LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.03 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.OCT.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: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.02 (01) [E/LS]

Hi, Ingmar and Ron,

> (Or lig ik daar verkeyrd, leyve Jonny?  Segt Jy in Kehdingen _leber_ or
> _lever_, _öber_ or _över_?  Wenn Jy dochen _över_ un den _öben_ segt, den
> neem ik an, dat Joun dialekt de sülvige regel het as Ingmar syn.)
I'm a little bit confused, now.

Obviously I really like to use both versions and often prefer the _v_
(specially in writing), but hitherto nobody tried to improve me.

But, Ron-master- you're quite right. My home dialect is corrupted, maybe
from EFLS or by too much writing/reading and adapting other regions.

Kumpelmenten

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.02 (01) [E/LS]

Strange... We all have -ven in the Netherlands, never -ben, in words like
geven, laeven, bliven, aovend etc, but this is always pronounced [b=m],
never [v=m]. But, of course: ik geve, ik laeve, ik blive etc with a v.
I can imagen that this -ven doesn't exist in Missingsch, because of
German -ben, but Missingsch does have a "voiced ch" [G] as in Dutch,
doesn't it, in other positions than the anlaut? Z.B. in Wagen, fragen,
slagen.  I can't get why after this [G],  [N] in stead of [n] is said,
it makes no sense. It has to be either ["frQ:G=n] or ["frQ:g=N], I'd say,
and also either ["lE:v=n] or ["lE:B=m]. [g] and [k] cause the [n] to be
pronounced as ng [N], but "ch" [x] and "gh" [G] don't, nor do "f" and "v"
make an [m] out of [n], just "p"and "b" do that. So: lopen ["lo:p=m] and
hebben ["hEb=m], but effen ["Ef=n] not *["Ef=m]. And: kiken ["kik=N] but
lachen ["lax=n] not ["lax=N].
I thought these were general phonological rules, but maybe it's different
in Germany?

Ingmar

[rain hEt Sre:b=m]
>Moyen, Ingmar!
>>> Probably the same in Jonny's Low Saxon, and most others. I am curious
how
>> this is in Missingsch, maybe your Low Saxon prono was influenced by your
>> first language?
>
>I hardly think so, Ingmar.  All "Oostersch" speakers of _-v-_ type
varieties
>that I know say _-ven_ [v=m], _-gen_ [g=N] ~ [G=N] and _-sen_ [z=n].
>
>Much though we adore our Jonny, you ought not take his dialect(s) as
>evidence, simply because it is (they are) of the _-ben_ type, *not* of the
>_-v-_ type.  This applies to his native dialect (near Cuxhaven =
_Cuxhoben_,
>see _affbleeben_ in his Hadeln translation) and in the dialect of
>Bremerhaven (_Bremerhoben_) where he lives now, also because he seems to
be
>somewhat conflicted, possibly due to his stay in Eastern Friesland and his
>exposure to the written language (see _mitgeeven_ in the same
translation).
>He writes _-v-_ most of the time, sometimes _-b_.  Even if you don't go by
>how he writes his LS, you may take my word for it that in a large area
>around the Lower Elbe and also in Bremerhaven all varieties are of the
type
>_-b-_, not of the type _-v-_, that _-ben_ thus predominates throughout the
>area.
>
>This includes the dialects of Hamburg, and I say [b=m] when I'm in that
>mode.  Missingsch, too, being German  with a _-b-_ type LS substrate, is
of
>the _-b-_ type and has [b=m].
>
>(Or lig ik daar verkeyrd, leyve Jonny?  Segt Jy in Kehdingen _leber_ or
>_lever_, _öber_ or _över_?  Wenn Jy dochen _över_ un den _öben_ segt, den
>neem ik an, dat Joun dialekt de sülvige regel het as Ingmar syn.)
>
>Ingmar, however, what we are talking about in *your* case are _-v-_
>varieties that make _-ven_ surface as [b=n] or [b=n].  That this is a
>special phonological rule is evidenced by what you write today:
>
>> We, Low Saxons of the Netherlands, could only say *["slQ:G=n]
>> and *["lE:v=n] with [=n], not with [=m] and [=N], because [G] and [v]
are
>> fricatives. But, we never pronounce these words with [G=n] and [v=n],
but
>> with [g=N] and [b=m]: ["slQ:g=N] and ["lE:b=m], or even ["slQ:(=)N:] and
>> ["lE:(=)m:].
>
>> For ["vE:z=n] to be usually [vE:n] it said, but also ["vE:d=n]
>> with a [d].
>
>This clearly points to a pre-nasal hardening rule applying:
>
>[+continous] -> [-continuous] / __ [+nasal]
>
>... if not even ...
>
>[+continous] -> [-continuous] / __ [-continuous]
>
>* The second one would also create words like _he(e)bt_ instead of
>_he(e)ft_.
>
>I rather suspect the second one to apply, thus a non-fricative
assimilation
>rule.
>
>> For ["vE:z=n] to be usually [vE:n] it said, but also ["vE:d=n]
>> with a [d]. I can imagine this [d] is from [r] originally, so [vE:rn] to
>> [vE:dn],
>
>_Wesen_ ["ve:z=n] ~ ["vE:z=n] (~ _ween_ [ve:n] ~ [vE:n]) and _weren_ ~
>_weern_ [veIVn] ~ _wier(e)n_ [vi:Vn] are different words in our dialects:
>the former means 'to be', and the latter means 'were'.

