LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.05 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.SEP.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 "Language varieties" 2004.09.04 (06) [E]

> From: Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.04 (03) [E]
>
> Hi all,
>
> Ingmar, I don't believe any language is truly 'pure'!
> Regards,
> Elsie Zinsser
> >
Hi Elsie, I think EVERY language is pure in itself, but what I mean is
that English is much less pure GERMANIC compared to the other languages
German, Dutch, Saxon, Scandinavian etc, and English lacks maybe more than
half of the basic root words the others do have in common.
That's not a shame but it is a fact.  Gruesli, Ingmar
((I hope no one will think hearing the combination of German(ic) and pure of
some nazist or racist meaning))

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Language varieties" [E]

> From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.03 (08) [E]
>
> Well, quite obviously, English monolinguals do not find ANY language
besides
> English "so easy", so I don't see the point of using "their" propositions
to
> make Middelsprake even easier for them just so they won't have the feeling
> of having to deal with a language other than English... and after that,
> they'll want to change the verbs... and the nouns... and the adjectives...

It would be an exercise in futility to devise a blanket language for
polyglots only.

There may be huge difficulties in covering all languages and keeping it easy
enough for those who don't care about languages to be able to learn it, but
I hope Ingmar would see that as a challenge: excluding a segment of the
population as a solution would be damaging to the whole project.

> From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.03 (08) [E]
>
> MIDDELSPRAKE is not especially meant to be understood by monolingual
> speakers

OK, you've lost me now  :)  What was the point in doing it? Do polyglots
actually need this?

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Stella en Henno <stellahenno at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.04 (06) [E]

> From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> The following sets of words in three different languages form part of the
> lowest of my three levels. Is anyone prepared to claim that someone
familiar
> with the first language ought to be able to understand the second or that
> knowing the second provides access to the first? Is it conceivable that a
> consistent orthography could bring this about?
>
Some etymological considerations follow.
(I'll add a few nitpicks on spelling too: it seems you are using the old
pre-1980
spelling of West Frisian; I'll add the more modern ones for the benefit of
others on the list)

> jimme/jullie/you (pl)
In fact this is more similar than it might seem, as "jimme" < ji + men
where men = people, so the pronoun ji (which is I believe related to "gij"
in Southern Dutch, and of course jij/jou (Northern Dutch) and even u/uw in
Dutch (both types) plus indication of plural.
The same has happened in Dutch "jullie" < ji + lie(den) (jelui also exists
and many variants based on the same principle). The form *ji (Ingvaeonic)
also occurs (in other forms) in Low Saxon (ie,i'j, jie and many variants)
and also English (ye, only the object form "you" survives and the meaning
was extended to singular as well, as happened with Dutch "jij" as well).
Even in English this was felt as awkward sometimes, so forms like "you all"
(y'all) etc occur in many varieties.
The onject case of "ji" (ji is now no longer used, except in Saterfrisian
(Jie), I believe), which is "jo" (no longer "jou") has become the polite
singular (and plural, sometimes) form....
So basically, these are all forms of *ji with additions/flexion (as in
"you") added...

> hja/zij/they, she
I believe "hja and she both derive from *heo/*hio or some such form.
I believe there are dialects of English that use "shoo" or "hoo" (instead of
they), and
of course "they" is a North Germanic loan...
And in Frisian the form "sij/se" is much more common than "hja", which is
only really used in dialy language in the South East of the province..

> dou bist/jij bent/you are (sing)
"are" is again North Germanic, the difference between jij/you and do used to
be
less (English also has "thou bist" if one goes back long enough, and "thou"
still occurs in dialects.

> ik wie/ik was/I was
(the even older spelling of "ik wie" was "ik wier", which looks more like
German "ich war";
a consequence of older z-r alternation in this verb....

> jimme wiene/jullie waren/you were
(even older spelling "jimme wierne" < "wierene" (< werene), with regular
ie-a alternation between Frisian and Dutch forms (like jier - jaar - year,
skiep - schaap - sheep)

> hwa?/wie?/who?
(modern spelling "wa", but the older shows the old "hw" sound, which was
reversed in spelling in English, while the h- won in pronounciation...)

> hawwe/hebben/to have
(Minority dialects do have "habbe" and "hebbe" in Frisian, so the spelling
of Modern West Frisian
made the most "purist" choice (away from Dutch) ....)

> ik hie/ik had/I had
(but in inversion "hied er?" - had he - had hij..., where the -d
resurfaces...)

> ik haw west/ik ben geweest/I have been, I was
> giestou?/ga jij?/are you going? (sing)
(modern spelling "giesto?" )

> ik stie/ik stond/I stood
(but other dialects in Frisian have "stoe" [stu] (< *sto:d), closer to the
English. The n dropped out, probably for "Ingvaeonic reasons" (?). "stie" is
by analogy to "wie" and "hie"; as also is "gie" below)

> ik gie/ik ging/I went
(also "ik gyng", and "ik gong", both quite common)

> dwaen/doen/to do
Modern spelling = dwaan. (from Old Frisian dua, with n added later on, with
a stress shift to -a, which was lengthened to give the modern form)

> ik doch/ik doe/I do
(the -ch in Frisian is a relic from *duhan, as older German also wrote
"tuhn" (I believe)

> wy dogge/wij doen/we do
(ditto)

> ik die/ik deed/I did
(-d resurfaces again in "died er" ; die(d) < de:de, with e: which English
probably shortened to i)

> jaen/geven/to give
(modern spelling jaan; originally another verb than "ik jou" below, from Old
Frisian ia: (to concede)
with later added -n (like dwaan, and a few other verbs)) Indeed a strange
form...
Wasn't "give" North Germanic again?

