LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.06.26 (01) [E]

Wed Jun 26 16:04:31 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 26.JUN.2002 (01) * 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: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Dear Ron

As said previously, Estuary does not contain many
dialectual differences from standard English, but here
are the pronunciations

###: ENGLISH - Estuary (Hopefully you can understand
the symbols I've used, ä = 'ash', @ = schwa, 6 = open
schwa, { is the long vowel in the same position as
schwa, t(s) is a slightly affricated t, N is the ng, E
and O are the open equivalents of the cardinals e and
o, and A is cardinal 5)
001: I, me - AI, mIi
002: you - jYy
003: we - wIi
004: this - DIs
005: that - Dä?
006: who - hYy
007: what - wO?
008: not - nO?
009: all - Uu
010: many - mEni
011: one - w6n
012: two - t(s)Yy
013: big - bIg
014: long - lON
015: small - smUu
016: woman - wUm at n
017: man - mä:n
018: person - p{:s at n
019: fish - fIS
020: bird - b{:d
021: dog - dOg
022: louse - läYs
023: tree - tSrIi
024: seed - sIid
025: leaf - lIif
026: root - rYy?
027: bark - bA:?k
028: skin - skIn
029: flesh - flES
030: blood - bl6d
031: bone - b at Yn
032: grease / oil - f@?, grIis, OIU
033: egg - Eg
034: horn - hUun
035: tail - täU
036: feather - fED@
037: hair - hE:
038: head - hEd
039: ear - Ii@
040: eye - AI
041: nose - n at Yz
042: mouth - mäYT
043: tooth - t(s)UuT
044: tongue - t6N
045: claw - klO:
046: foot - fY?
047: knee - nIi
048: hand - hä:nd
049: belly - bEli
050: neck - nE?k
051: breast(s) - brEst / brEsts
052: heart - hA:?
053: liver - lIv@
054: to drink - t(s)@dZrINk
055: to eat - t(s)YwIi?
056: to bite - t(s)@bAI?
057: to see - t(s)@sIi
058: to hear - t(s)@hIi@
059: to know - t(s)@n at Y
060: to sleep - t(s)@slIi?p
061: to die - t(s)@dAI
062: to kill - t(s)@kIU
063: to swim - t(s)@swIm
064: to fly - t(s)@flAI
065: to walk - t(s)@wUu?k
066: to come - t(s)@k6m
067: to lie (down) - t(s)@lAI
068: to sit - t(s)@sI?
069: to stand - t(s)@stä:nd
071: to say - t(s)@sEI
072: sun - s6n
073: moon - mUun
074: star - stA:
075: water - wUut(s)@
076: rain - rEIn
077: stone - st at Yn
078: sand - sä:nd
079: earth - {:T
080: cloud - kläYd
081: smoke - sm at Y?k
082: fire - fAI@
083: ash - äS
084: burn - b{:n
085: path - pA:T
086: mountain - mäYnt(s)In
087: red - rEd
088: green - grIin
089: yellow - jEl at Y
090: white - wAI?
091: black - bläk
092: night - nAI?
093: hot, warm - hO?, wuUm
094: cold - k6Ud
095: full - fUu
096: new - njYy
097: good - gYd
098: round - räYnd
099: dry - dZrAI
100: name - nEIm

Gary

----------

From: "Marco Evenhuis" <evenhuis at zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language samples" 2002.06.25 (08) [E]

Luc Vanbrabant wrote about the Swadesh list he
translated:

> Here are the Flemish variants:

Sorry to keep going on about this subject, but
shouldn't this be WEST-Flemish? Some people
already made clear that the name 'Flemish' is very
confusing in this respect.

Some of your translations look very interesting:

> > 006: who -      wie(ne)-wukjin

and then

> > 011: one -      iïn

As far as I know West-Flemish, in both these words
_jin_ or _iïn_ or (as I would spell it) _eên_ sound
exactly the same and stands for the same word, in
my spelling _eên_, 'one' (_wukeên_ can litterally be
translated as 'what one'). Am I wrong or is there
another reason that you chose these different spellings?

