LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.10 (02) [E]

Tue Aug 10 17:22:26 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.AUG.2004 (02) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: Glenn Simpson <westwylam at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: language varieties

John

On the Frisian and OE debate, British comedian Eddie Izzard did a programme
on this topic about 6 months
ago where he did an 'unscientific test' using some OE vocab with some
Frisian speakers and they could
understand what was said. In addition, some of the languages/dialects spoken
in the British Isles are
more influenced by OE than others. Northumbrian has some strong OE elements,
although I suspect that the
middle English period and the industrial revolution era were just as
influential on the language. Good
question though.

Gan canny,

Glenn Simpson

----------

From: Henry Pijffers <henry.pijffers at saxnot.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> I brought Nick a copy of some OE text, Beowulf as I recall, and he was
able
> to understand it.  My wife and I did not press the issue to determine the
> exact level of understanding, but he clearly was better able to tell us in
> Modern English what was going on in the story than I could ever armed only
> with my primary knowledge of English and a secondary knowledge of High
> German, and a superficial knowledge of Frisian.  I certainly wouldn't call
> this a "careful study" of these issues, but evidence of some sort.  It's
> pretty obvious that Frisian and LS have undergone fewer changes,
especially
> in vocabulary and sentence structure and word order, than English, so it
> only makes sense that they will remain closer to their ancient sister OE
> than Modern English.
>
Hi Ed,

I did a similar experiment on myself, being a Saxon speaker. When I
first got interested in languages and their history, and learned of the
existence of Beowulf, I obtained a copy (untranslated) and tried to read
it. I was able to make out the main story line and certain details,
though not everything. This must be, as you call it, "evidence of some
sort", though certainly not proof. First, I'm interested in languages
and therefore am willing to put lots more effort into it to be able read
and really understand something, and second, I'm not the average Saxon
speaker either, since I speak a dialect that has been influenced and
changed less than surrounding dialects, sticking to somewhat more
archaic forms. But still, I *was* able to read it, and that must say
something.

regards,
Henry

----------

From: Bill Wigham <redbilly2 at earthlink.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.09 (03) [E]

Dear Lowlanders,
        I am newly signed aboard so please forgive any faux pas on my part.

        Pastor Gruel, at St. John's Lutheran Church, mentioned that Dr.
Luther's Bibel was
written in  high level Saxon such as would have been heard in the court of
ruler of that area.
You may agree that it is a good thing that we can not too easily read the
Bibel because when comparing
the old language with the King James version we find some words do not
neatly dovetail together.  In order to
improve my understanding I have to resort to dictionaries.  The result often
is that the old Saxon seems to provide shades of meaning that the King James
does not, without disrupting the core meaning.  If the Luther Bibel were
closer to the King James we might  be tempted to assume they were the same
and simply gloss over the German.  If I am all wet please let me know what
you think, so that I might have the benefit of your wisdom

Alles Gute
Bill Wigham

----------

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

Hi, Bill!

It's great to welcome you, too, another "newby" joining the ranks of
"talkers."

>         Pastor Gruel, at St. John's Lutheran Church, mentioned that Dr.
Luther's Bibel was
> written in  high level Saxon such as would have been heard in the court of
ruler of that area.

Pastor Gruel was right, technically speaking, but this "Saxon" was not
*real* Saxon but a *German* dialect of the area, now a German state, that,
much to the chagrin of the real Saxons farther north, *usurped* the name
"Saxony" on the basis of a Saxon prince having been given it as a marriage
deal (in the 16th century, if I remember correctly).  Saxons of the north
protested and petitioned against their name having been given to a foreign
state, but their voices fell silent after a century or two.  This may well
be one of the reasons why the name "Saxon" for our language fell into
virtual disuse in Germany, being replaced by "Low German," and even Middle
Saxon being renamed "Middle Low German," in some quarters as much as "Old
Low German" replacing "Old Saxon."  (The other apparent reason is that this
served the plan to symbolically integrate the Saxons by making them German,
a process that began with the eventual overthrow of the independent-minded,
anti-royalist "heathen" Saxons by Charlesmagne.)  If you say "Saxon" in
Germany these days, most people (being unaware of who the real Saxons were
and are) think you are talking about the German dialects of the state of
Saxony.

This process of alienation had already begun during Luther's time.  Because
of the seat of the then power, the dialect of the "Saxon" city of Meissen
(of china fame) came to be seen as having highest prestige, and everyone
that wanted to be anyone would aim at adopting this German dialect (nowadays
one of the least liked German dialects, according to popular polls).  This
extended to the Lowlands Saxon ("Low German") area farther north, beginning
with the German and Germanized administrative, educational and religious
elite of the larger cities and towns, pushing the actual (Saxon) language of
the land down on the prestige meter until its use eventually became
associated with laborers and peasants, increasing its suppression even
further.  So, everyone wishing to be upwardly mobile would attempt to speak
and write _Missingsch_, namely the dialect of Meissen.  Most of them did so
poorly, with more or less interference from (real) Saxon substrates.
Eventually, when "good" "High" German took over, this sort of Missingsch
German dialect came to be associated with the "uneducated" classes of the
north, people caught between their ancestral Saxon and "good" "High" German.
I still grew up with Missingsch, side by side with Lowlands Saxon and "High"
German.  Missingsch is now disappearing.

The "low-class" dialects of Berlin, a city that lost the Saxon language
early due to being the seat of German power, are, technically speaking,
Missingsch varieties with Brandenburg Saxon substrates, which in turn come
with substrates from now extinct local West Slavonic (Slavic) varieties akin
to still (barely) surviving Lower Sorbian (Lusatian) of the Błota/Spreewald
swamp- and woodlands just south of Berlin.  ("Berlin" means something like
"swampy place," based on local Slavonic *_brlo_ 'swamp'.)

Moyen, Henry!

My experience with reading Old English "cold" (having LS, German, Modern
English and some Danish at the time) were similar to yours.  However, I had
far, far fewer problems reading Chaucer's works and other Middle English
texts cold, had a much easier time than did monolingual Modern English
speakers.

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