LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.06.27 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.JUN.2002 (05) * 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: "Lamguage varieties"

> From: "Leonard Okhotchinski" <ok_lennie at hotmail.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Language samples" 2002.06.26 (05) [E]
>
> The rule of this Swadesh game is to choose the commonest word, semantic

In this case I should have put "wee" rather than "smaa" for "small" in
the
list, I think - I put "smaa" because it was cognate with "small", not
because it was the comonest word.

> case) vocabulary survived. The method is based on the theory that
> changes in
> the core vocabulary occur at the same rate. Then, supposedly, we can
> measure
> how long ago the languages started developing separately. There is a
> formula
> with logs that I don't remember, but it can be looked up in any intro
> book
> on comparative studies. Ideally, it's like carbon dating.

I found the formula explained thusly on a Tolkein discussion
group at
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/elfling-mirror/000nn/00046 :

<quote>
The Swadesh formula is t= (log(n) x)/(2 log(n) 0.86), where t (time) is
expressed in thousands of years. Using the following data (which can, of
course, be argued with):
Total matches: 81
Cognates found: 57: Percentage = 57/81 = .704 = 70.4% shared cognates
Non-cognates found: 24: Percentage = 24/81 = .296

And applying them to the formula:
log(n) .704 = -.351
2 log(n) .86 = -.302
-.351/-.302 = 1.162 (thousand)

By this system Quenya and Sindarin are separated by about 1162 years.
<unquote>

Another article I found gives the "0.86" as a variable but
doesn't explain it, so maybe it's a calibration constant.

Anyway, after putting in "wee" instead of small, I count 94
cognates between Scots and English, and so calculate that the
two languages have been diverging for 205 years. Say, since
just after Burns.

This doesn't make much sense, does it? I don't think 17th century
Scots, when written in the common idiom, would produce a much
different wordlist from the one I supplied.

I wouldn't mind calculating this for all the Lowland languages in
the table, but first I'd like to know if I'm doing it right, and
if it really means anything at all!

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'
----------

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

Lowlanders,

Given Leonard's and Sandy's overview of the purpose of the Swadesh list,
I wonder if the Afrikaans and Dutch (Thanks, Rudi!) entries for 018
"person" should not be _mens_ instead of _persoon_.  (See our updated
list at http://sassisch.net/rhahn/lowlands/swadesh.htm)

In Lowlands Saxon, too, I could say _Persoon_ ([p(h)E.'zo:n]), but I
"instinctively" chose "basic" _Minsch_ "human being" (and Sandy chose
Scots _body_, etc.).  (I'm wondering if this item ought not be labeled
"human being," since this is obviously what they are after.)

Given what Leonard and Sandy tell us about the purpose of the list and
the calculations it is supposed to allow, it seems to me that we really
have to weigh each choice extremely carefully.  I for my part will have
to go through my own data (Northern Lowlands Saxon) again.

Sandy (above):

> In this case I should have put "wee" rather than "smaa" for "small" in
> the list, I think - I put "smaa" because it was cognate with "small",
> not because it was the comonest word.

That's pretty much the basis on which I operated.  If given the green
light, I'd go through my own data again with that awareness.  But where
to draw the line in cases of drastic semantic changes?  For instance,
English has 'wife' = 'female spouse,' cognate being L. Sax. _Wief_ =
'despicable woman' (versus _Fru_ ~ _Fro_ 'woman'), in more archaic
contexts just _Wief_ 'woman' or 'wife.'  Similarly, English "town" =
Dutch _tuin_ 'garden' = E. Fries. L. Sax. _tuun_ 'garden' = N. L. Sax.
_Tuun_ 'fence' = German _Zaun_ 'fence'.  I know.  These items don't
appear in the list (and perhaps for good reason), are only supposed to
point to potential problems with regard to cognates.

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