LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.30 (01) [E/F]

Tue Mar 30 18:40:18 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 30.MAR.2004 (01) * 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: Stella en Henno <stellahenno at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.29 (01) [E]

> From: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.26 (03) [E]
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:48:22 -0800, Lowlands-L <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
> David wrote:
>
> >Another thing that i noticed in tis discussion about Low-German is that
> >Linguist trie to devide
> >the dialects in smooth borders. That is not so easy to do.
> >As I look to the resemblance of "Westvlams" with Low-Saxon, or even with
> >modern German,
> >and against that I see the differences between "Westvlams" and  modern
> >Dutch, then I can
> >hardly see "Westvlams" as a dutch dialect. Also I would say
> that "Westvlams"
> >is a dialect with
> >at least saxon roots, so it would do not much right to call "Westvlams" a
> >Low-Franconian dialiect.
Dit liket my frjemd ta, my hat it Westflaamsk net sa Saksysk oanheard.
It is al sa, dat der mienskiplike konserfative skaaimerken binne (behâld fan
[i] (yn wurden as "iis") en net diftongearre [u] (mar yn it Saksysk [u] (op
de meast
westlike farianten yn Nederlân nei) en by jimme [y] (Nl uu), yn
"hûs"-wurden.
Fierders sprekke jim beiden de einichste -n noch út yn meartallen en
tiidswurdfoarmen,
mar dat dogge de Friezen ek. Jim hawwe gjin omlûd op lange lûden,
mienskiplik
-t (of -en) meartal foar alle persoanen yn de notiid fan de tiidwurdsbûging,
noch hawwe jim
de -l- beholden yn wurden as "âld" en "hout". Dizze 3 binne (binnen it
Nederlânske gebiet)
de grutte skieders fan Saksyske en mear westlike of súdlike tongslaggen.

In oar konserfatyf skaaimerk dat ik betinke kin dat Saksyks (guon dialekten)
en Westflaamsk
mien hawwe, is in langer behâld fan [o:] yn wurden as "boek", dat komt
by jim dochs as "book" foar, somtyds? Mar dit is gewoan de Aldgermaanske
foarm, dus
leau ik earder oan mienskiplike "behâldsucht" yn perifeare gebieten..

> >Another thing is that West-, Middle- and East-Germany since the Middle
Ages
> >was settled down
> >with People from Holand and Flanders. And that even til 1945 in Prussia,
> >KÃ¶nigsberg, a dialect
> >was spoken that was verry simelar to Flemish.
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >David
> >
>
> Hello
>
> I agree with this. But I think I heard that one of the most important
> feature of low franconian dialects is the disappearance of the l between a
> vowel and a consonnant like in dutch "oud" vs english, frisian, low saxon
> and german "old" or "alt". In this way, west flemish is a low franconian
> dialect. My french west flemish is even "more franconian" than dutch since
> the disappearance is often more complete.
ek it Westerlauwerk Frysk hat yn 'e measte dialekten (it Hylpersk
(Hindeloopers)
is in útsûndering) de -l- ek ferlern: "âld" wurdt útsprutsen as [O:d]
(Hylpen [a:ld]), "hout" liket
has it selde as it Hollânsk (Hylpen [ho. at lt]) (dus net rymjend as yn Nl.
hout, oud;
apart ek: Skiermûntseach hat "aud" en "heeuwt") . Ek in wurdt as "souder",
wylst
it Hollânsk "zolder" hat, "moude" (besibbe oan "mold" yn it Ingelsk) lit
sjen dat it Frysk
hjir frij "Frankysk" is, feitlik. Mar fansels is dizze feroaring sa
natuerlik dat er oeral
spontaan opkomme kin, en by ús is dat dus ek bard, mar wol letter as yn it
Frankysk.
(de Fryske stavering is hjir wat behâldend).

