LL-L: "Language varieties" 23.JUN.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 23.JUN.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: Welcomes, speaking under the influence and dialect continuae

Dear all,

Well, I'm very pleased to have joined your community.
If anybody has any information concerning Norse
phonology and its influence, please don't hesitate to
contact me.

I was pondering over the differences between the
Frisian languages and Lallans and Shetlandic and got
thinking about what we exactly define as a language.
Clearly, all languages are successive dialect
continuae rather than uniform homogenous language
hegemonies, and there is therefore a strong argument
for the study of transitional varieties as languages
in their own right rather than as 'dialects'. Certain
language varieties seem to exhibit numerous features
of BOTH their immediate neighbours, and this is
certainly one approach to understanding linguistic
diversity.

For example, when I was considering Oomrang Frisian
what struck me was that it appeared supeficially - as
I have mentioned before - to exhibit many Scandinavian
features, notably [k] instead of [x] (cf: Platdietsch
[ik] but High German [ix]) and strong evidence of [j]
and of course we have discussed to what extent this
may understood as Jutlandish influence. However, would
it not be more useful to consider Oomrang as
transitional between western Frisian and the
Scandinavian languages? Alas, I know little about the
general phonetics and syntactical peculiarities of
Oomrang, and I really do require some assistance in
this area.

Without wishing to sound obvious - and therefore
somewhat ridiculous - the transition theory can
account for many of the features accounted for in
Lowland languages. Shetlandic, for example, can be
seen as transitional between Orcadian and western
Norwegian dialects, and Yorkshire English as
transitional between the more heavily Norse-influenced
Geordie and the less heavily Norse-influenced southern
Northern varieties (including my own Nottingham
English speech). However, this theory fails in that it
is too over-arching, and allows little room for
exterior influences and indeed innovation within the
language.

And does anyone have any evidence for the extent of
Norse influence upon Lallans? If there is considerable
Norse influence on languages such as Geordie, would it
not be reasonable to assume this also spread or was
inherent in Lallans too? I would conjecture, however,
that the more western varieties of Lallans -
particularly around Arran and Bute - would retain a
strong Scots Gaelic substrate, and I would very much
like to find evidence for this but once again alas! I
have no resources to pursue this idea.

And has anyone given any thought to my earlier
assertion of the sociological implications of
'standdard English' enforcement at the expense of
local languages?

Further, if we are to assume that Frisian (or at least
proto-Anglo-Frisian) is relatively indigenous to the
Frisian Islands and Friesland (cf: the 'Frisii' of
Roman maps in the same area), does that not beg the
assertion that Dutch is a later intruder? And, by
extension, that there must be a considerable Frisian
substrate in modern Dutch? It would be very helpful if
anybody conversant in Frisian (presumably western
Frisian) and Dutch could add to this suspicion with
examples. And there is of course the pertinent
question of what separates Flemish from Dutch (I had
always presumed it to be a French substrate in
Flemish), but that's not exactly relevant *laughs*.

Okay, I'll leave it to you. Thanks for taking the
effort to read this e-mail,

Criostoir.

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject:  specific - and apparently unknown - Germanic language of Ireland

Dear all,

In addition to the message I sent earlier, I am
seeking information on an apparently unstudied
language of Ireland called Yola.

The only example and account I have of this language
is found in The Story of English by McCrum, Cran &
MacNeil (BBC publications, 1986). Apparently, Yola was
a type of Irish 'Lallans' descended from the Old
English of settlers in the Wexford and Fingal areas of
the country. It became obsolete in the 19th Century,
probably by absorption into Hiberno-English. It was
however a separate Germanic language and both the
Wexford and Fingal areas were monolingual in it and
not in Irish.

In the Story of English (pg. 172), the Lord's Prayer
is given in Yola although clearly the scribe has
'associated' certain elements with the language's
English counterparts. However, I'm sure you'll agree
that the two varieties represent a genuine Lowland
langauge, and I would very, very much like to learn
ANYTHING about the language. I have never found any
other reference to it and indeed Yola seems to be
ignored or assumed to be 'Hiberno-English' which it is
not. Please contact me urgently if there is any
information about Yola.

The Lord's Prayer is as follows:

"Oure vaader fho yarth ing heaveene, ee-hallowet bee
t'naame. Thee kingdomw [sic] coome, thee weel be
eedoane, as ing heaveene, zo eake an earthe. Yee ouze
todeire [sic] oure deilye breed..."

Thanks,

Criostoir.

----------

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

Hi, Criostoir!

Welcome -- this time publicly.

