LL-L "Phonology" 2006.01.09 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 09 January 2006 * Volume 01
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.01.08 (05) [E]

A lot has been written lately by me and others about the pronunciation of
Dutch v, f, w, z, g etc.
What I'm curious about is the question why initial f, s, th in older West-
Germanic became v, z, d (through dh) in Dutch, and if the same voicing
mutation happened in Low Saxon, and in German too.

In Low Saxon and German, both <s> became [z] and th became [d] through [D].
When we look at the orthography it is likely that <f> became [v] as well,
in Middle Low German <v> was the normal way and Modern German still has
many relics like Vater, vier, vor, verstehen, viel etc., next to the more
common <f> of Fuss, fünf, für, fressen, fiel etc. I think the German v's
can be explained because of contrast, maybe in abbreviations too:
vier versus fünf, vor versus für, viel (many) vs. fiel (fell) and Vater
because of the religious "Vater unser"? and the enormous number of words
with prefix ver- that prevented changing it to f-(or ver- seen as weak
form of vor-)?

Anyway, the fact that <v> is [f] in German and Low Saxon (in Germany) must
be a later development, maybe because of the shift from <w> to [v]?
May this latter have to do something with Slavonic? Who knows - you, Ron?

Ingmar

----------

From: R. F. Hahn sassisch at yahoo.com
Subject: Phonology

Moyen, Ingmar!

> May this latter have to do something with Slavonic? Who knows - you, Ron?

I certainly don't, although I've thought about it a lot.  I don't think 
anyone really knows, and there doesn't seem to be anything beyond conjecture 
so far.

If /v/ was ever truly different from /w/ and /f/ (something like in Dutch) 
it may have had to "choose sides" in the process of "polarization," i.e., 
simplification to a voiced vs voiceless system.  Why the simplification? 
Slavonic?  Maybe, but perhaps more likely it's due to Celtic in the south 
(whose substrate may have caused aspiration and affricatization in German), 
later to "invade" the north in the process of Germanization.

By the way, it is interesting to note that in many old varieties of the very 
south (Bayuvarian, Allemannic and Thuringian) you often find voiceless 
consonants where others have voiced ones (e.g., _prudar_ for _brudar_ 
'brother'), some cases being preserved in several modern dialects (e.g., 
[pr}:d@`] or [b_0r}:d@`] 'brother' in certain dialects of Saxony and 
Thuringia).  E.g.,

Bits from Old Bavarian  _Carmen ad deum_, Tegernsee, ca. 920:

   largus dator         milter kepo

    A quo creta         fana demo kemahhot sint

    prece posco         petono pittiu

    christe parce         christ porge

    cedat latro         kilide murdreo

    uti costis         pruuhhan rippeo

    christo theo         christe cote

Old Allemannic _Credo in deo_, St. Gallen, 8th century ([] = Modern German):

   Kilaubu [glaube]
   in kot [Gott] fater almahticun.
   kiscaft [geschafft] himiles enti erda
   enti in Ihesum christ sun sinan ainacun unseran truhtin.

   der inphangan ist fona uuihemu keiste [Geiste]
   kiporan [geboren] fona mariun macadi [Mag(e)d] euuikeru [ewiger]
   kimartrot [gemartert] in kiuualtiu [Gewalt] pilates
   in cruce pislacan [beschlagen] tot enti picraban [begraben]
   stehic. in uizzi


   in drittin take [Tage] erstoont fona totem
   stehic in himil
   sizit az zesuun cotes fateres almahtikin
   dhana chuumftic ist sonen qhekhe enti tote
   kilaubu [glaube]


   in uuhihan keist [Geist]
   in uuiha khirihhun catholica
   uuihero kemeinitha [Gemeinde]
   urlaz suntikero
   fleiskes urstodali


   In liip [Leben] euuikan [ewigen]

>From Middle German: _Alexanderlied_ by Lamprecht the Priest:

   Iz tihte* der paffe Lamprecht   (Strasbourg version)
   Iz tihte* der phaffe Lambret   (Vorau version)
   (*Mod.Germ. _dichte_)

Note further, that aspiration is strongest in southern Alemannic and certain 
southern Bayuvarian and mixed Allemanno-Bayuvarian varieties, and 
phonemically voiced stops tend to be pronounced voiceless (thus essentially 
a system like in Chinese); e.g., Cimbrian of the Carnian Alps north of 
Verona, Italy -- the name Cimbrian (locally _Zimbrisch_ ["ts_hImb_0rIS] ~ 
["ts_hImb_0rIs]) possibly indicating Celtic origin (cf. Welsh _cymraeg_ 
'Welsh').  So my (wild) hypotheis is that Celtic substrates caused the old 
southermost German dialects to acquire a "Chinese-like" aspiration and 
devoicing system that, transported northward, changed into a hybrid in which 
voiced stops are pronounced voiced and voiceless ones are pronounced 
voiceless and more or less strongly aspirated, and that this system finally 
influenced all but the western- and easternmost dialects of German and Low 
Saxon.

Incidentally, southernmost German, especially Allemannic, aspiration tends 
to be so strong that for instance /k/ becomes not only [k_0] (as in 
"mainstream" German and LS) but an affricate: [kx_0] (which is exactly what 
happened in many Mandarin dialects, especially of the northwest).  This is 
consistent with "official" German affricatization of older stops:

/p/ > [p_0] > [pf_0] (> *[f_0] > [f])
/t/ > [t_0] > [ts_0] (> *[s_0] > [s])
/k/ > /kx_0] > (*[x_0] > [x])

E.g.,

pîpe > Pfeife 'pipe'
tû  > tsu: <zu>
watter > vasser <Wasser>
ût > ûz > aus 'out'
kind > Allemannic [kx_0Int] <Kchind>
ma(k)ken > (*makchen >) machen 'to make'

(/t/ > [ts_0] is also found in some Danish and Southern English varieties)

(All this happened in many of the said Mandarin varieties as well.)

While this may be vastly simplifying things, I have a strong hunch that all 
or most features that set German (including Yiddish) off from the Lowlands 
and Nordic Germanic varieties is due to Alpine Celtic influences that 
occurred in the very south and over time spread northward.  So, perhaps the 
minority opinion that German, Yiddish, etc., represent "South Germanic" 
ought to be taken seriously (which would reserve "West German" for the 
Lowlands languages).

Just some thoughts ...

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