LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.20 (07) [E]

Fri Sep 24 00:10:09 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 23.SEP.2004 (07) * 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: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties

I'm sorry this is a bit long but I didn't think I should edit it
significantly. I wrote to Dr Katie Lowe about her contribution to the TV
programme previously mentioned as follows:

I was interested to see your contribution to Francis Pryor's TV programme on
Anglo-Saxon origin myths because I have been engaged in a lively debate with
colleagues on the antecedents of Old English. In Dr Pryor's book he suggests
that OE contains traces of non-Germanic grammar and words, though I think
your point was rather that errors were made in acquiring the new language
than that elements were transferred.

One of the things which I thought was fairly well established was that there
were surprisingly few words of Brythonic origin in OE - just a few
geographical terms and placenames. This seems hard to explain if the
acquisition of the new language took place gradually over centuries. My
other thought was that even if the ci-devant Romano-Brits had made a
deliberate decision to adopt newfangled Anglo-Saxon ways, giving up literacy
doesn't seem to be a very bright idea. As far as I know, however, there is
no evidence of writing in the Latin alphabet until the 7th century, nor are
there many runic inscriptions. So, have you published anything in this area,
or failing that can you give me any specific examples of insular effects on
OE?

Dr Lowe replied:

Recent research has been to an extent supportive of Pryor's views and has
arisen out of developments in the theories concerning language contact; such
research suggests that some of the differences between English and other
Germanic languages may be attributable to Celtic influence. However, you
should understand that my interview with Francis actually lasted longer than
two hours, during which I of course made the point about the paucity of
Brittonic loanwords in Old English.  Ultimately I wasn't able to support his
ideas about the Anglo-Saxon invasions largely because of the place-name
evidence, although it's certainly true that the traditional interpretation
has to be revised to an extent.  The acquisition (or loss) of literacy
depends very much on circumstance and the needs of society and is certainly
not during this period regarded as an indispensable technology.
I didn't realise that Francis had published a book alongside the series
until I saw the plug for it, so I don't know whether his statements on it
are based on his understanding of what I told him or whether he had a
different source.  From what you say [above], we're both right; contact
between languages often results in mistakes in the target language during
acquisition. In a related process, elements of structure from the native
language is transferred to the language being learned and in time can
permanently change the target language for all speakers.
My own research interests are somewhat later than this and I haven't
published in this area.  One recent book that I have found interesting is
/The Celtic Roots of English/, eds Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola and Heli
Pitkänen, Studies in Languages, 37 (Joensuu, 2002).

End of quote

It seems to me (John) that

1. Although Dr Lowe appeared as a witness in favour of Pryor's case she
actually has no specific relevant linguistic expertise and in fact disagrees
with his overall argument.

2. She makes only general statements about how languages interfere with one
another.

3. Pryor presented the decision of the Romano-Brits to acquire the new AS
culture as a very deliberate act. To say that literacy was lost casually
seems inconsistent. No "Hengist loves Horsa" or anything. I wonder if there
are other cases of literacy loss occurring under conditions like those which
Pryor is positing.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.23 (03) [E]

Hi John, & All:

Subject: Language varieties

1. I never said that Bede lied. The concept of historiography in his time
> was very different from ours. See Shockspure's "Richard III" for a
possible
> later example.

I wouldn't dream of saying that of YOU, but for a reconstructionist there is
really no other option, hey?
But I don't think Bede lied or even - er - fudged either. If he was willing
to we would have a far more sanitised 'Ecclesiastical History of the Anglo
Saxon People' than we do. His work is just not hagiography.
As for Sheikspur's Richard III; his insurmountable problem was the
authoratitive sources at his disposal. The Tudors did a magnificant smear
job on him, that lasts in the public mind to this day. But the Dons know
better; even crime writers & readers know better, considering that work,
'The Daughter of Time' (by Josephine Tay, I think). A good read.

> 2. The influence of the Irish church on learning and in particular the
> transmission of Classical Latin texts was a tremendous contribution to
late
> mediaeval and even modern culture. Bryson makes the horrendous error of
> implying that the literary side of the Carolingian Renaissance was
> attributable to St Augustine's conversion of England, rather than to the
> Irish church, though Northumbria was a staging post. (Actually, reading
> Bryson it would be easy to believe that Alcuin of York gave the
Carolingians
> OE rather than Classical Latin.) But the fact that Mark is "tickled" by
the
> use of the half-uncial script to write OE shows how much the Irish
> contribution has been neglected - something which suited Rome very well.

Ja, only one point: Wasn't Alcuin an ethnic Cumbrian - Welsh?

> 3. According to Mark's theory of the perpetual genetic dominance of the
> substrate population the most common genetic inheritance in the USA is
> Native American, in NZ Maori/Polynesian and in the W Indies Carib.

Bear in mind I refer to a gene pool, not a territory. If the researchers
aver that the present population - or gene pool - of the English is
fundamentally Celtic, then they would look for matches with the Welsh, &
non-matches with the Continental N.W. European, say. If they hold that it is
fundamentally Teutonic, then the opposite.
Now, meitochondrial matching follows the maternal line, & is dependant on
mutations over a long period of time - too long, in my opinion, to
differentiate between any Indo-European community (as a whole), though an
individual's line may be traced back to one of seven paleolithic ancestral
mothers (according to the latest info). Now, in order to derive
statistically useful - sorry - significant data on the community as a whole,
this meitochondrial testing must be carried out on all of the present
generation, or at least a statistically significant majority. This has not -
I wonder if it could - be done. The only place where this research has been
attempted to date is Iceland, where they are matching EVERYONE. But they
can: Iceland has an old, established & largely isolated population. Nakhas
to them, as the Jews say.
The Y-chromosome has a similar problem. There are about ten ancestral
fathers.
The European gene-pool as a whole manifests less variation than that
established on any other continent. Plain tissue-matching at least would
give useful data sooner, if only because there is already something of that
order already available - blood & tissue typing for blood & organ banks. The
preponderence of for example 0-neg in the Basque population is telling,
indeed, to researchers looking for their relationship to Georgians. This
sort of stuff is very interesting, & has been used for years already.
I'm rather behind in these matters, but I refer to "National Geographic' of
October 1999 (The Secrets of the Gene) & 'Time' magazine of April 2001 (Meet
Your Ancestor).

John, let me come back to you on the subject of 'meadow'.
'Skalk' is a popular name in the Afrikaans community, & it is also found in
the word 'marskalk' - English 'marshall'. The boffins reckon the 'shal' -
skalk' survives from a pre-Indo-Germanic European tongue for a servant & the
construction means as it were 'horseboy' from Germanic 'horse plus
pre-Germanic 'servant'. It is a term that has risen from humble origins much
the same as 'knight'.
In the meantime, 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.
======================================================================