LL-L "Anniversary" 2004.10.31 (01) [E/V]

Sun Oct 31 21:37:34 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 31.OCT.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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Anniversary" 2004.10.30 (06) [E]

>>>>>Ron, what you say below about on what languages the triple L-list
focusses on and which not, was exactly what I meant speaking about the
anniversary tale that had to be the Wren (Saxon) in stead of the North Wind
(Scandinavian).
You know I assumed the core Lowlands List languages are Lower Saxon, and to
a lesser extend Dutch and Frisian in all their varieties. And therefore the
Wren
was more appropriate than that other story. But your reply made me think you
didn't agree. Gabriele asked a question about that, and now you are telling
more or less the same I did... so maybe I took you wrong and you didn't
disagree so much?
To be honest, for me the focus could me a lot less on English too. Of course
that would make the number of interested a bit smaller and less widespread,
but linguistically it would be more logic. I can imagine that a lot of
British and Scotch think of Scotland when they hear the word Lowlands and
therefore became interested in this list, but we are really speaking about
the Plains of Holland and Northern Germany here...
In terms of mutual intelligibility, High German is a lot closer to Lower
Saxon and Dutch than English is, in modern times that is. Speakers of Dutch
an German, who never learned each other's languages, can usually understand
most of what the other says.
As small children we watch German TV programmes without big problems. We
didn't understand a word of English on the other hand, when our parents
wanted to speak about something in our presence we were not allowed to know,
they sometimes spoke English to each other, and it worked perfectly.

I don't want to say German should be one of the important languages on this
list, but doesn't the same count for English when we're honest? (Ingmar)

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Anniversary
>
> Gabriele:
>
> > Then why exclude German and the Scandinavian languages ...
>
> Then it would be Germanic-L, which would be casting the net wider and
would
> overlap with lists that are devoted to German, Yiddish and North Germanic
as
> well to those that deal with Germanic in general.  Our vision at first was
> bringing together those language varieties that are largely mutually
> intelligbible, English and Scots, being descendants of these (not of
German
> and only later influenced by Scandinavian), came in as an afterthought
> because their relevance comes up time and again.
>
> We do refer to the Northern German dialects a lot, especially to
Missingsch
> dialects (which are a link to German).  I myself do it all the time and
> indirectly encourage this.
>
> We, especially I, refer to links with North Germanic a lot, especially in
> contexts of mutual influence, with emphasis on Southern Jutish varieties
> which, like Missingsch, represent a link or bridge.
>
> Language contacts are a big thing on the List.  Besides contacts and
> relations with German and North Germanic, we also talk about contacts and
> mutual influences between our area and Celtic, Slavonic, Romance and the
> various indigenous languages in which Lowlands languages came to dominate.
>
> German and Scandinavian are not excluded from discussions; they are just
not
> parts of the focus.  Germanic is a well-known concept.  The Lowlands and
> their specific features shared across political borders are a newer
concept.
> "The Low Countries" are an established concept, but this always excludes
> Northern Germany (and its former extensions farther east along the Baltic
> Sea), which tends to be treated as a less important part of Germany.  Here
> it is a part of the Low Countries, the Lowlands.  Germanic Britain and
> Ireland and their international transplants are extensions of this.
>
> In brief, we focus, but we do not build a wall around our focus.
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Anniversary

Hi Ron

For the soundfiles would we therefore - with regard to
Gabriele's question about the exclusion of High German
and your response - be interested in having examples
of 'High German' as spoken in North Germany? For many
(the majority) of North Germany Lowlanders, High
German is their mother tongue. I was thinking about
this as I could probably get an example from a friend
of mine from Neuruppin who 'berlinert' to a much
higher extent than I've ever heard Berliners doing -
it's great and she's proud of her speech too. I've
also heard some East Frisian High German and it almost
sounds like Englishmen speaking German - would this be
interesting for the list or would you consider it
outside our area of interest? I realise that costs
might also play a role here.

Gary

----------

From: Liesbethvlaomse at aol.com <Liesbethvlaomse at aol.com>
Subject: LL-L "Anniversary" 2004.10.27 (11) [E]

Ikke kann dadde in Alvisch doen.  Die Beide Queñan e die Boomland Alven volk
van  Lothlorien.  Oôk kaan ikke Zestrenesse taol'n zeêr.  :^P

----------

From: Liesbethvlaomse at aol.com <Liesbethvlaomse at aol.com>
Subject: LL-L "Anniversary" 2004.10.28 (03) [E]

Kunnne dat der historie ha nogle doe med Goden Òðinn?

----------

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

Ingmar:

> I don't want to say German should be one of the important languages on
> this
> list, but doesn't the same count for English when we're honest? (Ingmar)

No.  Old English and its descendants English and Scots are most definitely
direct offshoots of Lowlands varieties, are therefore Lowlands varieties
themselves.  Scots and certain English varieties (especially those of
Northern England) clearly have stronger, preserved Lowlands traits.  Yes,
English and Scots underwent massive changes as a result of Scandinavian and
French occupation of Britain, but this has not changed their fundamental
"Lowlandness."  German, on the other hand, has undergone some very profound
sound shifts, to a degre that especially monolingual German speakers from
the south do not understand Lowlands Saxon (Low German).  It is only those
who learn English (or Dutch) that can make certain mental links between
German and LS.  Some have even suggested that German (Yiddish, etc.) ought
to be a separate Germanic branch: "South Germanic."  I dare say that Celtic
substrates have changed Southern German varieties to a much higher degree
phonologically than have Celtic languages changed English and Scots.  If you
cut off direct descendants of Lowlands varieties you would have to cut off
Afrikaans and all the English-, Dutch-, Zeelandic- and Afrikaans-based
pidgin and creole languages, which we don't (though I'd like to see them
discussed more often).

> You know I assumed the core Lowlands List languages are Lower Saxon, and
> to
> a lesser extend Dutch and Frisian in all their varieties. And therefore
> the
> Wren
> was more appropriate than that other story. But your reply made me think
> you
> didn't agree. Gabriele asked a question about that, and now you are
> telling
> more or less the same I did... so maybe I took you wrong and you didn't
> disagree so much?

I still maintain that Saxon was *not* the sole or initial focus.  The
initial focus was Saxon, Low Franconian and Frisian, and English and Scots
entered the picture very, very soon thereafter, because links between them
and their supposed direct Continental ancestors could simply not be excluded
or even treated as peripheral.  Furthermore, right from the beginning the
majority of our members were English and Scots speakers, and our discussions
about the ancestors of their languages greatly helped them to understand
their own languages better, in am immediate way.

Gary, distinctively *Lowlandic* German varieties *are* indeed welcome and
have always been discussed.  It is certainly all right to include Missingsch
varieties or strongly Missingsch-based German varieties in the sound file
collection.  I myself will contribute a file in Hamburg Missingsch (which I
have already written for the Wren).  Genuine Berlin dialects are nothing but
Missingsch, Berlin Missingsch.  The Brandenburg-type LS varieties are
extinct in Berlin, but it left variously strong substrates.  Nevertheless,
non-Lowlands should be treated as marginal.

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