left the way clear for unaccented /o/ to unround to /a/.
(5) Palatalization. After fronting of both long and short /a/ to
/ae/, because palatalization takes place before the reflexes. Before
i- mutation (or at least the unrounding of i-mutation products).
(6) i-mutation.
(7) Breaking."

He writes further:

"The Invaeonic Model and the Position of Old Saxon:

Above, it has been established that English and Frisian shared relative
chronology of sound-changes cannot be constructed with certainty beyond
change (2). Changes (1), (1a) and (2) hardly suffice to establish an
exclusive Anglo-Frisian sub-proto-language - all the more so, as these
changes also form part of the relative chronology of Old Saxon.
[.....]
Indeed, one could make out a case for a closer genetic relationship
between Frisian and (some varieties of) Old Saxon than between Frisian
and English, in so far as parts of Old saxon can probably share the
relative chronology (Frisian) up to at least point (4). [.......]"

I will also quote his summary of results, as I concur with all of it:

"In this article I have attempted to show that the evidence does not
support the notion of an `original Anglo-Frisian unity´ or
sub-proto-language. This is bcause it is not possible to construct the
exclusive common relative chronology that is necessary in order to be
able to establish a node on a family tree. The term and concept of
´Anglo-Frisian´ should be banished to the hitoriography of the subject.
Rather, English and Frisian descended largely from adjacent dialect
groupings in the Ingvaeonic continuum and thus share a number of
exclusive isoglosses (as do in their turn English and Old saxon, and
Frisian and Old saxon). It does appear to be the case that the
isoglosses that are recoverable from that period justify our regarding
English and Frisian as ´more closely related´ to each other than to Low
German. Because of the circumstances attending the attestation of Old
saxon and Old Dutch - the relatively sparse documentation, possible
orthographic complications, and the progressive retreat, already from
prehistoric times, of ´Ingvaeonic´ features in the favour of
´inland´ones - the state of affairs from the Old periods of the three
languages onward is that English and Frisian show a high degree of
resemblance to each other bcause of their status as Invaeonic relic
areas"

Gans oll ow holon vy,

Dan

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Ea, Dan, coweth wheg! Dursona!

Thanks a bunch for the very erudite and detailed response!  I really
appreciate the effort.  I'll read it in greater detail later and will return
to it at later times for reference.

Yeah, sorry you had to burst my little "Frisian mameloshn" bubble ...
:(    So, another bedtime story goes down the tubes.  But -- hey! -- we're
here to learn, not to live in Lala-Land.

The explanation that depopulation was involved (which I had known) and then
repopulation from the south -- thus major shifts and mixing both on the
British Isles and back on the continent, consequently mutual estrangement
(even before Norman and German influences) -- makes a lot of sense, and it
also explains many a discrepancy between Old Saxon and Middle Saxon (not to
mention the modern dialects).

Dan, what do you think of the theory of regarding German (including
Alemannic, Yiddish, etc.) as belonging to a "South Germanic" branch, as has
been suggested a few times?

> Gans oll ow holon vy,
Ja, as gans oll holen se mi faken ook.  ;)

(Please don't take this Saxon reaction as making fun of Cornish!)

Gans oll an collon vy -- yehes ha sowena!
(Hey! We speak slightly different dialects! ;) )

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings 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>.
 =======================================================================