LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.02.18 (01) [D/E]

Tue Feb 19 00:24:52 UTC 2008

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  - 18 February 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page.
=========================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2008.02.16 (01) [E]

I forgot to mention an important feature of Afrikaans that it has in
common with Hollandic dialects, but definitely not with Zeeuws:
the drop of -t in Dutch consonant clusters sucht as -st, -ft, -cht.
In Zeeuws this doesn't occur, but in many Hollandic, especially from Zuid-
Holland, e.g. The Hague, final -t/-d are dropped in consonant clusters.
Dutch hoofd => hoof, Dutch nest => nes, Dutch jacht => jach, etc.

Another one is diminutive -ie, which is typical Hollandic, but not Zeeuws:
Dutch nestje => nessie, Dutch huisje => huisie, Dutch boompje => boompie
etc. in all Hollandic dialects, and in Afrikaans, but not in Zeeuws.

I think that Afrikaans is mostly from 17 century Standard Dutch, with a
lot of Zuid-Holland dialect. Probably this dialect was a bit closer to
Zeeuws in that time in some aspects than in the present, geographically
it's not too far to the Zeeland islands from Zuid-Holland.

Ingmar

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2008.02.15 (03) [E]

Yes, that an incorrect but very popular myth, especially among Zeeland
people themselves.
If we compare Afrikaans, Dutch and Zeeuws, we'll find that Afrikaans is in
almost all phonologic features closer to Dutch and the Hollandic dialects
than to Zeeuws.

In Zeeuws, Dutch H is dropped, not so in Afrikaans which keeps H
In Zeeuws, Dutch G [x] is pronounced H, not in Afrikaans where it's G [x]
In Zeeuws, Dutch UI is pronounced [y], not so in Afrikaans where it's UI
In Zeeuws, Dutch Y/IJ is pronounced [i], not in Afrikaans where it's Y
In Zeeuws, Dutch -EN [@] is pronounced [n], not in Afr. where it's -E [@]
In Zeeuws, Dutch JOU, NOU with [au] is JOE, NOE with [u] in Afr. JOU, NOU
In Zeeuws, Dutch AA [a:] is pronounced AE [E:]/[e:], in Afr. AA [a:], [Q:]

The only thing Afrikaans and Zeeuws have in common is the pronunciation of
EE and OO as falling diphthongs, but in older Hollandic dialects that was
the prono too, so probably Afrikaans has it from there.

I know very well out of my own experience how Zeeuws and Dutch with a
Zeeuws accent sound, because my mother spoke it with her family all the
time, and I can assure you it's very different from Afrikaans.
But the myth is persistent, even my mom things it's true...

Ingmar

----------

From: J.Liek <ir.j.liek at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.02.17 (02) [E]

