LL-L "Language varieties" 2006.01.26 (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)
=======================================================================

26 January 2006 * Volume 01
=======================================================================

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <Ben.Bloomgren at asu.edu>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2006.01.25 (02) [E]

Connemara dialect slenderises final consonants in feminine nouns and changes 
the plural ending  -anna to -annaí and -acha to -achaí.

Returning to the fold also, has anybody researched the possibility that 
Celtic dialects influenced Roman Latin to do the broad versus slender thing, 
hence causing the Romance languages and later English to do the same? What's 
the broader term for broad and slender outside the Celtic sphere if there be 
one?
Ben

-----------

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

I often wonder that the apparent fact (?) that Old English had palatal 
alveolars (<c> [tS] (tsh) and <sc> [S] (sh)) becore other Germanic varieties 
is due to a Celtic (Briton) substratum, unless it is something that 
developed from Old Frisian varieties.

Old Franconian, Old Saxon and Old (High) German do not seem to have had 
these sounds.  Where Old English has <sc> they have <sk> ~ <sc>, supposedly 
pronounced as [sk] (later to develop to <sch> in Middle Dutch, Middle Saxon 
and Middle (High) German, assumedly pronounced [sx], in Modern German, 
Yiddish and all but the westernmost Modern Low Saxon varieties as [S] (sh), 
remaining [sk] or [sx] in the the rest).  North Germanic varieties had none 
of this, Danish still does not, and others developed it (and similar sounds) 
fairly recently from <sk(j)>.  Dutch still have do not have [S] (sh) as a 
native sound.

As most of you know, older _t_ and _tt_ changed into written <z(z)> as one 
of the first special features of Old (High) German (ca. 750-1050).  This 
have been identified as standing for two phonemes commonly represented by 
<z> and <ʒ> or <z̢> (IPA zh or hooked z) in traditional Germanistics.  The 
former is supposed to stand for [ts] (as in Modern German) and the latter 
for an "s-like sound" (corresponding to <s(s)> and <ß> in Modern German) --  
hence _tunga_ > _zunga_ ["ts_hUN(g)a] (> _Zunge_ ["tz(_h)UN@]) 'tongue', 
_kazza_ > ["k_hats(_h)a] (> _Katze_) 'cat', and _watar_ > _wazzar_ 
(_waz̢z̢ar_) (> _Wasser_ ["vas@(r)]) 'water'.  Since descriptions of the 
latter sound are vaguely given as "s-like," one wonders what exactly it was 
like and how it differed from <s>.

As can be expected, I have a "wild" hypothesis in this respect as well.  I 
rather suspect that <s> was pronounced not as an alveo-palatal as it is in 
Modern German (also in Modern English) but a bit farther back, somewhat 
closer to /S/ (sh), namely as it occurs extensively (i.e. in many dialects) 
in languages that have no /s/ - /S/ opposition.  Examples are Dutch, Danish, 
Finnish, Castilian (Spanish) and Greek.  Furthermore, I suspect that what 
are now alveolar consonants in German were pronounced as alveo-dentals in 
Old German, as they are in most Romance languages and, I'm told, in many 
Insular Celtic varieties.  This would cause the High German shift _t-_ / 
_tt_ to produce [ts] and _-t-_ to produce [s].  Thus there were two kinds of 
"s": alveolar (<z>) and alveo-dental <z̢> (both voiceless).

(In Castilian, today's written <s> versus <c>/<z> are supposed to have 
experienced similar developments, where Northern Castilian developed the 
latter into an interdental /T/ (th) sound and other varieties developed all 
of them into /s/.)

What do you think about this?  It seems plausible to me in the light of 
information found in today's languages without /S/ and the prevalence of 
alveo-dental /t/ in Modern Romance.  The assumption that Old Upper German 
has Gallo-Romance substrates may be relevant also.

I am almost done with an Old German translation of the wren story.  If I 
produce a sound file to go with it I intend to use the hypothetical 
pronunciation I described above.  Are any of you able to dissuade me to do 
so?

Thanks, and 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.
======================================================================