LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.25 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.AUG.2004 (03) * 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

Dan wrote:

"The Island North Frisians appear to have settled on the islands between 700
and 800 AD coming from East Frisia. What we know is that the islands had
been abandoned for the duration of about 150 years."

In the article by the orthographically challenged Frederik Paulsen which I
quoted from earlier he says:

"The many other West-, East- and North-Frisian islands, as well as the main
part of the Frisian mainland, have either been reclaimed from the sea by
dykes or are still being shaped and transformed by sand dunes; and therefore
they are relatively new. The fact that these two old islands [Foehr and
Amrum in his spelling] have been continuously inhabited, and indeed densely
populated, since the early Stone Age or the end of the last Ice Age, may be
why the Ferring language has some archaic structures and words which do not
occur in the other Frisian languages, pointing to a pre-Germanic origin."

Of course, being non-Frisian is not the same thing as being non-Germanic.
Does anybody know what these special linguistic features are? Why should
these islands remain populated and therefore be different from the rest and
the neighbouring mainland especially if, as Bede suggested, it was the area
abandoned by the Angles and left vacant?

Regarding the AS invasion of the British Isles, do we need any better
explanation than that with the withdrawal of Roman forces the land was
available for the taking?

John D mentioned "rum" in his dialect meaning "strange" or "queer". It's
actually very widespread geographically though probably not much used today.
I tend to think of it as the sort of word a retired major meeting Hercule
Poirot might use to describe the goings-on at Puzzlecombe Manor.

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.24 (10) [E]

Dear John,

Subject: Language Varieties

> Mark wrote in response to my comments on the etymology of "o'clock" and "a
> clock" in the First Folio of Shaxpaw:
>
> >Well, no. Not presumably, but definitely the _a-_ we find in 'asleep',
> 'ajar, abate, & for that matter 'allow' & all the rest goes back to the
Old
> English, with the prefix _ge-_, & as with other cases where it preceded a
> high front vowel, drifted to _y-_, or the glottal stop _'-_, . leaving the
> prefix _a_, without a hyphen."

I give you 'abate v.t. - to demolish (Chambers 20th Century D.) even though
we have
'abeatan' - beat to pieces, beat down, make fall (Sweet's AS D.) &
'allow v.t. - to praise [obsolete] --- (Chambers). even though we have
'geloof' - praised [obs.] Afrikaans Vertalende Woordeboek.
Of course Latin is another Indo-Germanic language, & we should expect a
degree of common ground in linguistic usages.

> Well, no, not definitely, in fact not at all: "a-" in "abate" and "allow"
is
> ultimately from Latin "ad". Lexicographers are sure that English "a-" is a
> reduction of "an" or "on". Apart from the fact that the "a-" has to
precede
> a consonant, not a vowel, neither Chambers Dictionary nor Onions gives
"a-"
> as a reduced form of "ge-" or its later form "y-". This does not mean that
> it never arises in this way.

Certainly, lexicographers are sure that some manifestations of the English
'a-' are a reduction of 'an-' or 'on-'
here is a list of other prefixes performing related functions from my
language, 'be-', 'ge-' (phon. 'x at -'), 'her-', ont-' & 'ver-' (phon. 'f at r-').
OE uses the very similar, 'be-', 'ge-', 'on-' or 'an-' & 'for-'
I think the OE 'h-' prefix very early became 'a-', & so in due course did
(in some cases) 'on-' or 'an-'. so also did the 'ge-', ultimately, even in
OE usage.

> I didn't mean to imply that Shickspure actually wrote "a Clocke". Rather,
> the First Folio attests a form of the phrase current in 1623, much earlier
> than the date I found cited for "of the clock" (1647). The OED attests "a
> clocke" from 1480.

Yess, I wouldn't swear Sickspeare did either, & all his generation were
equally free with their spelling. I merely aver we cannot nail our standard
to the mast of exactitude in the relationship between the spoken word & the
spelled word, at that time.
>
> Mark also wrote:
> "But "o'clock" is , as shown by the apostrophe, a contraction of  "of the
> clock"."
>
> "O'clock" is simply a spelling introduced in 1720. The apostrophe only
tells
> us that the phrase is being _represented_ as derived from "of (the)
clock".
> A lot of well-established phrases previously written with "a" and no
> apostrophe were "restored" in this way at about this time. We can very
> reasonably assume that "o'clock" is a learn-ed version of  "a clock"
rather
> than a cut down version of the "of the clock" attested in 1647, which is
> probably best seen as another attempt by a nob to write proper and set
> himself apart from hoi polloi who have been saying "a clock" since 1480 at
> least.

