LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.09 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.MAR.2005 (04) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.08 (10) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
[skip]

> I admit that once in a while it crosses my mind that English _gh_ [x]
> > _f_
> is due to a Celtic substrate.  But I usually quickly dismiss it for
> lack of
> evidence.
>
> Besides, it's not as though the alternation between velar/uvular and
> labial/labiodental fricatives is confined to Britain.  Consider the
> following:
>
> Dutch: lach [...x]
> LowSax: lach [...x]
> Scots: lauch [...x]
> Engl: laugh [...f]
>
WFris: laitsje, past tense "lake", so here there was a "hardening"

> Dutch: genoeg [...x]
> LowSax: noug [...x]
> WFries: genôch ~ genoch [...x]
The ge- is a later addition, by Dutch and/or Low Saxon influence.
Eg nôch also exists, but means "cooked" (as opposed to raw), and is (I
suppose of the same origin).
Also in compounds nôch is used (besternôch = goed enough).

> Scots: enouch [...x]
> Engl: enough [...f]
>
> Dutch: ruw
> LowSax: ruug [...x]
> Scots: roch [...x]
> Engl: rough [...f]

WFrisian rûch [rux]

> Dutch: taai
> LowSax: taag [...x]
> Scots: teuch [...x]
> Engl: tough [...f]
>
> Dutch: dracht [...xt]
> LowSax: dracht [...xt]
> Scots: draucht [...xt]
> Engl: draught [...ft]
> < *drag- 'carry', 'pull', 'draw'
>
WFris "dracht" is also a normal word. Eg the place name "Drachten".

> Dutch: gracht [...xt]
> Dutch, Middle: graft ~ gracht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> LowSax: graft ~ gracht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> Engl: graft
> < *grav- 'dig'

WFris grêft

> Dutch: lucht [...xt]
> LowSax: luft ~ lucht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> WFries: luft ~ lucht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> Scots: laft
> Engl: loft

Also "loft" in WFRis, but this is "sky", not "air", which still is the
Dutch loan "lucht".

> Dutch: zacht [...xt]
> LowSax: sacht [...xt]
> WFries: sêft
> Scots: saft
> Engl: soft
>
> Dutch, Middle: nifte ~ nichte [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> Saxon, Middle: nifte ~ nichte [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> Engl: nift (arch. for 'niece')

WFris also had (19th century) "nift", but this has died out. Now
"nicht" and "neef" are used (both from Dutch).

> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron
>
Mei freonlike groetnis,

Henno Brandsma

----------

From: Helge Tietz <helgetietz at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.08 (11) [E]


"Th" being replaced by a v or f-like sound in Newcastle? Nee way man, I have
lived for a long time in the toon and I never heard a Geordie replacing a th
with v or f, in fact I think they have the most "correct" th-pronunciation
of all, even post-vocalic th in words such as "bath" or "south" it is
distinctive "th" unlike most other variants of English, famously Tynemouth
is exactly pronouced Tyne-mouth and not Tynemif as it would be in the south.
Perhaps the informand of the Newcastle v/f-th-pronunciation was a student
from the south. The southern v/f-pronunciation is occasionally a feature to
make fun of southernes when they would say "I bought free ice-creams"
instead of "I bought three ice-creams" and the usual reply is "why did you
buy them if they were for free?".

Helge

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.08 (10) [E]


Ron wrote:
"I admit that once in a while it crosses my mind that English _gh_ [x] > _f_
is due to a Celtic substrate. But I usually quickly dismiss it for lack of
evidence."

I cannot think of many examples of that sound change in the Celtic
languages. It must be one of the very few that do not occur! Besides, given
the examples of a fairly regular sound change within West Germanic it seems
that the phenomenon is an innovation within English and Scots.

Perhaps we could date the emergence of the changes by reference to Early
Middle English texts? Most of those sound shifts seem to be recorded in
Chaucer, if memory serves.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.08 (11) [E]


Gary wrote:
"I've never heard 've' for 'the' - Initial voiced 'th' has actually lost its
fricative feel, but initially
it's still dental (or possibly substituted with 'd', but not 'v'). In the
middle of a word it has the usual fricative feel and it's here that it can
be substituted with 'v'."

I used to hear it a lot in Cornwall, although it was by no means a standard
feature of any variant of Cornish English - more of sort of speech defect
common among teenagers. I have also heard it used by individuals in
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. _ve_ for _the_ seems to be widespread, but
not the speech of any one group.

It reminds me of another sort of phonemic compromise (one whose existence I
have mentioned many times before), namely that of [r] > [vr] in English
variants with very weak or non-existent [r] - e.g., _vrait_ for _right_. It
seems to be more commonplace in northern areas, perhaps as a voiced form of
the southern Jonathan Ross-style [r] > [wr]. Like _ve_ for _the_ it seems to
be down to the individual, rather than the standard of any particular group.

Incidentally, I have only ever heard it in England and Cornwall.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Þjóðríkr Þjóðreksson <didimasure at hotmail.com>
Subject: Phonology


Ron wrote
>Dutch: ruw
>LowSax: ruug [...x]
>Scots: roch [...x]
>Engl: rough [...f]

But ruig also exists.
Being far away from home I cannot consult my etymological dictionary but
"ruig" looks me more like the corresponding cognate than ruw, it might also
be a related word but then the /w/ looks strange towards me.

>Dutch: taai
>LowSax: taag [...x]
>Scots: teuch [...x]
>Engl: tough [...f]

Here Dutch /i/ originally filled the hiatus, coming from some Germanic root
that might have looked like *tanx- > *tãx/tãh where Dutch lost /x/ or /h/ in
medial position or final when the inflected forms had it medially. The
preservation of the English /gh/ is -I assume- relicted from its final
position in Old English. Compare "thigh" with Dutch "dij".
Maybe the /w/ in ruw is also from a hiatus position, but I'll look that up
tomorrow. Then the "ruig" vs. "ruw" could be caused by Verner's law.
Just a wild thought though.

Diederik Masure

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