LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.05.23 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 23.May.2004 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
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: Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
Subject: Question Regarding North Friesian

Mike Szelog wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have been looking at some of the various varieties of North
> Friesian and
> would like to attempt to learn more of them.
>
> I'm curious if someone can tell me which of the North Friesian
> variants is
> the closest to English? Some of them are indeed quite close, but just
> wondering if there may be one in particular? Can anyone recommend
> some good
> grammars/primers to learn that particular variant?
>
> Thanks,

Hello, Mike.

It's been sometime since I've pondered this very same question. After
reading up on some material I had come to some conclusions I can share
with you here. As I said - it's been some time, so I'm not standing on the
firm ground here that I once had under my feet but I'll see what the old
brain-box can come up with.

To cut a long story short: no single dialect of North Frisian can be
considered historically closer to English than the other. All Frisian
dialects North-, West- or East- are related to English in the same way.

There are of course secondary developments that will make certain features
of the one dialect appear more similar to English than the cognate
features of another Frisian dialect, but as I said these are secondary,
parallel developments that have to do with inherent tendencies in the
ancient North-Sea Germanic dialects.

If we consider historical relationships then we have to look at when the
dialects of North Sea Germanic (Ingvaeonic) became distinct enough to
recognise them as the beginnings of a development towards separate languages.
Doing so one realises that the dialects that eventually became Frisian and
those that were carried across the channel to beome English were already
distinct, probably even before Ingvaeonic speaking people left for the
Briatin that had been abandoned by the Roman governing forces.

We can assume a dialect continuum for the Channel-North Sea continental
coast before emigration. The Frisians were rather south-west of the area
most colonisers came from - speaking slightly different dialects.

Note that continental Saxon underwent similar developments shared by
Frisian and English which makes all three varieties as close to each other
as the next. Continental Saxon was, heavily influenced by more southerly
dialects, subsequent to the emigration of the future-English, so England
and Frisia can be considered relic areas of a sort that preserved older
common developments.


I doubt any one Frisian variety remained in contact with English intensely
enough to make it follow English developments rather developments shared by
its fellow Frisian dialects in the time between English emigration and the
first wave of Frisian emigration to what are today the North Frisian isles
(continental North Frisia was colonised at a later date).

The similarities between Frisian and English rather lie in the retension of
formerly more wide spread developments than in the common development of
certain features one the one hand, as well as later parallel developments
that happened similarly in in both languages without being connected.
Sometimes these prallel developments happened a millenium apart, but
naturally the outcome looks similar. Early varieties of northern Old Saxon
shared all of the common developments as can be reconstructed from place
names and relic words.

I'm sorry I cannot give you a more satifying answer, but I hope it helps.
If you have more detailed questions on the matter let me know and I'll dig
out my old notes and see what I can come up with.

Dan

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