LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 03.NOV.2000 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 03.NOV.2000 (04) * 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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
 =======================================================================

From: Roger Thijs [roger.thijs at euro-support.be]
Subject: LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 03.NOV.2000 (01) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> I have only a fairly rough idea about the other "Low German" dialects
used in
> Germany (in the extreme southwest of the "Low German" area), and I
wonder if
> some of you could give me some more specific information.
>
> German sources that deal with this tend to refer only to
_Niederfränkish_
> ("Low Frankish") in this context.  This would mean that those dialects
are
> related to Dutch and technically speaking belong to Dutch.  ...
> As far as I am aware, Limburgish is "Rhine-Maas
> Frankish."  This is, strictly speaking, not Low Frankish.  Or is it?

Ron,

I think, classification of language varieties, that are interrelated, is
a tough thing to do. Since some people absolutely want to classify and
have this reflected on territorial maps, they quite often use one single
isogloss, that undoubtedly makes map drafting easy, but this does not
necessarely represent bordelines local people feel to be significant.
The Romance-Diets borderline is straightforward and clearly detectable
(just Brussels may have some mixed varieties), the Dutch-German
"language" line is not as clearly to specify from a dialect point of
view. The most convenient approach (for magazines, dictionaries, for
being subsidized) is to let it coïncide with the national borders.

A classification from the beginning of the 19th century, as to the map
in H. Vandenhoven, "La langue flamande, son passé et son avenir",
Brussels 1844, as to the map at the end "Kaart van 't gebied der
Nederdütsche Sprake", extending from Duinkerke in France till
territories East of Königsberg:
When we forget East-Prussia, he gives:
- Nedersaksisch for Northern Germany
- Nederlandsch for N. France, Belgium and the Netherlands,
though with some small territories:
- Friesch: West of Groningen, and SW of Holstein
- Sater a small territory west of Oldenburg
- Nederrhynsch for both Limburgs (B & Nl) and the Kreveld, Düsseldorp,
Aken, Colen area: he merges Limburgish with Ripuarian.

I think nowadays, people pump vocabulary from their cultural language
into their dialect. Limburgish kids engineer modern Dutch words into
Limburgish pronounced (or sung)  vocabulary, and hardly understand
Germans from over the border, by lack of that old common vocabulary. So
when Limburburgish has been something on it's own, it gradually
transforsms from a Dutch creole into a variant of Dutch. Common grammar
elements, shared with Germans from over the border are fading away in
people's perception.

This perception of national borders becoming linguistic borders is quite
often disregarded by linguists. Linguists prefer to make trans-border
maps. Nowadays one never finds the Limburgish area united with the
Ripuarish area in the South-East anymore but rather united with the
Krefeld area in the North East. In Imgard Hatsche, Atlas zur Geschichte
des Niederrheins, 1999, Verlag Peter Pomp, Bottrop-Essen, the
Kleverländisch (N of the ik-ich isogloss) and Limburgish area (South of
the ik-ich isogloss) are united as "Rhein-Maasländisch".

Formally though the "Taalunie" declared to the Flemish regional
government Limburgish is a Dutch dialect and should not be recognised as
a regional language. It being recognised in the Netherlands was told to
be a historical mistake.

However one classifies, I think Limburgish is (unfortunately) becoming
more and more Dutch alike, and if it is eventually not lowlandic now, it
will be in a couple of decades.

Regards,
Roger

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