LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.10 (09) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.AUG.2004 (09) * 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: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties

Bill Wigham wrote: "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."

Actually Luther said he spoke (he meant "wrote") in the German of the Saxon
Chancellery, ie the civil service. But he also had constantly in mind the
language of the ordinary people.

To answer Ben's question, the King James Bible is written in a consciously
slightly archaic English, but I would judge that it is overall more
comprehensible now than Shakespeare is.  His sentences are much longer and
more complexly structured, which doesn't help. Luther revised his
translations, of course, so a straightforward comparison is impossible. But
even the 1546 text is much further from Modern German than the King James
Bible is from Modern English.

Regarding "Low German" as a designation, how much are the Brothers Grimm to
blame? The concept of the High German sound shift emphasises the fundamental
unity of the major varieties of German: calling them  "German" and "Saxon",
for example, simply says they're different.

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

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