>["slQ:G=N] is another example that we *can't*  pronounced, just like your
>["lE:v=m]. We, Low Saxons of the Netherlands, could only say *["slQ:G=n]
>and *["lE:v=n] with [=n], not with [=m] and [=N], because [G] and [v] are
>fricatives. But, we never pronounce these words with [G=n] and [v=n], but
>with [g=N] and [b=m]: ["slQ:g=N] and ["lE:b=m], or even ["slQ:(=)N:] and
>["lE:(=)m:].
>Probably the same in Jonny's Low Saxon, and most others. I am curious how
>this is in Missingsch, maybe your Low Saxon prono was influenced by your
>first language?
>
>For ["vE:z=n] to be usually [vE:n] it said, but also ["vE:d=n]
>with a [d]. I can imagine this [d] is from [r] originally, so [vE:rn] to
>[vE:dn], because the verb has a past [va:rn]. Maybe even [vErd=n] to
>become has something to do with it?
>
>Ingmar

----------

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

Jonny:

> My home dialect is corrupted

But we love you anyway.  Besides, don't you think that "Jonnified" is a much 
nicer word than "corrupted"?

Ingmar:

> Strange... We all have -ven in the Netherlands, never -ben, in words like
> geven, laeven, bliven, aovend etc, but this is always pronounced [b=m],
> never [v=m]. But, of course: ik geve, ik laeve, ik blive etc with a v.

Hence the stop assimilation rule I posited in my last posting in this 
thread.  It makes a lot of sense, even though it is limited to a certain 
area.

> I can imagen that this -ven doesn't exist in Missingsch, because of
> German -ben, but Missingsch does have a "voiced ch" [G] as in Dutch,
> doesn't it, in other positions than the anlaut? Z.B. in Wagen, fragen,
> slagen.

Firstly, you need to bear in mind that "Missingsch" is a catch-all label for 
German varieties on Low Saxon substrate, that they are mostly urban, that 
they are nearly as diverse as the Low Saxon dialects that influenced them, 
that they tend to share features with those Low Saxon dialects, and that 
large cities like Hamburg have several Low Saxon dialects and also more than 
one Missingsch (at least used to).

Frigative /g/ ([G]) is not common around the Lower Elbe, is absent from 
Hamburg Low Saxon and Missingsch.  So you can only get the sequence 
[...g=N].

/...d-n/ -> [...d=n]   /...t-n/ -> [...t=n]
/...z-n/ -> [...z=n]   /...s-n/ -> [...s=n]

/...b-n/ -> [...b=m]   /...p-n/ -> [...p=m]
/...w-n/ -> [...v=m]* (/...v-n/ -> [...v=m])** (/...f-n/ -> [...f=m])***

/...g-n/ -> [...g=N]   /...k-n/ -> [...k=N]
/...x-n/ -> [...x=N] / [...C=N] ~ [...C=n]****

* in _Löwen_ 'lions', _Möwen_ ~ _Meiwen_ 'gulls', etc.
** defaults to /...b-n/ -> [...b=m] in these dialects
*** only in Missingsch (e.g., _hoffen_ ["hOf=m]), in Low Saxon only in loans
**** back-vocalic / front-vocalic
       (e.g., _lachen_ ["lax=N] 'laugh', _hechen_ ["hEC=N] ~ [hEC=n] 'pant')

However, I guess the above applies in normal, rapid speech.  When 
enunciating slowly and emphatically, the endings may all be [=n].

If you include the "folksy" German dialects in and around Berlin under 
"Missingsch," then you do get the fricative [G] for intervocalic /g/ (e.g., 
_fragen_), but I'm I have a feeling that the /n/ assimilation rule does not 
apply.  (Can anyone tell us if it's ["fra:G at n], ["fra:G=n] or ["fra:G=N]?) 
I guess this applies elsewhere as well, wherever the original Low Saxon 
dialect has/had [G].

Does this make it clearer, Ingmar?  Note that the rule applies generally 
(except that I tend toward [...C=n] rather than [...C=N] for some reason). 
I should have clarified this earlier.

Kumpelmenten,
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.
=======================================================================