The same goes for the way you spell the West-Flemish
_oô_ (or as you spell it _oi_, _oa_ or _o_), e.g.:

> > 013: big -      groat
> > 023: tree -     boam
> > 039: ear -      oire
> > 040: eye -      oige
> > 099: dry -      droge

Are there any differences in the way the _oa_/_oi_/
_o_ in these words are pronounced? In Zeelandic and
the northern West-Flemish dialects I'm familiar with,
I would just spell these words as:

groôt
boôm
oôre
oôge
droôge

And then a potentially very interesting matter.
Zeelandic has a very clear opposition between _ae_
and _ao_-sounds. Some examples:

Zeelandic - English
straete - street
laeter - later
vaoder - father
klaover - clover

As you see, where Zeelandic has a more open a,
English has an open vowel as well. And where
Zeelandic has a more closed a, English has a
closed vowel as well. This is not always the case,
but there are many, many examples where it is.
Now Luc uses two different ways of spelling a,
what I understand to be, open a:

> 069: to stand - stoan
> 073: moon -     maone
> 036: feather -  vadre

The last one is probably a small mistake. I think
Luc translated 'father' in West-Flemish rather
than 'feather'. 'Feather' has to be something
like _pluume_ or _veêre_...
But I am interested in the different spellings
_a_ (_aa?_), _oa_ and _ao_. Is there really a
difference in the way these a's are pronounced?
And if there is, is there some kind of system in it?
I only know of a few dialects in the far south west
of French Flanders, that have basically the same
system as Zeelandic. That can be explained because
these villages are so far away from the centre-dialects
of West-Flemish that the so-called 'Brabantish expan-
sion' wasn't really 'felt' there. The Brabantish expan-
sion by the way, is the disappearance of a lot of
original ingvaeonic features in West- and even more
in East-Flemish in favour of linguistic features from
the economically dominant region of Brabant in
the 1400s.
Due to this Brabantish expansion, East-Flemish is
nowadays considered to be a Brabantish dialect and
West-Flemish has a lot of Brabantish features, where
Zeelandic has retained more ingvaeonic features (but
then again 'suffered' from Hollandic expansion later).

Another odd thing I found in the West-Flemish
version of Swadesh list:

> 002: you -      je- you-gi
> 045: claw -     klouw

In 002 the _ou_ is clearly pronounced as in
English 'you', but in 045 that can hardly be
the case, since all West-Flemish dialects I know
have an _au_ there (pronounced as in 'thou').

> 049: belly -    buik

Why not _buuk_? _Buik_ sounds very Dutch
or at least Brabantish ('boik'?) to me.
The same goes for _skijn_ in the West-Flemish
translation of the Häwelmann-fragment. Should
that not be _skien_:

"Skien, oude maone, skien!" skreêuwde Kadulletje,
mao de maone wos nievers te ziene, en de sterren
oôk nie; ze waren oltegaore naar bedde gegaon.

Because of this translation, I finally know where
Luc's village Oekene is situated ;-). It must be near
Kortrijk, since that is the only part of West-Flanders
where Dutch _sch-_ sounds as in English: _sk-_!

Regards,

Marco

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Thanks for the sample (above), Gary!  I had to compromise a bit in the
display, because most surfers do not yet have phonetic and Unicode
fonts.  Please let me know if it is too much of a compromise.

Thanks also to Rudi Vári who kindly supplied Dutch and Afrikaans
equivalents.

The list has been updated:
http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/swadesh.htm

Say, Gary, aren't [v] and [f] options for _th_ in Estuary English?  Or
is that considered sub-standard?

Marco responding to Luc's Flemish data:

> Some of your translations look very interesting:
>
> > > 006: who -      wie(ne)-wukjin

Did you notice Northern Low Saxon (Low German) _wokeen_ for 'who'?  It
is pronounced ['voUkE.In] or [voU'kE.In], often abbreviated to _keen_
[kE.In], especially as a conjunction, as for example in _Ik weet nich,
keen dat schreven hett_ 'I don't know who wrote it/that'.

This abbreviated _keen_ coincides with _keen_ [kE.In] 'none', 'no ...',
as in _Ik verstah keen Ingelsch_ 'I understand no English'.  However,
this does not usually cause confusion.  'No one' and 'nobody' tends to
be _keen een_ (often written _keeneen_) ['kE.In?E.In] ("no one").

A sentence like _Keen hett dat schreven?_ 'Who wrote it/that?' tends to
confuse semi-proficient German listeners who are not familiar with
_keen_ in place of German _wer_ and associate _keen_ with German
_kein(er)_ 'no (one)'.  They would interprete the sentence as German
_Keiner hat es/das geschrieben_ 'No one wrote it/that.'

Oftentimes I find elements in Flemish and Zeelandic that seem familiar
from a Lowlands Saxon point of view, elements apparently not found in
Standard Dutch.  I wonder if this is because (1) Standard Dutch somehow
lost these, or (2) it is due to Saxon migration to and thus influence on
the Flemish and Zeelandic areas.

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