LL-L: "Language varieties" 03.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 01.JUL.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: One Shetlandic or two? Historical impact on the present.

Dear John,

Thank you for your considered critique.

When I was refering to Shetlandic I was consciously
mixing the two varieties pertaining to the name,
namely the language variety spoken in the islands now,
and the Norn dialect spoken until recently.

There is no contradiction here so far as I understand
it. Whilst the language now spoken is basically Scots
but with peculiarities of syntax and phonology, it
retains very many features of Norn, so much so that to
imply that at some point historically Shetlanders
suddenly ceased to speak Norn and then picked up Scots
is absurd. What happened in the case of
Shetlandic/Norn is that the Norse language began to
absorb Scottisms at a rate of knots (evidenced in the
Shetland Norn version of the Paternoster) and that,
successively, the Norse element became more and more
disused until it was reduced to little more than
phonology and minor syntactical influences. However, I
believe that there is no case to consider that Norn
'died' and Shetlandic was 'born' - merely a case of a
superstrate slowly becoming a substrate, and with far
more evidence than the slow language degradation of
other tongues.

Surely the evidence that very often commentators have
had great difficulty in defining what is 'Norse'
language and what is 'Shetlandic' (i.e.,
Lallans-influenced) in the islands' history goes to
show that the transition to modern Shetlandic from a
Norse original was not a case of language 'death' or
supersedence, but one of gradual fundamental change.

However, in mitigation I should add that my knowledge
of Shetlandic/Norn is far from comprehensive.
Nonetheless, there is a clear case that
Shetlandic/Norn developed from an increasing Scottish
influence that 'hollowed' Shetlandic from the inside
out. Nevertheless, Shetlandic and Norn may be
considered as the same language but at extremes of
development. In this sense Shetlandic as it is now
represents transition, however imperfectly, between
the Norwegian-speaking world and the Lallans-speaking
one. This is no different to the position language in
the islands has always played; it's just that now the
Shetlandic variety has become thoroughly Scotticised,
and retains but little of its Norse background.

However, it is clear from looking at the history of
the language that Shetlandic became increasingly
'Scotticised' rather than 'dying' out and being
replaced. So what, then, is the position of Shetlandic
with regard to Lallans? Shetlandic has been called
Lallans' 'most vibrant dialect' although it is plain
to any visitor or to anyone who hears the language
that far from being a mere dialect, Shetlandic retains
much of its Norse character; a character that has
diminished substantially but never been extinguished.

Certainly I am in complete agreement that modern
Shetlandic may be considered as transitional between
old Norn and Lallans, so thoroughly Scotticised has
the variety become. Nonetheless, peculiarities
indicate that it would be wrong to consider Shetlandic
as Lallans proper or Norn proper. Somewhere in between
is accurate enough in my opinion.

I welcome a more knowledgeable critique of my views
concerning Shetlandic, as my understanding is limited
somewhat to basic concepts concerning the language.

Criostoir.

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: In addition to Shetlandic,  further examples of associative
absorption: curios of linguistics.

Dear all,

In addition to my recent post concerning the position
of Shetlandic and Norn, and of the 'hollowing out' of
the Norse character of the language by Scotticisms, I
would like to provide some more considered examples of
this, lest I appear to be foolish and ill-informed.

Primarily, the paradigm of language change by
association or external pressure is not isolated to
Shetlandic and Norn. Nor is it even isolated to
Germanic languages. The English language as it is
today develooed from the power struggles within
England between Old English, Norse, Jutish, Frisian,
and later, Norman French. I would term it 'associative
absorption' because it can only happen between to
languages that shares fundamentals that enable
absorption rather than extirpation and replacement.

It has been pointed out that, fundamentally, Norse and
Old English were not that different: compare OE 'Ic
selle the that hors the draegeth minne waegn.' and
Norse 'Ek mun selja ther hrossit er dregr vagn mine.'
Despite an inability to register quantity, nonetheless
Norse speakers would be understood by Old English
speakers and vice versa. However, over the fullness of
time the Norse language became so thoroughly
anglicised through its association with English that
one now considers Norse-derived varieties to be
'dialects' of English. However, we cannot pinpoint the
time Norse effectively 'ceased' because what occurred
was that the language was 'associated' out of
existence: Old English and Norse in England merged,
with the Old English element dominating. Nonetheless,
Middle English has a huge number of innovations from
Norse - e.g., get, hit, leg, low, root, skin, same,
want, wrong, sky, die etc. Evidently, what occurred
was that 'Norse' elements became rarer and rarer and
Norse-speaking areas more and more English-influenced
until little remained of the original Norse beyond
phonology, lexicon and syntactical idiosyncracies.

Nonetheless, the English is a cultural heir of Norse,
if not completely; and indeed Norse pronunciation, as
I have detailed before, still persists in
'English-speaking areas' such as my own environment.In
this sense it is a fallacy to contend that languages
'die' in the accepted sense of the word. What has been
shown by many of the languages of Lowlands-L is that
they are 'associated' or absorbed into an encroaching
language continuum of similar Germanic type until
little remains of the original tongue.

We find this development in the Slavic-speaking world
as well. Kaszubian is a Lekhitic Slavic language
closely related to Polish; its proximity and
similarity has meant that over the centuries Polish
has absorbed much of the Kaszubian area, with the
result that there is now contention about whether
Kaszubian is an independent language, a divergent
dialect of Polish or just a regional variety, a case
that shows remarkable correspondences with the theory
detailed above.

Similarly, the Rusyn language has had its position in
its traditional area greatly impoverished and its very
existence as a separate tongue challenged by its
association with two kindred East Slavic languages,
Russian and Ukrainian. Once again, Rusyn speakers have
had their variety hollowed out from inside by
neighbouring languages and, as in the case of
Kaszubian, there is now Shetlandic-like contention
about whether Rusyn can be considered a language at
all. The same fate has befallen Belarusian, which has
wavered between indepedent status and Russian
dialectism because it has long been associated with
Russian and its area been exposed to unremitting
Russian influence. Ditto many of the Turkic languages
of Central Asia.

There are no doubt many Frisians who would argue that
Dutch has had a 'corruptive' influence on western
Frisian; this is the result of association and
semi-absorption by Dutch. It brings us to our question
about Jutlandish, which is in a categorical limbo
because it has for so long been transitional between
Danish and northern Frisian.

However, as I have always maintained, my linguistic
knowledge is inept and probably greatly misinformed if
not downright wrong; I am merely throwing out sparks
of ideas in the hope that someone will pick up the
linguistic gauntlet, so to speak.

Thanks,

Criostoir.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language varieties

Dear Criostoir,

Thank you very much for sharing your very interesting observations and
interpretations above.

There is this one point you made:

> It brings us to our question
> about Jutlandish, which is in a categorical limbo
> because it has for so long been transitional between
> Danish and northern Frisian.

As far as I am aware, although North Frisian, spoken only on the western
coast and the islands off it, may have played a role also, it is more
generally accepted that Southern Jutish (_sønderjysk_) specifically (as
opposed to "Jutlandish" [_jysk_] which usually refers to *all* North
Germanic varieties of Jutland) is mostly influenced by Low Saxon (Low
German, which greatly overlaps with Southern Jutish and used to do so more
extensively) and is seen by some as some transitional group of varieties
between North and West Germanic.  Leaving Low Saxon out of this picture is
a very serious omission.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has 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>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions 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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================