LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.06.13 (02) [EN]

Sat Jun 13 20:32:24 UTC 2009

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 13 June 2009 - Volume 02
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

From: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.06.12 (04) [EN]

From: Diederik Masure <didimasure at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2009.06.12 (02) [EN]

Johnny: but in modern Westlauwer frisian it is kaam/kÃƒÂ´m, hmm.
 Greetings,
Diederik

----------

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

Hey, Diederik!

Sure, and in Sater Frisian (the only surviving variety of East Frisian) it
is *koom*, in Fering (FÃƒÂ¶hrÃ‚
North Frisian) it's *kaam*, etc.

http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/seeltersk.php
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/fering.php
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/frysk-info.php

But you seem to be assuming that *kweym* etc. in Eastern Friesland Low Saxon
is due to a Frisian substratum. It doesn't have to be. Apart from having
Frisian substrata, these Low Saxon varieties tend to be rather "archaic",
conservative within a purely Low Saxon context as well

After the Saxon and Dutch political takeovers resulted in the loss of local
Frisian language varieties, East Frisians began to cling to their own
varieties of Low Saxon as one expression of their ethnic identity. Their
linguistic and cultural expressions of East Frisian identity aim at
distinguishing them from other speakers of Low Saxon. Linguistically, their
forms of Low Saxon have been serving as substitutes for lost Frisian ones.
But this is not to say that their distinction relies entirely on Frisian
substrata. Being used in Germany, lots of Dutch loanwords play another role,
going back to periods when Eastern Friesland was ruled or otherwise directly
influenced by the Netherlands.

According to my experiences, most East Frisians embrace their Frisian roots,
unlike most Low Saxon speakers of Groningen who live nextdoor to relatively
"powerful" communities of West (Westerlauwer) Frisian speakers from whom
their want to distinguish themselves. I am pretty sure that the average
speaker of East Frisian Low Saxon can not distinguish Low Saxon archaisms
(such as *kweym*) from forms that owe to Frisian substrata. Just as long as
it's different from Low Saxon outside their region! I've been told that the
Low Saxon translations of the Harry Potter series were pretty much rejected
in Eastern Friesland because they were written in a "foreign" dialect

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

Hoi Diederik, Ron!
Let's not forget that in Old Frisian we do have forms like "quam" and
"quemen" (single and plural). So at the time the East Frisians shifted their
language, the 2- forms were still present, presumably, so they would have
supported the more conservative varieties of Low Saxon.

Regards,

Henno

----------

From: Diederik Masure <didimasure at hotmail.com>
 Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.06.12 (04) [EN]

De Ron dieje schreef:
 >But you seem to be assuming that *kweym* etc. in Eastern Friesland Low
Saxon is due to a Frisian substratum. It doesn't have to be. Apart
>from having Frisian substrata, these Low Saxon varieties tend to be rather
"archaic", conservative within a purely Low Saxon context as well.

I didn't, I was stating the exact opposite... the original post
(Johnny) thought the w in kweym came from Frisian, that's why I posted to
show at least Modern Frisian doesn't have any -w- there so it would be
unlikely to be Frisian influence.

And them being more archaic LS I can understand, like Belgians, when
adapting Standard Dutch, often (unconsciously) use words that are seen as
archaic in the North, and not necessarily because those words occur in our
dialects, but also other words. I suppose people taking over another
prestige language will always be more conservative in it and archaic?

Diederik

----------

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

Ha, die Henno en Diederik!

Thanks for the bit of information, Henno, informative and thought-provoking
as usual, especially when it comes to Frisian.

En ongze DiÃ«rik, dieje schreef:

I didn't, I was stating the exact opposite... the original post
(Johnny) thought the w in kweym came from Frisian, that's why I posted to
show at least Modern Frisian doesn't have any -w- there so it would be
unlikely to be Frisian influence.

