LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.10.04 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.OCT.2004 (05) * 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: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.10.02 (01) [E]

Hi, John Feather

Subject: Phonology:

Re. Frisian (etc) pronunciation.

Some things we'll have to leave to Hanno, & I hope he speaks up. This is a
matter of some interest to me.

1. Why is the pronunciation Henno suggests so different from the one used in
> my language course?

BTW, which dialect did the Fryske Akademy present: Do you recall, or did
they think it important enough to report?

> 3. BTW people who want to see similarities between Eng and Fris (and
> differences from other langs) like to cite E "boat" Fris "boat" Du "boot"
G
> "Boot". What they don't grasp is that the similarities are orthographic
and
> the phonetics are completely the reverse: Fris 'oa' is a diphthong and the
> other words are as similar as they can be given the differences in vowel
> quality between these langs.

Lay people talk about the vocalic 'slackness' of the Semetic languages, but
by my experience I disagree.
The vowel in, for instance Aramaic or Hebrew, carries a hefty grammatical &
semantic burden, & changing a vowel can change the meaning of a sentence
completely (devolving, though it must, about the same basic root). 'Sipoor'
= tale, 'sofer' = author, 'safar' = count, 'sefer' = book. You watch your
vowels, in Hebrew!

The case for vowels in some Germanic languages is quite otherwise. The
vowels in a word can change in a generation, across class lines, dialect
boundries, geographic boundries, all this without changing meaning. Take the
word 'but' as a New Zealander says 'b at t', Old BBC RP 'but', Yorkshireman
'boot' [short 'oo']. Modern English, now, is a good example of a bad case,
or should I rather say an extreme case, since there is nothing objectionable
or 'bad' about it: Such distinctions carry information; information useful
to those who recognise them & use them. & I aver that all Lowlands languages
have the selfsame property to a greater or lesser degree, & again, not
merely between languages, but within the same language, dialect, & even the
speech of a family in its own household. I myself am not 'easy' about this
slackness for any reason, but I appreciate I must accomodate to the language
as I find it - as the native feels free to speak it.`

> They also fail to notice that all the other
> words are in fact late borrowings (direct or indirect) from Eng.

I confess I was being nasty to you, John, in my choice of the word 'but', in
its structural similarity to 'boat'. & BTW. I too have found this rather
heavy deployment of the word 'boat' by the boffens. Mind you, they also say
that the word is a borrowing into all these other languages from the
original Fries!

> 4. Mark said: "Ron has raised the point already that the orthography is
more
> different than the pronunciation in the Teutonic tongues". "Teutonic"
isn't
> quite the right word but it will do. I don't recall that this was ever
more
> than a dogmatic statement, ie I don't remember that Ron has ever been
> prepared to define its limits, but I may be mistaken.

You might push him to present the consonant structure in isolation, & get an
ironclad response. Bearing on your comment follow following, no doubt that
they (& I) were content to take the consonants & let the vowels go. We that
speak these tongues know that the vowels will drift, somewhat.

> Considering the
> Frisian words above, the authors of my text clearly thought the vowel was
> the same in each. But if we compare them with Dutch we get
> gaan/staan/brood/dood/hooi/ooit/nooit - three different sounds. In
English,
> using the contracted forms of "ever" and "never", we get 5 sounds
> (go//stand//bread/dead//hay//e'er/ne'er). How could any orthographic
> convention smooth over these differences?

Gie bi' a slack on t'vowels, John!

Yrs,
Mark

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