LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.26 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.AUG.2004 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Stella en Henno <stellahenno at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.26 (05) [E]

> Stella en Henno wrote:
>
> >>John:
>
> >> The fact that these two old islands [Foehr and
> >> Amrum in his spelling] have been continuously inhabited, and indeed
> >>densely
> >> populated, since the early Stone Age or the end of the last Ice Age,
may
> >>be
> >> why the Ferring language has some archaic structures and words which do
> >> not occur in the other Frisian languages, pointing to a pre-Germanic >>
> >> origin."
> >> Of course, being non-Frisian is not the same thing as being
non-Germanic.
> >> Does anybody know what these special linguistic features are? Why
should
> >> these islands remain populated and therefore be different from the rest
> >>and the neighbouring mainland especially if, as Bede suggested, it was
the
> >>area abandoned by the Angles and left vacant?
>
> >By my limited knowledge of Fering (due to the course I did some years
> >ago),all features of Fering can be explained either from Old Frisian or
as
> >loans from Danish, Low German or Dutch. There is a strange grammatical
> >feature of two types of definite article (di/ju vs at/a), which is its
> >biggest "claim to fame" within Frisian linguistic literature. But to
> >explain this is "pre-Germanic" is going to far, I think. In most respects
> >it's still remarkably Frisian for a dialect so geographically distant
from
> >West Frisian
> >(from the point of view of a West Frisian, of course, they would see it
> >the other way around).
> >Henno Brandsma
>
> Henno,
> I was under the impression that the two forms of the article (don't you
mean
> pronouns???) were based on enclitic forms. They are surely later
> developments internal to Frisian, though similar developments occur
> throughout the Germanic language family. Even south-western dialect
English
> has such forms.
> Dan

I do mean article (though most varieties of Frisian have a separate clitic
form, especially for
"he" (like West Frisian "hy docht - docht er ?" (= he does, does he?), eg
A san (the sun) in "a san skint" vs "di" in "di man keemt" (IIRC, I didn't
check exactly), but
"a man keemt" (for "the man comes") is also possible if the man was
introduced in the discourse previously. So these articles serve a function
in discourse as a "familiarity marker" in a way.
But maybe Fering speakers on the list can add better examples? There are
also other functionalities for this difference but the paper I have on this
is haurd to find in my library..

Regards

Henno Brandsma

BTW, this is probably a unique and Fering only development within Frisian..

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties

Críostóir objects to my writing:

"Regarding the AS invasion of the British Isles, do we need any better
explanation than that with the withdrawal of Roman forces the land was
available for the taking?"

He has replied:
>This is absurd! Of course we do! As a Cornishman I can assure you the land
was most definitely not just "for the taking" - it was already inhabited by
Celtic-speaking peoples. Saying Britain in 520 was "available for the
taking" is like saying Poland in 1939 or France in 1940 were "for the
taking".<

I shouldn't have to point out that he is the one who is being absurd. My
point could have been expressed as "The Romans having left Britannia
[ablative absolute!] the island was undefended against the attacks of the
Saxons which had previously been repulsed." I cannot see how else it could
reasonably be construed. I surely deserve credit for knowing that the
withdrawal of Roman power did not leave the land vacant. And if I had
believed that then there is no possibility of drawing a moral parallel with
later invasions of populated territories.

Críostóir seems to have confused "explanation" with "moral justification".

Unfortunately he goes on to imply that I hold views which would condone the
German invasion of Poland in 1939. I do not. All this is in his mind alone.
I think that in saying it he has gone beyond the bounds of reasonable free
expression. I should therefore like him to admit that he has grossly
misrepresented what I said and to apologise for doing so.

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

==============================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.
=======================================================================