> ik jow/ik geef/I give
(modern "ik jou" < *jewe, the regular form coresponding to "geve" (eg Middle
Dutch), with
Late Old West Frisian ewe-breaking.

> ik joech/ik gaf/I gave
>
> I've got a list of adjectives, nouns and adverbs but the lack of
formatting
> means it occupies a lot of lines and I'll hold it back for the present.

I agree that mutual comprehension is often impeded by these kind of common
words, but having a "story" (mostly etymological) to explain them might help
people see more commonalities then they normally would have, maybe. Nice
contribution.

Henno Brandsma

----------

From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.01 (16) [E]

> From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Language varieties
Hi John,
You are  not a spoilsport . I Like discussions  like that, as long as
we do not say that we are right, because we are right.
And i like to discuss things with a good cop of coffee (even better, a
local beer) rather than tea. I just drink tea when i feel  sick or have
a coming feever, just before i go to bed (Sorry ;) )
>
> Luc said:
>> Tacitus distinguishes different tribes and mixes already Celtic and
> Germanic speakers. So German tribes were there  before the so-called
> 'Migratory  Period'.<
> Sorry if I'm being dense but where is "there"?
Western Europe, from Boulogne untill the deltaregions in what is now
the Netherlands.
  Where the  Belgae lived in the times of Julius Caesar
>> When the monks from Ireland came to christianise the people in
>> Flanders, in
> the seventh century, they must have been well understood by the
> locals. I
> assume that the languages were very close.<
> But we can't ignore the possibility that a few of them were linguists
> or
> that they employed interpreters.
Indeed, just a possibility
>  Why would Irish monks have spoken OE? In
> the course of his missionary journeys in the first half of the 8th
> century
> the Anglo-Saxon St Boniface (the 'Apostle of Germany') first went to
> Friesland
That is what i mean with history  that has been "fastened" too much!
The point is: Does "Germania" still mean the same thing as 2000 years
agoo?
The oldest "Vita Bonifatii" (by Willibald) says that he was killed in
"Dockynchirica"
People made that into "Dokkem" in the Netherlands. But the possibility
that it was"Duinkerke" (in France now) is much bigger.
Friesland was also the region of ( French) Flanders. Anglo-Saxons lived
there too.
An other different example:
What people say about the history in the life of "Charlemagne": One can
find the same history in two different cities: Nijmegen in the
Netherlands and Noyon in France (They both used to be called
Noviomagus) So what  is the right historical one?

> and later to Thuringia, Bavaria, Hesse and Saxony. Since it is
> contrary to all linguistic knowledge to suggest that there are close
> similarities between the High German of Bavaria and Frisian or Saxon
With my  Dutch/Flemish i can manage to be understood by High-German
speaking people.
>  the success of Christian missions to the Continent is not in itself
> any kind of
> evidence for the mutual intelligibility of languages. In the other
> direction, St Augustine converted England even though he was from the
> Italian peninsula.
Perhaps it had something to do with the "Longobards" a German tribe.
One of the Longobard kings (Luitprand) did want the body of the saint
in his town Pavia.

Groetjes
luc vanbrabant
oekene

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties

Ron

You wrote:
>Of course I never meant to even as much as imply that a standardized
orthography would bring about excellent mutual comprehension.  It would
simply improve it, perhaps to the level at understanding another variety
pronounced slowly and carefully.<

First, changing the orthography has _no_ impact on the comprehension of
speech.

Second, I assert that however carefully and slowly someone pronounced the
words and phrases in the first "column" of my list they would be
incomprehensible to a speaker of the second language. Does anyone seriously
disagree?

Third, comprehension which is not complete is not comprehension. To repeat,
you can understand what someone is talking about without understanding what
they are saying about it. Read postings to this list for numerous examples!

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Joseph <leafgreen at giga.net.tw>
Subject: is there any language that is logicality by itself?

Joseph (leafgreen at giga.net.tw, from Taiwan) wrote:

Dear LowLands Team:

English is not my mother tongue, but I appreiate it and keep learning it.
But could you please tell me from your point- is there any language that is
logicality by itself? Because I think I don\'t have much sense of logic so,
I want to learn something to help myself...
Thank you in advance~

[Joseph Pan]

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
Subject: Language varieties

Hi, Joseph!

Good to meet you.  Please make sure you read our rules and guidelines
(http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules).

歡迎光臨Lowlands-L!

John,

> First, changing the orthography has _no_ impact on the comprehension of
> speech.

I did not say that, and if it sounded like I did, it must have been poor
phrasing on my part.

I did not mean to say that orthography would solve all problems, just that
it has the potential of *improving* mutual comprehension in writing.  This
implies "relatively."

Regards,
Reinhard "Ron" F. Hahn
Founder & Administrator, Lowlands
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
http://www.lowlands-l.net

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