LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.30 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 30.MAR.2004 (04) * 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: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.30 (01) [E/F]

Henno wrote :

>> 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?

No, I don't think I ever heard "brig" in french flemish but
always "brugge". In contrast, we still have "dinne" instead of
dutch "dunne" (eng. "thin") and "pit" instead of "put". Modification of
vowels is, I think, one of the most important difference between west
flemish and dutch since all vowels have a great or little difference of
pronunciation in west flemish :

a often > ae (ao) like dutch "vader" > w. fl. "vaeder"
e between consonnant is pronunced intermediary between e and a like "hem"
which is pronunced almost like eng "ham" of "buckingham" (saxon
pronunciation i think).
o often > u like "op" > "up", "bos" > "busch", "ons" > "(n)uus"
u often > i : "dunne" > "dinne", "put" > "pit" (a "put" in french flemish
is a frog!), "rukke" (i think) > "rikke"
There is the intersting case of dutch "molen", in french flemish "meule"
but on the coast, we have two villages in France with names "millam"
and "hoymille", attesting an old flemish "mille" like english "mill".

We also have short vowels instead of diphtongs in place of the old long
vowels of old germanic like "huus" (short vowel) instead of
durch "huis". "ys" instead of "ijs". "ou" is not a diphtong but in my
language it is pronunced a little bit different from "oe": "goed"
and "goud" are no homophones and so are not "by" and "bie".

At least, one point in french flemish is intriguing me : "sch" is always
pronunced like in german and not like dutch" sch" or english "sch"
(frisian "sk"). But I read that, in the past, near duunkerke, "sch" was
pronunced like "sk". My ancestors village 's name, "hondschoote", was in
1069 "hondescote". Now, it is pronunced in modern french flemish something
like " onschoote" but it is pronunced in french something like "onskote". I
don't think pronuniation of "sch" as "sk" is very natural for a french
speaker so I don't think it is a french deformation (but it's still a
possibility). Another village : boeschepe is pronunced in modern french
flemish something like "buschepe" but in french something like "boskepe".
I ask myself if these french pronunciations cannot be inherited from an old
flemish pronunciation of "sch" like frisian "sk". But in this case how and
why "sch" became pronunced as modern french flemish "sch" since it is not
the standard dutch pronunciation?

Best regards

Frédéric Baert

----------

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

Salut, Frédéric!

> There is the intersting case of dutch "molen", in french flemish "meule"
> but on the coast, we have two villages in France with names "millam"
> and "hoymille", attesting an old flemish "mille" like english "mill".

Incidentally, in the North Saxon dialects the word is umlauted too: _möle_
['mø:lə] ~  ['mø:le], nowadays more frequently _mööl_ [mø:.l], in Germanized
spelling _Möhle_ and _Möhl_ respectively (to make it look like German
_Mühle_).  In Dutch-based spelling this would be _meule_ and _meul_
respectively.

I think Henno has a point in reminding us to think in terms of progressive
versus conservative features rather than only thinking in terms of
influences.  By the same token, we ought not forget either that most, if not
all, of the Continental North Sea coast once was Frisian-dominated and that
there was considerable Saxon influx on what are now the coasts of Belgium
and Northern France (also Zeeland?).  Perhaps it is sometimes impossible to
decide what accounts for what.

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