What is Relatedness?

[Eduard Selleslagh]

[Ed Selleslagh]

[ snip message addressed to moderator ]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gustafson" <stevegus at aye.net>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:52 PM

> Ed Selleslagh writes:

> <<I would also like to point out that Frisian has apparently some external
> characteristics of NGmc., like the preservation of -isk (Eng. -ish, Du.
> -is(ch), pronounced -is) and similar Danish (Jutish?) sounding features. I
> think that the idea that Ingwaeonic is halfway between N and WGmc is due to
> the different use of the term (namely coastal continental WGmc). >>

> Hasn't Frisian also generalised a plural in -ar or -er, which also
> corresponds with what Norwegian and Swedish (and formerly Danish) did?

[Ed]

I'm anything but a specialist in Frisian, but I hear and read some from time to
time.

Many (most) plurals of diminutives - which are used frequently - are in -(e)s,
but I don't know if there are any other or irregular ones in -er (cf. German
rad - raeder). But one should take into account that it has been strongly
influenced by Dutch: there are no (and haven't been for quite some time)
monolingual Frisians. All local lects in Holland are under immense leveling
pressure from the 'Randstad' (i.e. the large western conurbation of Rotterdam,
Amsterdam etc.), although there is a movement to preserve Frisian (even a kind
of autonomy movement for a Fryske Frystaet [Frisian Free State], but that isn't
really taken seriously - I don't know if it is still alive). There is a very
limited programming in Frisian on Dutch TV (we have it on cable TV in
Flanders).

With 'external characteristics' I only meant 'what it looks and sounds like' to
the more or less (un)trained observer. I don't have any other reliable
information.

Ed.