LL-L "Language contacts" 2003.02.14 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.FEB.2003 (02) * 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) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Dan Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
Subject: Language contacts

Antero Helasvuo wrote:

>/*Reading Edward Sproston's article "The Influence of Middle Low German
>on the Scandinavian Languages" I immediately thought: why not include
>Finnish as well (or Russian and the different languages of the Baltic
>region for that matter)? After all Iceland and Faroe Islands are not
>strictly speaking Scandinavian in the geographical sense either.>>

Lowena dheugh why oll,

Generally speaking - a very interesting subject and I have come across
this article at some point. My guess why the other Baltic-Sea languages
were not included may be because of the magnitude of the project, or the
fact that the auther is probably specialized on the Germanic languages
of the area. Low German has a very specific and unique influence on the
continental Scandinavian (i.e. Germanic) languages. Owing to the fact
that these languages are closely related to Low German suggests great
ease in imitational loan translations and even adopting structural
features, not to mention vocabulary.

Speaking from experiance in Scandinavian Studies here in Vienna the
general practise was always to include Finland geographically, but not
linguistically. In the linguistic sense the term "Scandinavian" became
synonymous with the "Germanic languages of Scandinavia and their
colonies". Some German writers also prefer the term "Nordische Sprachen"
("Nordic languages") though the term has acquired an unpleasent
connotation, as ermanic studies were so often abused for propaganda
purposes in the Nazi-period.

You are right to say that geographically Iceland, Faroes, (and
historically the Northern Isles Orkney and Shetland) are not
Scandinavia, but linguistically they are (or were).

So in some respects the institutes of Finno-Ugristics and Scandinavian
studies were teaching overlapping subjects, which I liked very much, and
there were quite a number of students who were immatriculated in both
institutes.

Dan

----------

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

Lowlanders,

Although I definitely can see Antero's point, I go along with what Dan said
above.

In defense of Edward Sproston -- as though he needed my defense ... -- it is
pretty clear to me that he deliberately limited the scope of his paper.  I
do not know exactly what his reasons were, and I can and should not speak
for him, but it clearly had something to do with him being extraordinarily
thorough and detail-oriented in his research and presentations (which I have
also found out while assisting him on a number of projects, besides this
one), and, being a Scandinavian language specialist, he may not have wanted
to delve into an area in which he felt he has less secure footing and in
which Finnish and Estonian reading proficiency is required.  Besides,
although I agree with Antero that "Low German" (standing for both Low Saxon
and Low Franconian as a branch) influences on Finnic (which are particularly
strong in Estonian and Livonian) and Baltic are related to, certainly
overlap with, such influences in Scandinavian, this is by and large another
subject with a number of special factors to be considered.  For one thing,
there is the factor of phonological and morphological adaptation of such
Germanic loans, which is particularly complex in the case of Finnic, a group
of non-Indo-European languages that are agglutinating and have very
different phonemic inventories and syllable structure rules.  It is also
complex in Baltic, which, although Indo-European, also has certain
phonological restrictions and the added aspect of tonality.  Furthermore,
there is the complicating factor of many but apparently not all Low German
loans having reached Balto-Finnic and Baltic via Scandinavian.  In other
words, you are dealing with a mixture of first- and second-hand loans, a
fact that even a simple introductory paper cannot ignore.

I certainly would love to see introductory papers added, dealing with "Low
German" loans in Finnic (Finnish, Karelian, Estonian, Livonian, possibly
also Ingrian, Votian, Vepsian and Izhorian), Baltic (Latvian, Lithuanian,
possibly also Old Prussian and Yotvingian), and Slavic (Polabian,
Pomeranian/Kashubian, Polish and Russian).

Thanks for reminding us of the questionable connotations of the term
_nordische Sprachen_, Dan.  I have been wrestling with myself if I should
use that term or rather _skandinavische Sprachen_ in my German translation
of Edward's paper.  I am open to suggestions.  However, while, as most
people here know, I tend to stay away from pretty much everything that has a
clear Nazi or other type of racist or chauvinist ring to it (such as
_Indo-Germanisch_, which is ludicrous and should have disappeared by 1950),
I have come to grow into a phase in which I feel that the Nazi period is not
really over until we are emancipated enough not to let those lunatics spoil
our broth posthumously, not to allow them to dictate our terminology from
beyond their graves.  I am not married to the term _nordische Sprachen_, but
it seems all right to me and is consistent with Scandinavian _nordiske
sprog_ etc.  Besides, to me _nordische Sprachen_ definitely includes insular
North Germanic (Faroese, Norn and Icelandic), which _skandinavische
Sprachen_ does not necessarily do (although I agree that the insular
varieties developed from Scandinavian ones and are thus essentially
Scandinavian).

Thanks again, Dan!

I wish everyone and their Valentines a great weekend.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: The article we are talking about can be found here:
http://www.lowlands-l.net/talk/

==================================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>.
 =======================================================================