LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.07.02 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 02.JUL.2002 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 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>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language Varieties

Dear All,

Luc wrote

>I think we should only look for "cognates" regarding
>the Swadesh
>list...the meaning of words is too futile and fickle
(fuzzy and
>"not-measurable")imho.

I think just sticking to cognates would probably
defeat the object of the calculation. Using English as
the base, you could probably find cognates for all
these words in Scots, even if they're not the usual
word, and this in turn would indicate that they have
in fact never split, which is always an argument for
the possibility of the two forming a language
continuum, but not very helpful when trying to
calculate when they started to develop independantly
of one another.

I'm sure the same could probably also be said of using
Dutch as a base and comparing this with Limburgish for
example, as cognates for all the 'standard' words
could probably be found in the other even if they are
just loans from Dutch.

However, saying this, I find the idea of looking for
cognates as more linguistically interesting, as we
could compare the phonetic development in the
different dialects. Although the idea of the Swadesh
list is interesting to calculate splits, I think it's
been proven to be very 'rough', and very Eurocentric.
Tests have been carried out on non-Indo-European
languages using the Swadesh list calculations and
shown to be very inaccurate. But that's just my
opinion! The list as it stands is also very
interesting to compare.

Gary

----------

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

If I have not made this clear enough so far, let me say I basically
agree with Gary (above), and let me belabor this only once more.

I wrote:

> So, are you saying that in Lowlands Saxon (Low German) we ought to have
> written _Persoon_ rather than _Minsch_, _minsk_, etc. (as Rudi did for
> Afrikaans and Dutch, i.e. _persoon_ rather than _mens_), and Sandy
> should have given _person_ rather than _body_ for Scots, even though
> _Persoon_, _person_, etc., is a relatively recent Romance loan?  Are we
> supposed to have done so just because we started off with English which
> happens to have lost the cognate of _minsch_, _mens_, _minske_, etc.
> (Old English _mennisc_) and came to substitute for it by means of _man_,
> _human being_ and _person_?  It seems to me that it is English who is
> the odd one out here (having diverged from the rest), and that using
> English as our guide skews the entire operation.  Or am I still missing
> something here?

If we had started with Lowlands Saxon, Dutch or Afrikaans, for example,
we would have had as "lead-in" for item 61 _starven_, _sterven_ and
_sterf_ respectively, and the English slot would then be given the
cognate "to starve" (i.e., "to waste away with hunger") instead of "to
die."  So, "cognates only" just won't work.  "Only basic cognates"?
How?  I was first introduced to the Swadesh List in some introductory
linguistics course many years ago.  I have to confess that I am no less
dubious about its methodology and usefulness now.  I understand that I
have lots of company.

Gary wrote:

> However, saying this, I find the idea of looking for
> cognates as more linguistically interesting, as we
> could compare the phonetic development in the
> different dialects.

Sure, but that would be a different sort of exercise requiring a
different, carefully chosen and probably larger sample selection to show
and varify regular phonological shift patterns.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: The list can be found here:
http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html

==================================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 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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================