LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.07.06 (01) [E]

Sun Jul 7 02:10:22 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 05.JUL.2002 (01) * 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: Glenn Simpson <westwylam at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Language varities

Dear all

Just notice a discussion about a Low Saxon word
'gliff'. In Northumbrian we use this word (very rarely
now and only in the South East corner of
Northumberland) but 'gliff' means 'fright' or 'shock',
e.g. Aa god aa nasty gliff theor! (I got a nasty
fright there!).

Just thought i'd mention it.

Gan Canny,

Glenn Simpson

----------

From: "Luc Hellinckx" <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Swadesh list

Beste leeglanners,

Regarding Swadesh's list I would like to make a few additional remarks.

Number 70 (give) has been skipped in our "Lowlands-list", so that gives
us a
list of 99 words instead of 100.

It's difficult to see why words like "claw", "ash", "path", "liver",
"bark",
"louse" and "name" are considered "basic".

Moreover, "claw" for example has no translation (anymore) in Brabantish
(to
my knowledge). The verb "klawieren" however does exist, meaning
"frantically
pushing and pulling one's limbs to and fro" (especially when something
or
somebody is struggling to escape. Eventually I chose the word "poeët"
 ("poot" (D)) but that actually denotes any animal's foot, so that's not
even a translation. Strictly speaking I should have replied with the
verb
"klawieren", because formally there is a correspondence.

The list can hardly be called "universal" since a "tree" and its "bark"
are
probably quite hard to find on the North Pole *s*.

Maybe a better list could be designed for our set of Languages. I once
read
that most of the vocabulary of the Indo-European languages
(proto-Indo-European actually) could be traced back to a life in the
woods
and more specifically to the construction of a house there.

So, in order to create a better list we first have to know what kind of
a
culture the oldest Saxons were living in. Did they spend a lot of time
on
sea or were they rather living deep in a forest ? Was hunting important
for
them ? What about agriculture ? Did war play a big role in their life ?
Where there any tradespeople or handicraftspeople among them ? And so
on.

Then, if we have a mental image of their society it could be time to go
looking for the oldest documents that are available in Saxon. Toponomy,
family names and external sources that mention Saxon history are also
very
useful. The frequency of certain words could play a role but this is not
necessarily so as some terms could be "taboo-like" and therefore
carefully
avoided in publications.

With this information, a new list could then be made. A list that should
reflect all the objects and values that former Saxon people considered
essential to their existence.

It's impossible for me to date this imaginary Saxon community, but I
guess
that it should be 2000 years old at least.

Probably this list would have to contain a lot more than 100 words, 500
might do better. However, "liver" for example, would probably still not
figure in it I think. *s* Did "a liver" have some sort of a sacral
meaning
in prehistoric times that I'm unaware of ?

Finally each of us would have to check if any cognates were still in use
in
his/her local dialect. During this process, it's very important to make
a
distinction between one's own dialect and what I'd call "standard
speech".
Just ask yourself which words a "nineteenth century" native speaker
(whose
parents were both born and raised in the community you're speaking for)
would actively have used (*). Not even which terms your ancestors were
using
most two centuries ago, but whether they were truly a living part of
their
vocabulary.
For example : English has both "fowl" and "bird" for the same kind of
animal. If the initial input is : Old-Saxon "fugal", it doesn't matter
which
term is used most in a certain dialect, the only question is if that
very
same "nineteenth century" native speaker would still have effectively
known
a cognate of this word (regardless of the meaning) in his vocabulary.
Probably this is the most difficult part of the quest because a cognate
can
be very distantly related to an initial input, but still be a cognate
term.
Like in the example above where "claw" is questioned, I might have had
to
answer "clawieren" even though the input was a noun and my respons was a
verb.
Other example : if Old-Saxon "swart" (black (E)) would be questioned,
"swarthy" could be a valid response (provided (*) is met).

What do you think ?

So here goes my contribution for the 99/100 Swadesh-list :

ik(ke), maa
(g)aa
me, waële
tees
da(rre)
waë
wa(rre)
ni
al(le)(gaa)
vööl
ieën
twieë
groeët
lank
klaan
vraamins
mansmins
mins
vis
vogel
ond
loës
boeëm
zaad
blad
wöttel
schös
vel
vlieës
bloed
bieën
vajt, ole
aa
uuëre
s(t)jäät
veir
aar
kop
oeër
oeëg
neus
mond
tand
toeng
poeët
voet
tnien
and
boëk
nek
böst(n)
ät
leiver
drinken
eetn
baëtn
zien
oeërn
weetn
slapen
störreven
doeëd doen
zwömmen
vliegen
gaan
kommen
liggen
zitn
staan
zeggen
zonne
maan
stäär
water
reiger
stieën
zand
jäär
wollek
doemp
vie
as
brann
wegske
berreg
roeëd
gruun
geil
wut
zwät
nacht
ieët, werrem
kaat
vol
nuut, nuuf
goe
rond
druëg
naam

Bye for now,

----------

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

Dear Luc, Lowlanders,

Thank you, Luc, for the information, also for sharing your views which I
find interesting and convincing -- in part because I agree with most of
what you said ;).

Thanks also for the Brabantish data.  I have added them to the list
(http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/swadesh.htm).

I don't know when and how No. 70 fell through the crack.  It must have
been quite early.  I have begun to restore it to the list, have already
entered the data I am fairly sure about.  I ask that the missing items
be either posted to the List or sent to me personally, and I will add
them.

I have also added _mens_ to the Afrikaans and Dutch columns.

By the way, Luc, I find the Brabantish data very interesting and am
interested to know how "different" Brabantish is.  I hope to see it
represented more often (also online).  It would be nice to have at least
a sub-blurb on it in our online language "exhibition" currently under
construction.  Brabantish seems to be poorly known outside the
Netherlands and Belgium.

Thanks again.

Regards,
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 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
=======================================================================