LL-L "Phonology" 2007.10.23 (01) [E/Z]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  23 October 2007 - Volume 01
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2007.10.22 (05) [E]

If I remember correctly, Older Afrikaans and / or certain "coloured"
varieties of Afrikaans show something similar to Scots in having
diphthonguized î, but unchanged û: 'y' as in St Afr 'y' / Dutch 'ij' in
words like 'ys', but 'uu' for St Afr/Dutch 'ui' in words like 'huus',
not 'huis'. But I'm sure our SA members can tell us more about this.

Btw it's not Dutch /ai/ (you wrote: ii > əý ~> aý), but ij = /ei/, and
I
think it may rather have been (ii > Ii > ei > Ei). In many Eastern
dialects of Dutch, and in Low Saxon and Limburgish, 'ij' is still
pronounced [Ij].

Groeten
Ingmar

 R. F. Hahn schreef:
This, and various other incursions, is said to explain the presence of
Norse words in Saxon dialects of the west of England. For example, as
someone pointed out on the list recently, the pronunciation of
"house/hause" is fairly consistent across dialects from German to
English, but in Scots it's "hoose" /hus/ because of Norse influence. In
Somerset dialects, this is "huish" (such as "Huish Epsicopi" (Bishop's
House), near Yeovil, and "Huish Park" (the Yeovil football ground).

How do you know it's a case of Norse influence and not simply conservative
phonology, i.e. non-participitation in diphthongization that occurred in
English?

It's similar in Low Saxon and West Flemish versus German and Dutch:

Scots (uu): *hús* > hoose, t*ún > *toon, *út > oot*
Saxon (uu): *hûs* > Huus, t*ûn > *Tuun, *ût > uut*
W. Flemish (uu > üü): *hûs* > uus, t*ûn > *tuun, *ût > *uut

English (uu > au): *hús* > house, t*ún > *town, *út > out*
German (uu > au): *hûs* > Haus, z*ûn > *Zaun, *ûz > aus*
 Dutch (uu > üü > üi > œü): *hûs* > huus > huis, t*ûn > tuun *>* *tuin, *ût
> uut *>* *uit

Or are you saying that Scots resisted this particular diphthongization
because of Norse influence? (The Nordic languages just never underwent any
of those changes.)

Interestingly, while Saxon and West Flemish resisted all diphthongization,
Scots did participate in the the diphthongization of /ii/ (the non-rounded
counterpart of /uu/), at least to about the stage English was at in Early
Modern (Elizabethan) English: /ii/ > [əý]; e.g.

Saxon (ii): *tîd > Tied, b**î > bie, m**în > mien**, l**îna > Lien***
W. Flemish (ii): *tîd > tied, b**î > bie, **m**în > mien, **lîne > lien***

Scots (ii > əý): *tíd* > tide, b*í* > by*, **líne > line*
 English (ii > *əý > aý): *tíd* > tide, b*í > by**, **líne > line***
 German (ii > *əý > aý): z*ît > Zeit, b**î > bei, **lîna > Leine*
 Dutch (ii > əý ~> aý): *tîd > tijd, b**î > bij, **lîne > lijn*

----------

From: Jaap Liek <ir.j.liek at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2007.10.22 (05) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn < sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Sandy, I meant to ask you about something you said under
> "Etymology" ...
>
> This, and various other incursions, is said to explain the presence of
> Norse words in Saxon dialects of the west of England. For example, as
> someone pointed out on the list recently, the pronunciation of
> "house/hause" is fairly consistent across dialects from German to
> English, but in Scots it's "hoose" /hus/ because of Norse influence.
> In
> Somerset dialects, this is "huish" (such as "Huish
> Epsicopi" (Bishop's
> House), near Yeovil, and "Huish Park" (the Yeovil football ground).
>
>
> How do you know it's a case of Norse influence and not simply
> conservative phonology, i.e. non-participitation in diphthongization
> that occurred in English?
>
> It's similar in Low Saxon and West Flemish versus German and Dutch:
>
> Scots (uu): hús > hoose, tún > toon, út > oot
> Saxon (uu): hûs > Huus, tûn > Tuun, ût > uut
> W. Flemish (uu > üü): hûs > uus, tûn > tuun, ût > uut
>
> English (uu > au): hús > house, tún > town, út > out
> German (uu > au): hûs > Haus, zûn > Zaun, ûz > aus
> Dutch (uu > üü > üi > œü): hûs > huus > huis, tûn > tuun > tuin, ût >
> uut > uit
>
> Or are you saying that Scots resisted this particular diphthongization
> because of Norse influence? (The Nordic languages just never underwent
> any of those changes.)
>
> Interestingly, while Saxon and West Flemish resisted all
> diphthongization, Scots did participate in the the diphthongization
> of /ii/ (the non-rounded counterpart of /uu/), at least to about the
> stage English was at in Early Modern (Elizabethan) English: /ii/ >
> [əı]; e.g.
>
> Saxon (ii): tîd > Tied, bî > bie, mîn > mien, lîna > Lien
> W. Flemish (ii): tîd > tied, bî > bie, mîn > mien, lîne > lien
>
> Scots (ii > əı): tíd > tide, bí > by, líne > line
> English (ii > *əı > aı): tíd > tide, bí > by, líne > line
> German (ii > * əı > aı): zît > Zeit, bî > bei, lîna > Leine
> Dutch (ii > əı ~> aı): tîd > tijd, bî > bij, lîne > lijn
>
> Incidentally, what is interesting is that (broad) Australian (and New
> Zealand) English is now beginning to undergo another round of this.
> What in other English dialects are [uː] (too, soon, boot) and [iː]
> (tea, eel, deep) have developed into "slight" diphthongs, something
> like [ʊʉː] ~ [ɤʉː] (too, soon, boot) and [ıiː] ~ [əiː] (tea, eel,
> deep) respectively, probably something very similar to the diphthongs
> English had in words like "house" and "tide" in late Middle English,
> just prior to the Early Middle English stage.
>
> I believe that this is the reason why what in other English dialects
> is [aı] (might, bite, p ie) Downunder had to shift to an open [ɑı]
> (that to many uninitiated people sounds like "oy") because /ɛı/ (mate,
> bait, p ay) became [aı] in order to distance itself from /ii/ (->
> [ıiː] ~ [əiː], meat, beet, pea) for distinction purposes. At the same
> time, /au/ (l ouse, crown, foul) shifted to [ɜʊ] to distance itself
> from /uu/ (-> [ʊʉː] ~ [ɤʉː], loose, croon, fool). This may have begun
> in Cockney and developed farther Downunder.
>
> One sort of shift tends to cause other shifts to become necessary. The
> domino effect?
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

In 't Zeeuws is aolles 't zelfde as in 't Vlaems (W.Flemish) baolve
lien,ons kenne wel een liene vor een paerd.
--
Jaap Liek <ir.j.liek at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071023/0809a42f/attachment.htm>