LL-L "Etymology" 2003.08.10 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.AUG.2003 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Holger Weigelt <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
Subject: "Phonology"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Thanks, Holger.  Very interesting.  I'll have to digest the material bit
by
> bit, like you, don't have time for the details right now.
>
> Generally speaking, I am on the same page with you and have made similar
> observations regarding other Lowlands Saxon (Low German) dialects.  Before
> we delve into the nitty-gritty of things, I wonder if you would reconsider
> vowel length on the basis of only two phonemic lengths: short and long,
and
> all other lengths being phonologically direved, i.e., allophonic.
>
Hello Ron !
I have considered the matter and didn't find a last answer. It seems to me
that the facts go beyond our usual terms of phoneme and allophone.
Inside their groups all the respective sounds can be regarded allophonic but
each can have the status of a phoneme too.
One example: "līk" is "straight" or "equal". In attributive position it
becomes "lîk" (däi stróet is līk / däi lîk stróet).
On the other hand the sound _ī_ in "līk" can distinguish it from "lîk" which
means a "dead body".
An other: We have pairs like "rōd" / "rôd" (red) but we must distinguish
"kommōd" (comfortable) and "kommôd" (chest of drawers).

> > # In compounds long vowels or diphthongs are shortened.
> > Some examples: "twäj" = two, 2 / "tweidūsend" = two-thousand, 2000;
"bâl"
> =
> > ball / "fautbal" = football; "stäien" = stone / "stäingaud" =
earthenware.
>
> It's the same in other dialects.  However, I do not see this as a case of
> shortening but of lengthening: "In a syllable with primary stress, a vowel
> is lengthened before a sonorant."

The rule You quoted might be correct also in these cases but I see it as
shortening refering to the single word. A compound consists of two or more
words giving a new meaning and of course You can analyse it as an own entity
but I prefer to look on it watching the changes underwent by the single
words.

By the way: The number _2_ is "twäj", the compound _2000_ is tweidūsend but
"two people" also is : "twei lüü"

Kind regards
Holger

----------

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

Moin, Holger!

I repeat: we are basically on the same page, and I still need some peace and
quiet and simply digestion time.  Here just a cursory response:

I did not exclude the possibility that some of the sounds you distinguish
orthographically cannot be phonemes.  To be sure, the same sound can be a
phoneme in one instance and an allophone in another instance.  I still
believe we need more clarity in this department, namely a detailed study of
phonological processes in your dialect and related dialects.  This is needed
to recognize all phonological processes and thereby distinguish allophones
from phonemes.  While I am confident your analysis thus far has gone a long
way, I wonder if there aren't cases of allophones where you might be
suspecting phonemes and fix your orthographic system on that basis.  I
suppose this is a formidable undertaking, worthy at least one doctoral
dissertation.

When you get instances of sound alternation within the same word or
morpheme, I think your first inclination ought to be to assume that one or
both are allophones, i.e., environmentally conditioned derivation from a
single underlying base sound.

No two people will necessarly come up with the same analysis.  Sometimes you
simply can't be sure which approach and assumption is correct, because
phonemes have a way of disguising themselves in clever ways.

By the way, I am still wondering about your <ó> (as in <stróet> 'street',
other dialects _straat_ (<Straat>, <Stroot>).  My inclination is to view it
as a long /a/ (/aa/) that, as in the vast majority of LS dialects, is
somewhat to strongly rounded.  Does this conflict with another sound that
you consider /aa/, that I might consider a lengthened /a/?  In the other
dialects these would be cases of short /a/ occurring before sonorants (e.g.,
_an_ [?a:n] ~ [?a.n] 'on', _Ball_ [ba:l] ~ [ba.l] 'ball').

Regards,
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.
=======================================================================