Typysk West-Frankysk: ferienfâldiging (al heel betiid) fan -sk en -ks-:
ferlykje
Frysk "waskje" (Ing. to wash, Nl wassen) en "waakse" (groeie) mei Nl wassen
(yn "het wassende water; volwassen; Frysk folwoeksen), Dútsk "wachsen".
Ek "zes" (ynstee fan "seis" < "seks" (noch yn Hylpen) by ús, Dútsk "sechs",
Ing. "six"
mar Saksysk faak ek "zös" of soks...) en "vos" (ynstee faan "foks" yn it
Frysk bygelyks)
binne hjir foarbylden fan.
Dit skaaimerk is al ier Midsieuwsk, en miskjin noch wol âlder...

> The problem I see is that linguist want a language to be low franconian or
> low saxon or english or frisian. In this way what could be the position of
> west flemish with its low franconian features i mentionned above but also
> its saxon features and its frisian features ?
Dit ferwiist nei relikten as "brig" of "breg" (Frysk "brêge" (soms ek
"brigge")
en "rig" esfh?

> I think you cannot  put a language into one box and not another. I see
west
> flemish like one of the transitional languages between the low-franconian
> languages and the low saxon languages and also between the low
> franconian/low saxon languages and the ingwaeonic languages.
>
> In France, one of the definitions of a dialect is that a language is a
> dialect of another if the two are mutually intelligible. In this way it's
> worse for west flemish and dutch because a french west flemish speaker can
> very hardly (if he can!)understand a dutch speaker. In fact my grandmother
> told me an interesting story : Her mother didn't speak at all english but
> when she rescued an english soldier during the second world war, they
could
> communicate a little bit, him in english and her in west flemish ! I don't
> say west flemish and english are mutually intelligible. It's clear it's
not
> the case. But I ask if, in regard to the difficulty for a french flemish
to
> understand dutch, you can really say west flemish is a dutch dialect?
>
> The main problem is that the term of dialect comes from the period when
> linguists wanted the languages to be classified like naturalists did with
> animals and vegetals. But (especially for germanic languages which form a
> continuum) this classification is possible for clearly distinct language
> like standard english vs standard german but becomes problematic when used
> for transitional languages like west flemish, low saxon dialects I think,
> but also limburgish or middle franconian dialects etc...
>
> I also think the problem often becomes politic. i.e. I think it's better
to
> say in France that french flemish is a dutch dialect. You can even read on
> certain internet pages that flemish people in north of France speak dutch
!
> So governments don't have to do something to save french flemish since the
> same language is spoken in Belgium and in the Netherlands! I'm sure it's
> what lots of French people think (when they know that in some part of
north
> of France people speak a flemish dialect. Despite of this, I'm very proud
> to be a french flemish : french and flemish. I'm just so sad about the
> disappearance of my language.)
>
> Best regards
> Frédéric Baert
>
And so am I, but politically saying it is "Dutch" might not be such a bad
idea; one might get some financial support one otherwise wouldn't have
had...

Henno Brandsma

----------

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

Henno:

> In oar konserfatyf skaaimerk dat ik betinke kin dat Saksyks (guon
dialekten)
> en Westflaamsk
> mien hawwe, is in langer behâld fan [o:] yn wurden as "boek", dat komt
> by jim dochs as "book" foar, somtyds?

In it hjoeddeiske Saksysk fan Dútsklân betekent _o(o)_ twa lûden: /oo/ of
/ou/.  In it gefal fan _Book_ is it /bouk/, dus ek _bouk_ in oare systemen.
In ieniche tongslaggen is /ou/ fonetisk [a.U], dus ek de spelling _au_:
_Bauk_.  In it meartal fan dizze _au_-tongslaggen is /ei/ ek fonetisk [a.I],
b.f. /bein/ _Bein_, Grinslânsk (Gronings) Saksysk _baain_ (mar in
tongslaggen fan it type /ou/ = _o(o)_: /ei/ = _e(e)_, bf. /bein/ = _Been_).

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