LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 21.JUL.2000 (08) [E]

Sat Jul 22 00:41:45 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 21.JUL.2000 (08) * 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: Roger Thijs [Roger.Thijs at village.uunet.be]
Subject: Language varieties

Referring to recent discussions about the position of High German versus
Dutch, below some excerpts of what was the (written) koiné around 1600 in
the extreme South of the linguistic area that eventually (?) can still be
considered to be Low Germanic. The texts refer to the County of Limburg.

Since it may be a matter of confusion, i regret I have to repeat (again)
some historical facts.
The texts refer to the "County" of Limburg, "not" to any of the two actual
"provinces" of Limburg in Belgium or in the Netherlands.

Brabant got Limburg in 1288 after Worringen, together with Dalhem,
Herzogenrath and Valkenburg. These Brabantish territories were enclaved
behind the bishopric of Liège and East of the river Maas. Together they
were often called the land of "Overmaas / Outre-Meuse".

When the "formerly French dept. of the Lower-Maas" became a Dutch province
in 1815, the Dutch king renamed this province Limburg, though it basically
contained only parts of Valkenburg and Hertogenrade.

(And this is really confusing:
When the (new since 1815) provinces of Luxemburg and Limburg were split up
in 1839 the Dutch part of the province Limburg became a (new) "Duchy" and
was for quite some years part of both the Netherlands as also of the German
"Bund", the latter as a compensation for the part of the Duchy of
Luxemburg, that was lost to Belgium)

The town of Limbourg (since 1795 in the French dept. of the Ourthe river,
nowadays in the Belgian province of Liège) is, and has probably allways
(since medieval times) been linguistically walloon. A few miles to the East
though the cultural language becomes German. (This is the area around Eupen)

Though the area in the East has a "German" koiné tradition (e.g. as church
language), the dialects are often considered "Dutch (read: Limburgish)" by
Dutch linguists.
This is generally not felt that way by the local population, except perhaps
by the late Dr. Langohr.
He collected some texts in dialect, in "Va gen Weech bes a ge Graaf" (1956,
published by himself).
A small excerpt (written by Piet Zimmer, born 1907, from Kelmis, that was
undivided 1815-1919 as "Neutral-Moresnet", just South of Aachen):

MIIN HUUS
Miin Oddesch Huus steet kleng en reng
I Kelmis, Dörpke reng en kleng;
Et Hofke dröm wi bej de Bure,
En Wentergröön op zen auw Mure,
De auwe Dörpel! Mär bloo Steen!
Do gon ech zue gan drövver heen,
In 't Huus wue eech gebore ben,
Wue levenslang stönt op ming Zen.
... etc.
(Attention: u has to be pronounced as in German and corresponds to the
Dutch oe)

I leave it for the specialists to judge wether this dialect is Dutch or
German, Low-German or rather a dialect of High German.

So I come to the written koiné in the "old" duchy (covering municipalities
that are nowadays or formally French or formally German):

I'm referring to the book:
Jean Thisquen, Joseph Moors & Robert Massart, L'ancienne coutume du duché
de Limbourg en version romane et thioises du début du xviie siècle, 1961,
Liège, Librairie P. Gothier, (Publications du centre national de recherches
dialectales de l'Est de la Belgique, fascicule 4), 360 pp + some photographs.
In the book three versions are produced of a basic text of old Limburgish
common law,
quoting an excerpt p. 34-35:

manuscript Hanot, written before 1602
18. van den burgermester
Darnach ist zu wissen das zu Lemborgh havenn sall zwey burgermester die
darzu geschworenn sullen sein, die die vryheit hudenn sullenn unnd die
verantwordenn sullenn den burger daer sis zu doen haven, unnd auch der
stadt orber unnd profit foert keerenn.

manuscript Quoitbach, written before 1624
18. Vanden Burgermeester
Daernaer is te weeten dat te Limborch hebben sal twee burgemmesters, die
daertoe geswoeren sullen sijn, die de vrijheijt hueden sullen, ende
verantwoirden die burgers daer sij es te doen sullen hebben, ende oijck der
stadt oirbair ende proffict voirts keeren.

manuscript Franquin, written between 1577 and 1614
18. Des Maistres Bourgeois.
Puis apres est à scavoir qu'a Lembourg doit avoir deux maistres quy doivent
estre sermentes de garder les franchises, de deffendre les bourgeois de
tort, et de faire le profit de la ville.

The romance koiné in this text was not walloon, but some kind of French.
>From the two "Diets" versions one is more low germanic as the other.
However both are different from the actual dialects of the area.

The least one can say, for the written koiné, is that this area was not yet
completely turned to High German at the end of the 16th century.

Regards,

Roger

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language varieties

Stefan wrote:

>No, German can mean all the dialects as well as the
standard language.  The northern third of Germany had
no High German sound shift, the middle third did not
shift completely, and even southern Germany did not
carry the shift through 100%. <

But isn't the northern third of Germany (west of the Elbe, as in OHG times)
precisely the Saxon area? If so, this doesn't contradict what I said but
reinforces it. (I am following Ron's line that LG is  a misnomer.)

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

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

John,

You wrote:

> (I am following Ron's line that LG is  a misnomer.)

Bear in mind that there are various schools of thoughts and that most
Germanistics departments still adhere to the one in which it's all "German,"
technically speaking also Limburgish and Dutch (Dutch and Low Saxon being
branches of "Low German" in the traditional Germanic language tree), and
Yiddish.

"Low German" as it tends to be used in reference to modern varieties is a very
broad category in that it contains everything that is "Low," i.e., also
Limburgish and Low Franconian (thus Dutch) varieties that happen to fall onto
the German side of the border.  Others would argue that these are separate
languages.

In the broad "German" theory, Dutch tends to be afforded separate language
status only because it has become a politically important power in politically
non-German areas.

At least that's how I understand it.

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
 =======================================================================