Aha! That's where the misunderstanding arose! We had pretty much the same
thought but somehow read Jonny's lines somewhat differently:

In the (whole?) area of Eastern Friesland "ick kweym" ("I came") still is in
daily use, and even in our region you might hear it now and then - perhaps
as a result of the historical western, i.e. Frisian and Dutch influence.

I took his "perhaps ..." phrase as a vague added thought rather than as a
real opinion and as his actual point.

Anyway, sorry that I misunderstood you, and happy that we actually agree.

This settled (?), I'd like to shift to a related topic, related also to the
issue of northern vs southern Dutch.

Do not also the Dutch dialects of historical Holland (i.e. roughly today's
Netherlands provinces of Northern and Southern Holland) have considerable
old Frisian substrata? Apparently, Frisian used to be spoken in a broad band
pretty much all the way along the coast of today's Netherlands, with older,
and perhaps less concentrated presence along what are now the southern parts
of the Netherlands and Northern Belgium. My rough assumption is that Frisian
language density used to be stronger in the north, used to be mostly
coastal, and that consequently Frisian substrata in coastal Dutch are
stronger in the north.

If this assumption is justified, I wonder if some differences between
northern and southern Dutch varieties owe to degrees of intensity of Frisian
substrata, or in many cases the presence and absence of them. This is aside
from the issue of conservatism which is clearly stronger in southern
varieties. (Or maybe I should rather say that the influential coastal
northern varieties are very innovative.)

Since Frisian was and is essentially a coastal language (though there used
to be Frisian communities that lived a good way away from the coast), I
wonder if we should look at differences between coastal and inland Dutch
varieties as well, "inland" here meaning "outside the sphere of direct
Frisian influence". This would exclude the entire north of the Netherlands,
since most Low Frankish and Low Saxon varieties there have been under some
degree of Frisian influence or other.

One difference that springs to mind right away is what I personally term
"Rhenish" features of the far-eastern Low Frankish varieties. These seem to
be areal rather than genealogical features. First and foremost among these
(at least in *my* mind) is velarization of /n/ (as in "thi*n*" and "si*nn*er")
to /Å‹/ ([N], as in "thi*ng*" and "si*ng*er").

This feature is predominant in Ripuarian, which is Central Frankish, thus
outside the Low Frankish sphere:
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/ripoaresch-info.php
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/ripoaresch-koelsch.php

For instance, in Cologne Ripuarian, **din* 'the (masc. acc.)' is *ding*, *
*sinem* 'his (dat.)' is *singem*, and **schÃ¤nde *(> **schÃ¤nne*)* *is *
schÃ¤nge* 'to scold'.

The closer we get to the Rhine region, the more frequent this feature seems
to be in Low Frankish, thus in the Lowlands area, as well. You find it in
some Brabantish, Limburgish and Cleves Low Frankish varieties, for instance.

*Brabantish:*
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/brabants-intro.php

Present:
Antwerp: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/brabants-antwerpen.php
e.g. *monster* > *mongster, ons *> *ongs*
*
*Apparently absent:
Merchtem: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/brabants.php
Rosmalen: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/brabants-rosmalen.php

*Limburgish:
*http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/limburgs-info.php

Apparently absent:
Brunssum: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/limburgs-brunssum.php
Bilzen: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/limburgs-bilzen.php

*Cleves Low Frankish:
*http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/kleverlands-info.php

Present:
Solingen: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/limburgs-berjisch.php
e.g. **schÃ¤nden *> *schÃ¤ngen*

Apparently absent:
Venlo: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/limburgs-venlo.php
MÃ¼lheim: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/limburgs-mulheim.php
Cuijk: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/kuuks.php
Liemers: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/liemers.php

I am not saying that this is a major distinguishing feature in Low Frankish.
What I am trying to propose is that it is *one* distinguishing areal feature
within eastern varieties of Low Frankish.

Any comments?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

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

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090613/bfa6e353/attachment.htm>