LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.06.07 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.JUN.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
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
Archives: 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: Ruud Harmsen <rh at rudhar.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.06.07 (03) [E]

Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>:

>Going back a bit, I'm inclined to agree that the
>English of NZ sounds at least as similar to that of
>Southern Africa as it does to that of Australia.

My impression is, but based on very little exposure to NZ English,
is that it is very similar to AU English, except that is has the
glottal stop for final t (maybe also k, p), like many accents in
Britain, but unlike Australia.

>I found spoken Swiss German to be clearly similar in
>many ways to Dutch (and I assume to Low Saxon) is, not
>doubt, because of that.

There are similarities: the deep uvular ch or above-rivers Dutch,
also where standard High German has an ich-laut; and the velarised
l, which in Dutch occurs in postvocalic position, in Amsterdam
accents also elsewhere, and is not heard in standard High German.

But I think these are superficial and coincidental similarities. It
certainly does not mean that dialectal Swiss German is easy to
understand for a Dutch speaker: in fact, that is very difficult,
even for those who know High German.

Similar case: The name of the city Paris sounds very much the same
in Dutch and Luxemburgian: [parEIs], but it doesn't mean the
languages are mutually understandable. Dutch speakers can pick up
some words here and there when listening to Luxemburgian, but easy
it is not.

----------

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

Ruud (above):

> But I think these are superficial and coincidental similarities. It
> certainly does not mean that dialectal Swiss German is easy to
> understand for a Dutch speaker: in fact, that is very difficult,
> even for those who know High German.

I totally agree.  While shared features may be indicative of relatively
close relationships, they may also mislead if considered in isolation.
One would need more than a single feature to make a successful case for
close links.  After all, human language, as amazingly versatile and
diverse it is, has its limits with regards to possibilities, and
coincidentally shared features abound.

Also, there is always the possibility of a feature being more archaic
and being preserved in pockets or enclaves.  This could very well be the
case with consistent [x] for /x/ <ch> (versus [x] ~ [C] for [x] <ch> as
in most German and Lowlands Saxon varieties).  In other words, Swiss
(and I hesitate to add "German," because I would not stand in the way of
it claiming separate language status), Dutch, Flemish, Zeelandic and
Afrikaans could very well have *preserved* this phonetic realization,
while German has introduced the front/back distinction or inherited it
from a pre-Germanic ancestor (perhaps Celtic).  Similarly, Yiddish,
which is far more closely related to German than are Swiss, Dutch,
Flemish, Zeelandic, Afrikaans and Lowlands Saxon (Low German), does not
have the "German"-type front/back distinction either.  Does this make it
more closely related to Dutch?  Nope.  It has a palatalized /l/ in
addition to the "basic" /l/ (which is velarized in most dialects).  Does
this make it more closely related to Eastern Slavonic?  Nope.  It merely
means that it added to its native phonemic inventory a foreign phoneme,
introduced by way of Eastern Slavic loanwords.

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.
======================================================================