LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.31 (01) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 31.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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.30 (04) [E]


Ron wrote:
"Perhaps it is sometimes impossible to decide what accounts for what."

Undoubtedly. I have long despaired of ever tracking down the origin of most
of the unique features of Nottingham English, even though links to Dutch and
Zeelandic seem most probable. Too much of NEng's sound system has been
chipped away at by standard English in the last two hundred years, and all
we are left with are relics. I would dearly love the case to be otherwise,
however.

Criostóir.

----------

From: marco [evenhuiscommunicatie] <marco at evenhuiscommunicatie.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.30 (04) [E]

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?

Frederic then answered:

> 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 :

In Zeelandic, which is in a lot of ways closer to French Flemish than to
West-Flemish, forms like 'dinne' and 'pit' also still exist and are used in
everyday speech. The same goes for 'rik' or 'rikke' (back, Du. _rug_).
'Brigge' is becoming oldfashioned now, but the memory to the word is being
kept alive by topographic names like the village of Brigdamme on the island
of Walcheren. The local sportscentre there is called 'De Brigge'.

Most of the features Frederic then mentions, are Zeelandic too. That's not a
coincidence. When in later medieval times Brabant in stead of Flanders
became the most powerful region in the Netherlands, the Brabantic of that
time became of huge influence on especially East- but also on West-Flemish.
Some language features that had been common thoughout E- and W-Flanders (and
Zeeland), got restricted to the areas that were less under the influence of
Brabantic. Those areas are what is now called French Flanders (including the
'Westhoek' of West-Flanders) and Zeeland.
It's probably no surprise that a lot features that survived in these parts
are Frisian.

More or less the same happened in the west of Holland. The original language
there had a lot of Frisian features as well, but they almost completely
diappeared when after the huge influx of people from Brabant at the end of
the 17th century, the language of power in Holland also became more and more
Brabantic. The dialects of some small villages on the coast, like Katwijk
and Scheveningen, somehow managed to keep more of their original features
however.

Regards,

Marco Evenhuis

----------

From: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.30 (04) [E]

>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
>
Hallo
I have also this point in mind and I think
that "frisonisms "and "saxonisms" in west flemish tend to prove that, in
ancient times, saxon, frisian and franconian were all together perfectly
intelligible. This is why I think classification between low franconian-low
saxon and anglo-frisian languages is artificial but I'm no linguist.

Best regards Frédéric

----------

From: Mathieu. van Woerkom <Mathieu.vanWoerkom at student.kun.nl>
Subject: Language varieties

Henno Brandsma en Frédéric Baert spraken over de verschillen en
overeenkomsten
tussen West-Vlaams, Nederlands, Fries en Nedersaksisch. Om de taalkundige
puzzel nog lastiger te maken, zijn hier de Limburgse varianten:

>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.

Limburgs: ijs = ies [i:s], huis = hoes [hu:s]

>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".

Limburgs: oud = aud [A:d / O:d] of alt [ald] in de noordelijke gebieden

>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.

Misschien, Limburgs heeft namelijk ook 'book' [bo:k]. Is het niet gewoon zo
dat
veel van deze kenmerken zijn toe te schrijven aan een gemeenschappelijke
Oudgermaanse basis, in plaats van een vermeende (deels) Saksische oorsprong
van
het West-Vlaams?

>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 wurd as
>"souder", wylst it Hollânsk "zolder" hat.

Limburgs: zolder = zölder

>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...

Limburgs: zes = zès, fox = fóks of vos

In ieder geval heeft men gelijk als men stelt dat taalkundigen graag mooie
strakke taalgrenzen willen zien, waar die er feitelijk niet zijn: overgangen
van taal (of dialect) naar taal (of dialect) gaan vaak vloeiend.