A lexicographic perdition take these systematisers, their spawn walks the
Earth to this day.

> But why were they saying "a clock"?

Does it matter? in those days there was likely One clock to every town, in
the church-tower, a short walk & a quick look from any point.
Q. "What time is it, Man?"
A. trundle, trundle, "It is IIII on the clocke, Master Allayn."
Order. "My mantle, ho!"

Yes, I would go along with the variant spellings, but see; 'of, on', or
whatever, are initially words in their own right, like O'Sullivan, O'Grady,
Hop o'my Thumb (a different word) or ".---i'th'strand." "Think, when we talk
of horses, that you see them print their proud hoofs (sic.) etc" (sundry
different words).

However, prefix modifiers, do not exist as words in their own right, they
are only found tacked onto a verb, adverb, & sometimes Adjective: Like 'a-'
in 'asleep' - prep 'a-' + 'sleep' (Chambers), they  perform a different
function, on verbs. Clock is still a noun.

> Did everybody adopt "of the
> clock" in 1386, find it was a mouthful and switch to the shorter form "a
> clock"?

Some, like myself, would find it a mouthful even now.

> We are conditioned by "o'clock" and some expansions to "of the clock"
which
> have occurred since 1720 to believe that the latter is the form from which
> (and from which alone) "schwa clock" - the predominant form for over 500
> years - was derived. Other sources seem possible, so how can we be sure
that
> "a clock" _must_ represent "of the clock"?

I reckon it's the best guess. Occam. But bear in mind, Master John, 'tis th'
sense that must carry! That being done, 'nuff said!
>
> Mark also wrote:
> "Bear in mind the _ge-_ (OE) & _a-_ (ME) modify a verb, as their cognates
on
> the Continent & in Afrikaans still do. All the examples you & I quoted are
> verbs. 'Clock' is a noun."
>
> Well, yes and no, mainly no. Germanic "ge-" has a number of meanings: one
> represents a collective aspect as in German "Gebirge", "Gebrueder",
> "Geschwister" and (I guess) in Du "geheel", "getijde". In connexion with
> verbs and nouns derived from verbs it signifies a completed action, hence
> its use in past participles.

Yees?

> But that's another story. More pertinently we
> have E "abed", "abreast", "abroad", "ajar" so the idea that "a-" cannot be
> combined with a noun is false.

Let's look at this: "abed" describes an action "he has gone to bed". So also
for abroad, abreast & ajar. Common usage can assign a verb-function to a
noun - see getijde, geheel, geschwister, gebreuder, & gebirge. .

> Sorry to take up so much space but it is obviously important to strive for
> precision of expression.

John, John, do not be a slave of precision, least of all in this least
precice of tongues, the Queen's English. As the Great bard Seekspar himself
hath said, "What's in a name?" (& thou canst quote him on that!)

The question of what faith we should have in
> etymological dictionaries is an important one. They are out best defence
> against wild and misleading assumptions about relationships between words
> but we need to understand their limitations.

The only etymological resource I will unquestioningly defer to is the
Greater Oxford, & that is because it covers everything.

For the rest, your lexicographer is but another squalor - I mean scholar.
Hee may be as rong as you! But with that qualification I am altogether with
you on those last three lines.

Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties

Gary wrote:

>I do feel that I kinda miss out on dialect discussions, seeing as my
dialect (North-East London /
Essex) - albeit the educated or courtly variety thereof - was the one
'adopted' as standard English
therefore making the majority of my dialect words standard English - and
therefore a bit boring, as
everyone knows them anyway.<

Come on Gazza, its an equal opportuni:y list. Watch "East Enders" on Sundi n
tellus awl abaadit. N I wonyu on my side next time ve uvvers diss our London
double nega:ive. Arm frm Iwlfud misself - you frm that parta the wowld?

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.24 (10) [E]


John Duckworth mentioned _moydering_ and _gansey_. Both these terms also
appear(ed) in Hiberno-English, and may derive from there.

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