LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.06.09 (03) [D/E/French]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.JUN.2003 (03) * 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" 2003.06.08 (04) [E]

Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>:
>Peter wrote:
>"Are there geographically distinct Australian and New Zealand accents?
>I.e., can someone from Sydney pick out someone from Perth, or can
>someone from Auckland tell when someone else is from Wellington?"
>
>Yes, but on the whole the phonological variance is not as great [...]

I often see the word "phonological" in this thread. But it think if
the phonemes are the same, and only the sounds with which phonemes
vary, phonetic would be a more correct term for this.

>Indeed. This is something of a grating inquisition all New
Zealanders in
>Australia have to go through - I've seen it many times and cringed.
>Australians marvel at what they see as the Kiwi 'inability' to
pronounce
>'fish and chips' (it comes out to them as 'fush und chups').
>
>If NZ English 'fish and chips' sounds like 'fush und chups' to
>Australians, what does Australian English 'fish and chips' sound
like to
>Kiwis?
>'Faysh eend chayps', perhaps?

Feesh and cheaps?

As I understand it, the Australian (and Cockney) /i:/ and /u:/ have
becomes diphthongs, starting opener and more central. That leaves
the [i] position open, and /I/ tends to fill the gap, and move up (=
more close) to become [i]. The opener vowels /e/ and /æ/ follow
suit, and also become a litte more close.

So in NZ that's different?

--
Ruud Harmsen http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm  Update 8 June 2003

----------

From: "Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc." <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: Language varieties

For illustrating one aspect of the differences between "Belgian Dutch"
v/ "Dutch from the Netherlands":
below an example (with resources) how a language may go its own way, in
different countries, with a different language history:

a - an example of how much more difficult judicial "Belgian Dutch" may
be understandable than "Dutch from the Netherlands".

Judicial Belgian Dutch is often old-fashioned literary Dutch, often
originally word-to-word translated from a French law text and froozen
afterwards.
Comparing a definition in Belgian Dutch and in Dutch from the
Netherlands:

Belgium (De Valk)
Pauliaanse vordering (action paulienne, of: actio pauliana):
vordering van een schuldeiser strekkende tot de niet-tegenwerpelijkheid
van rechtshandelingen die door zijn debiteur werden verricht met
bedrieglijke miskenning van zijn verhaalrechten [...]

Netherlands (Fockema Andreae)
Pauliana, actio [...]
inroepen van de nietigheid van een door een schuldenaar onverplicht
verrichte rechtshandeling, waardoor zijn schuldeisers zijn benadeeld,
vooral van belang in geval van faillissement [...]

Quoted from:
- De Valks Juridisch Woordenboek; redactie Eric Dirix, Bernard Tilleman,
Paul Van Orshoven; 2001, Antwerpen, Intersentia, ISBN 90-9095-148-1, 431
pp.
- Fockema Andreae's Verwijzend en verklarend Juridisch Woordenboek, (Mr.
N.E. Amgran; MR. H.R.W. Gokkel m.m.v. drs C.A.W. Klijn, Twaalfde druk,
2001, Martinius Nijhoff
Groningen, ISBN 90-6890-525-2, xi + 548 pp.

Translated in some other languages:
(quoting from: Edgard Le Docte, Dictionnaire des termes juridiques en
quatre langues / Viertalig juridisch woordenboek / Legal dictionary in
four languages / Rechtswörterbuch in vier
Sprachen, 1988, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu, ISBN 90-6215-182-5, 844 pp.)
French: action paulienne
Dutch: actio pauliana, vordering van een schuldeiser tot
nietigverklaring van handelingen waardoor zijn schuldenaar hem benadeelt
English: action by which a creditor seeks the reduction of an action
taken in defraud of his rights by a debtor, revocatory action
German: paulianische Anfechtungsklage.

I don't find back which "Paulus/Paulianus" had to do with this law:
De Koninck (cf. full reference below) traces it as follows:
- the oldest version of this law dates from the 2d c. BC in the context
of regulations (about transfer of goods, bonorum venditio) by the Roman
praetor,
- it survived later as "actio revocatoria",
- and still later in the Digests as "actio Pauliana")

b - Continental law language is influenced by Roman law (actually in the
last centuries of the ancien regime the municipal courts of aldermen had
to go for advice, "lering", to high courts,
with jurists who often had graduated in Roman law from one of the
universities.)
Quite some Latin terminology was maintained afterwards.

Some resources:

for (Dutch speaking) Belgium:
- Constant De Koninck, Glossarium van Latijnse en Romeinse Rechtstermen,
1993, Maklu, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, ISBN 90-6215-378-X, xi + 448 pp.

for France, the 2 vols set:
- Henri Roland & Laurent Boyer, Locutions latines du droit français, 4e
édition, 1998, Paris, Litec, ISBN 2-7111-2913-6, xvii + 566 pp.
- Henri Roland & Laurent Boyer, Adages du droit français, 4e édition,
1999, Paris, Litec, ISBN 2-7111-3003-7, xxii + 1021 pp.

c - French texts of modern Belgian law are quite often older than
official versions in Dutch. Before the end of the 19th century,
translations into Dutch were inofficial, later the parliament
enacted directly in Dutch, and only these texts got legal validity.

So in:
- J. Moors, Dictionnaire juridique français néerlandais, 5e édition, 1999,
Brugge, Die Keure, ISBN 2-87403-027-9, xxiii + 673 pp
- J. Moors, Nederlands-Frans juridisch woordenboek, Vijfde uitgave,
1999, Brugge, Die Keure, ISBN 90-5751-1975, xxiii + 712 pp.
we read respectively:
- p. vi: "Disparité des deux langues:
[...] si la version néerlandaise rédigée par la Commission est généralement
dans la langue juridique écrite de notre temps, les textes français
donnent assez souvent un état de la langue du
siècle passé "[...]
- p. vi: "Ongelijkheid van de twee talen:
De Nederlandse versies van de Commissie zijn gesteld in de tegenwoordige
juridische schrijftaal, [...] sommige Franse teksten [...] dateren uit
het einde van de 18e eeuw of vroeger [...] dat
een aantal Franse termen en zinswendingen niet meer zouden worden
geschreven in een hedendaagse wettekst."

So this is the consolation for ending:
while the "Belgian Dutch" texts are old-fashioned when compared with
similar texts in "Dutch from the Netherlands", the "Belgian French"
versions are still worse.
Regards,
Roger

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