LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.06.25 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 25.JUN.2002 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language varieties"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> Germanic, but the Germanic settlers in Britain referred to themselves as
> Saxons and Angles.  How can the close relationship between English (and
> Scots and Northumbrian) and Frisian be reconciled with the ethnonyms,
> and why are Frisians hardly ever mentioned?  Let's be wild and speculate
> that those who strongly Frisianized the Early English language were
> mostly Frisian women (attached to predominantly male Saxons, Angels and
> Jutes en route from their native places to Britain).  Has any of this
> ever been explored?

Isn't it possible that the Angles and Saxons were the ruling
classes and yet Frisian became the most influential language
in Britain? Perhaps different kingdoms had communication
difficulties and Frisian was the lingua franca for diplomacy?
We've seen how in the case of Shetlandic, Cornish and Scots a
language that's perceived as more respectable or useful (maybe
even just "trendy") can become the language of a new generation,
especially in populous areas.

Another possibility (not necessarily mutually excusive with the
above), is that once Germanic kingdoms were established in Britain,
Frisians came over to fill some sort of skills vacuum as tradesmen
and suchlike, the native Brythonic trades not offering the sort of
things the Anglo-Saxon rulers were accustomed to? Then some sort of
Frisian pidgin might develop, which became the basis of a somewhat
more united Germanic language.

Perhaps Frisians were ever-present but simply aren't mentioned in
British history because they didn't set up a kingdom there.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

==================================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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================