Groeten,
Mathieu
__________________________
www.streektaal.net

----------

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

Dear Lowlanders,

First I'll follow my buddy Mathieu, hoping to satisfy the "harvesters" among
you with North Saxon (NS) dialect data of Lowlands Saxon (Low German) of
Northern Germany.  (< > marks equivalents with German-based spelling, [ ]
phonetic representation.)

> Limburgs: ijs = ies [i:s], huis = hoes [hu:s]

ys <Ies> [ʔiːs] 'ice'
huus <Huus> [huːs] 'house', 'building', 'edifice'

> Limburgs: oud = aud [A:d / O:d] of alt [ald] in de noordelijke gebieden

old <old> ~ <oold> ~ <oolt> ~ <ool> [ʔoˑɫt] 'old'

> Limburgs: zolder = zölder

No cognate, as far as I can tell, but:
hauböön <Hauböön> ['haË‘Ê bøːn] ~ hayböön <Heiböön> ['haˑɪbøːn] ~ hoyböön
<Heuböön> ['hɔˑɪbøːn] '(hay) loft' ~ ruge(n) böön <ruge(n) Böön>
[ˌruːɡe'bøːn] ~ [ˌruːɡŋ'bøːn] ("rough loft/attic") '(hay) loft'

> Limburgs: zes = zès, fox = fóks of vos

söss [zœs] ~ sess [zɛs] 'six'
vos (<Foss>) [fɔs] 'fox'

It seems that several of us feel that some of the "finer" linguistic
categorizations may no longer hold a lot of water, that there are levels of
differentiation that approach meaninglessness, that we are really talking
more about continua than about dialect or language groups.  Perhaps there is
something to be said for this.

These days we might be able to say that a certain group of varieties is
primarily based on Saxon, another one on Saxon with Frisian substrates,
another one on Saxon with West Slavonic substrates, another one on
Franconian with Frisian substrates with Brabantish and or Saxon admixture,
etc., etc.   Much of the once clearer definitions based on specific features
and isoglosses seem to we well on their way of being eroded, mostly by way
of mutual influences, primarily due to considerable influences from the
dominant languages that "chip away" at them, to borrow Críostóir's words --
bearing in mind also that these dominant languages (Standard Dutch, Standard
German and Standard English) are by no means "pure" to start with, are to
various degrees artificially synthesized constructs.  All this tends to blur
formerly fairly clear divisions.

Henno brought up the issue of coincidence.  A fine example is that Lowlands
Saxon and Western Flemish/Zeelandic -- a fair geographic distance from each
other -- share certain features, first and foremost monophthongs where other
varieties have diphthongs (e.g., [iː] versus [əɪ], [aɪ], etc.).  Since we
know that Saxons emigrated to the coastal regions that are now parts of
Belgium and Northern France, we might be tempted to assume this feature to
be a case of Saxon influence.  However, as Henno suggested, this could just
as well be a case of common, coincidental conservatism rather than one of
influence, since we know for certain that the monophthongs are the older
forms.  There is also the issue of diphthongization in English and Scots,
which should not lead us to the conclusion that they do not have a Saxon
base; rather, we should assume that in their cases diphthongization took
place independently, possibly coincidentally, both from Dutch and German.

But then there are cases such as the diphthong /ei/ in Saxon where I have
also heard it in Western Flemish; e.g., in the word for 'horse': WF [pɛˑɪrt]
and LS [p(ʰ)ɛˑɪɝt] ~  [p(ʰ)aˑɪɝt] (> Lower Elbe [pʰiːɝt]); cf. Duch _paard_
(German _Pferd_).  Saxon influence or coincidence?

At any rate, things no longer seem very clear-cut to me, not as clear-cut as
they are described to be in older books, where for instance the spread of
the Saxon varieties is supposed coincide to more or less with the spread of
archaological and architectural Saxon features, such as that of Saxon
"hall"-type farmhouses and crossed wooden horse heads at gabletops.

Anyway, how does everyone else feel about this?  Are there still any fairly
consistently occurring features that distinguish Saxon and Franconian
varieties of the Lowlands?

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