> From: Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za <mailto:ezinsser at icon.co.za>>
- Show quoted text -
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2008.02.15 (03) [E]
>
> Hi all,
>
> Ron, not coincidental at all but features strongly in Dutch /
> Afrikaans comparative studies.
>
> Elsie Zinsser
>
> I assume many of you remember the thesis according to which most or
> all non-European "Dutch"-based language varieties are primarily based
> on Zeelandic (/Zeêuws/). This makes sense historically, considering
> Zeeland's seafaring traditions. And there appear to be linguistic
> indications as well, some of which Marco Evenhuis told us about two or
> three years ago.
>
> I have been listening to the Zeelandic and West Flemish translations
> of our wren story, since we are dealing with closely related varieties
> that ought to be treated as one group were it not for political
> distinctions):
>
> ·         *(1) Kwadendamme Zeelandic*
> http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/zeeuws.php
>
> ·         (2) Nieuwport West Flemish
> http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/westvlams2.php
>
> ·         *(3) Roeselare West Flemish*
> http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/westvlams.php
>
> On that basis I took another look at the translations without audio
> files in order to find orthographic indicators:
>
> ·         *(4) Oost Souburg Zeelandic*
> http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/zeeuws-oostsouburg.php
>
> ·         (5) Ostend West Flemish
> http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/westvlams3.php
>
> I concentrated on falling diphthongs, namely on those that tend to be
> spelled /eê/ and /oô/ (~ /ô/) and tend to be pronounced [eˑɛ] ~ [iˑe]
> (SAMPA [e:\E] ~ [i:\e]) and [oˑɔ] ~ [uˑo] (SAMPA [o:\O] ~ [u:\o])
> respectively. These seem to be present in all of the above except in
> the Nieuwport dialect. Furthermore, in Western Brabantish (which has
> Flemish substrata) I found what I consider a relative set of
> diphthongs, not in the (6) Antwerp dialect
> (http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/brabants-antwerpen.php) but in the
> *(7) Merchtem dialect*
> (http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/brabants.php): [iˑə] (SAMPA [i:\@])
> and [uˑə] (SAMPA [u:\@]) respectively. These are the equivalents of
> what in (8) Standard Dutch are spelled /ee/ and /oo/ respectively,
> originally indicating long monophthongs: [e:] and [o:] respectively,
> though in some dialects the are now pronounced as rising diphthongs:
> [eˑɪ] (SAMPA [e:\I]) and [oˑʊ] (SAMPA [o:\U]) respectively.
>
> This is indeed very similar to, in some cases virtually identical
> with, *(9) Afrikaans*: /ee/ [iˑe] and /oo/ [uˑo] (SAMPA [i:\e] and
> [u:\o]); e.g.,
>
> ·         */keer/** *(time, occasion):
> (1) /keêr/
> (3) /keê/
> (4) /keêr/
> (7) /kieë/
> (9) /keer/ [kiˑer]
>
> ·         */groot/** *(great, large, big):
> (1) /groôt/
> (3) /groôt/
> (4) /groôt/
> (7) /groeët/
> (9) /groot /[xruˑot]
>
> Be it related or coincidental, there appears to be a common
> phonological feature in Flemish-Zeelandic and Afrikaans.
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron
>
> ----------
>
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com <mailto:sassisch at yahoo.com>>
- Show quoted text -
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> Thanks, Elsie, and Ingmar as well.
>
> Of course I never expected the roots of Afrikaans to be traceable to a
> single Dutch dialects or dialect group. After all, early emigrants
> came from many parts of the Netherlands, and I am not aware of any
> dominant group. Yes, officials, merchants and church people dominated
> politically, but I rather suspect that they, too, spoke with whatever
> "accents" were native to them. Most people were most likely not
> particularly strong in what at the time approached Standard Dutch, and
> they got by by using their own dialects or dialect-colored
> approximations and by understanding those of others. Throw into this
> mix Indonesians and indigenous Africans who approximated whatever
> forms of Dutch as a second or third language,. And never forget the
> large number of French-speaking Huguenots ...
>
> When you deal with mixes of this sort in conjunction with low literacy
> rates (not to mention the scarcity of model speakers) you tend to end
> up with a conglomeration of features from various contributing
> language varieties. Indonesian slaves approximated whatever speech
> forms they heard in the households for which they worked. Being
> linguistically diverse to begin with, they taught each other their
> "Cape Dutch" approximations, and the nannies among them used them with
> the European children for which they cared, for whom these were
> virtually native languages (since nannies tended to spend more time
> with children than did the children's parents). When people of
> part-European-part-African descent came to be grouped together they
> probably began to develop their own varieties on this basis. (This may
> well be the genesis of Griqua Afrikaans, for instance:
> http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/griekwa.php.)
>
> In a word, I agree that Zeelandic is not /the/ ancestor of Afrikaans.
> However, I do believe that the falling diphthong feature is likely to
> be a contribution, if not of Zeelandic alone, of southwestern Dutch
> dialects (possibly varieties with Frisian substrata, since they are
> predominantly coastal dialects).
>
> This begs the question if phonological feature selection in hybrids of
> closely related language varieties depends only on model predominance
> or also on native limitations and preferences/selection of those that
> approximate a set of model varieties. In other words, were falling
> diphthongs perhaps preferable to speakers of Malayic, Khoi-San and
> Nguni-Bantu languages?
>
> When we discuss such hybridization processes we might also bear in
> mind that the early development of Old English may well have followed
> similar patterns. In this case we may want to pay special attention to
> the possible role of Old Frisian and women, which may explain the
> Anglo-Frisian branch hypothesis.
>
> Musing,
> Reinhard/Ron
>
Mijn zoon werkte in 1983 aan de bouw van een papierfabriek in de buurt
van Nelspruit. Hij spreekt Nederlands maar kan Zeeuws goed verstaan
omdat hij thuis van mij niets anders hoorde. Het contact met Afrikaners
was relatief makkelijk omdat het hem vaak deed denken aan mijn Schouws
(Noord-Zeeuws).
Als voorbeeld herinner ik me nog vleis (=vlees in Nederlands)
Grt.
Jaap Liek

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
   J. Liek
Boulevard de Ruyter 140 * 4381 KD * Vlissingen
tel: 0118 435 825  ||  mob: 0640 04 64 50
http://oostgat.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080218/88320fb7/attachment.htm>