You brought up the question as to what is a dialect and what is a
language.  I guess you are aware that this is quite the can or worms.  It
has been asked and discussed many times before, and it seems that there is
never any real agreement on that, i.e., that the discussions tend to be
open-ended because there are as many opinions as there are participants in
the discussion.  In fact, many would say that this type of discussion is
futile.  I am only mentioning this right now so you won't get your hopes
up.  Indeed, there is no agreement on this among professional linguists.
Certainly, the old maxime "A language is a dialect with an army" or such
(first proposed by Weinreich with an eye on Yiddish, I believe) doesn't
hold terribly much water, certainly not these days.

You wrote:

> For example, when I was considering Oomrang Frisian
> what struck me was that it appeared supeficially - as
> I have mentioned before - to exhibit many Scandinavian
> features, notably [k] instead of [x] (cf: Platdietsch
> [ik] but High German [ix]) and strong evidence of [j]
> and of course we have discussed to what extent this
> may understood as Jutlandish influence. However, would
> it not be more useful to consider Oomrang as
> transitional between western Frisian and the
> Scandinavian languages? Alas, I know little about the
> general phonetics and syntactical peculiarities of
> Oomrang, and I really do require some assistance in
> this area.

Personally, I think this cannot be totally dismissed when looking at the
modern forms, but generally speaking you are going to run into problems
with this.  The Frisian varieties are typologically undoubtedly of the
North Sea Germanic type and thus "West Germanic," despite "Northern
exposure" especially among the northernmost North Frisian varieties, such
as the Amrum-Föhr varieties (your "Oomrang") of the Insular North Frisian
group.  Southern Jutish, on the other hand, is typologically clearly North
Germanic, especially lexically and generally grammatically.  Indeed, most
people still consider it a Danish dialect group, though some have claimed
it is separate.  It is, however, true that the Southern Jutish dialects are
contact varieties in that they have undergone some grammatical and
phonological Saxonization due to contacts with Low Saxon ("Low German"),
over and above a great deal of lexical Saxonization to which all
Scandinavian varieties have been subjected.

(Please also bear in mind that what is now Schleswig-Holstein used to go
back and forth between German and Danish rule, at one point in time was
under Danish rule all the way down to the city gates of Hamborg/Hamburg,
including Altona, now a part of Hamburg.  Thus, the area has been under the
power of two supreme languages: "High" German and "High" Danish.)

I'm not sure it is wise to jump to the conclusion that the common features
you noticed are necessarily Scandinavian-influenced. Theoretically
speaking, some features could be due to North Frisian substrates in Jutish
(considering that the North Frisian language area used to be larger,
extending into what is now the Danish part of the Jutland Pensinsula, and
that thus many Frisian speakers adopted Jutish in the past).

Features such as /k/ (where German has /x/) are common to *all* languages
that we here consider "Lowlandic" (with the exception of some Limburgish
varieties).  This absence of fricativization is what the North Germanic
varieties and the West Germanic (or North Sea Germanic) varieties have in
common.  (I go along with the minority view that German, Yiddish, etc., are
"South Germanic," but that's a personal choice.)  If I understood you
correctly, you view this as a North-Germanic-influenced feature.  I don't
think that's correct.

Last but not least, please bear in mind that North Frisian is generally
considered *introduced* to the area in which it is now used.  In other
words, it is believed to have been imported from the old Frisian homeland
in the North Sea coastal regions of the Netherlands and Lower Saxony.  It
is believed that the continental and tideflats (Halligen) varieties were
imported to the north sometime between 800 and 1200 CE.  However, there is
a lot of doubt regarding the insular varieties.  Most seem to believe that
they, too, were imported, though earlier.  I understand that a minority
view is that they have been there a long, long time, going back to
antiquity.  Whatever the case may be, there are enormous differences
between the insular and continental varieties, and the two types are pretty
much mutually incomprehensible, certainly in their spoken forms.
Interestingly also, speakers of the insular varieties traditionally tend to
refer to their own varieties by specific names:_Halunder_ (Heligoland),
_Öömrang_ (Amrum), _Fering_ (Föhr), _Sölring_ (Sylt).  Traditionally, they
mean 'Continental and Tideflats North Frisian' when they say "Frisian" and
its equivalents, namely to Mooring North Frisian (_Frasch_),
Nordergoesharde North Frisian (_Freesch_, _Fräisch_) and Tideflats North
Frisian (_Freesk_, _Friisk_).  In other words, this may be a remnant of a
view that considered only the "newcomers" on the continent "Frisians."

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