LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.06.01 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 01.JUN.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From:Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.05.31 (02) [E]

A chairde,

Gary (ever the thought-provoker) wrote:

"r-less accents occured fairly late
which is why American English largely retains the r,
whereas Australian, New Zealand and South African
English do not - as they were settled by English
speakers later."

I realise this is a question we've discussed before, but indulge me.
Taking South African aside for a moment because of its somewhat
Afrikaans
phonology, which English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Irish accents
gave birth to Australian and New Zealand accents?

How true is it to characterise Australian, for example, as Cockney with
Irish consonants?* (A crude and unforgivable assertion, I know, but
phonology is a blunt art.) And am I the only person in the world to
consider that the New Zealand accent sounds closer to the South African
than it does to the Australian?

*We should not forget the phonological input of Gaelic (both Irish and
Scottish). 25% of the settlers in Australia were Irish, a further 10%
Scottish. Therefore the influence of 'English' accents is overstated.

Go raibh maith agaibhse

Criostóir.

----------

From: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.05.31 (02) [E]

> From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language Varieties
>
> Hi all, hi Peter
>
> You asked about Middle English:
>
> "In this the period known as "Middle English" there is
> a standardising to London English. Could any one tell me if the areas
> to
> the Midlands and north retain their dialect
> differences? Are there distinct Lowlands Scots influences on English in
> these
> northern areas that were not seen in the southern
> Kentish/Jute and London areas?"
>
> Interesting you should ask that now - I'm just in the
> process of reading about the development of English
> from Old English to Modern Standard English.
>
> In the Middle English periods there were a number of
> different features - a few distinguishing ones are as
> follows:
>
> South West : Voicing of fricatives - thus 'vox' for
> 'fox' (This is still partly alive but is dying out -
> probably only the most conservative speakers still
> retain this). It accounts for modern English 'fox'
> versus 'vixen' - the latter being from this dialect.
>
> Kent : Old English y, ea and long æ all developed into
> 'e' thus texts have a lot more 'e's in them than other
> dialects. This accounts for the pronunciation of
> 'bury' with an e (even though the spelling is from the
> Western dialects). This feature has died out due to
> the influence of London English in this area.
>
> Northern : (Including North England and Scots) In the
> third person singular of verbs there was an '(i)s'
> which spread and became the norm in the standard (the
> rest of the country had -eth).
> Third person plural pronouns were from Danish loan
> words - thus modern 'they', 'them' and 'their' (In the
> South it was largely forms like 'hie', 'hem' etc.)
> This Northern feature also spread to become the norm
> in the standard.
> These two features were progressive - but it also
> retained the conservative Old English long 'a' - the
> rest of the country changed this to an 'o'. This is
> still a feature of Northern dialects - although in
> England I think it's dying out - still very much alive
> in Scots though - thus forms like 'hame' instead of
> 'home'.
> Scots had other developments too which have largely
> been carried through to modern Scots (due to its
> continual written tradition - as separate from the
> related dialects over the border in England) - whereas
> a lot of the North England features have changed or
> are changing towards a standard (based on educated
> London).
>
> The Midlands formed two dialects - an East and a West.
> These were largely intermediate stages between
> Southern and Northern with some features of both. In
> the West Old English 'y' was written 'u' and retained
> the old pronunciation [y] whereas in the East it was
> pronounced [i]. In the North West Midlands the third
> person with -s had already started to be evident. The
> [y] pronunciation has now died out.
>
> York dialect was a mixture between Northern and
> Southern - mainly Northern features, but Old English
> long 'a' had become 'o' as in Southern dialects.
>
> And London dialect was mainly an East Midland dialect
> with features of Kent and South West thrown in. In
> London 'they' was already 'they' (unlike East Modland
> where it was still 'hie', but 'them' and 'their' were
> still 'hem' and 'her' - compare Chaucer.
>
> The vocabulary of the North also contained a lot of
> Danish loan words which are retained in modern
> dialects, but never spread to the South.
>
> There are a number of other features in modern English
> dialects which are due to later developments, eg
> conservative 'singgingg' in the West Midlands - this
> used to be the norm, and the development of 'u' to
> standard English 'up' (as opposed to 'put' - which
> occured in the South and Scotland, but not in the
> North). Also certain areas still retain the 'r' in all
> positions - including after vowels - usually
> associated with the South West now, but there are
> pockets elsewhere. r-less accents occured fairly late
> which is why American English largely retains the r,
> whereas Australian, New Zealand and South African
> English do not - as they were settled by English
> speakers later.
>
> Hope this answers some of your questions
>
> Gary
>
Hi Gary,

This is an interesting article.
However i can't imagine why you do not speak of the lowland influence
from Zeelandic or Flemish in the southern languages. It must have been
important.
I red in an interview (some years ago now)  of a London professor. She
came to studie in Belgium to learn ancient Flemish. She did that
because she  said that old Flemish made it al the more easier for her
to study old English.
When i look at the texts from  the Canterbury tales here on the list
and at the mentioned website, all of it looks very familiar. The words
that need an explination  for the English people  are mostly still in
use in Flanders.
There is also the matter of the Danish influence. If i'm not wrong,
the "Dani" also lived in what is now called "Normandy" So i  guess that
everything was more  mixed up than we have  to believe from our history
books.

groetjes
luc vanbrabant
oekene

================================END===================================
* 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.
======================================================================