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: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.25 (12) [E/Cornish]

Dear Críostóir Ó Ciardha

Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.25 (03) [E]

> John Feather wrote:
> "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?"

> 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.

Well, wasn't he right; from the no doubt deplorable perspective of the
'taker'?

Now, speaking as one of Irish blood, certain Irish long ago did a really
reckless thing, in soliciting the help of a few Anglo-Norman, knights in a
local quarrel --- they were vassels of the English Throne. The rest is
history.

I imagine the case of the Saxon foederati in late Roman Britain was not too
different. Following the sudden & disasterous 'executive' vacuum following
the withdrawal of the Legions, Maximus being most to blame, I should say,
the authorities were constrained to make their own arrangements, & there
were Ethnic German auxilia, or ex-auxilia, enough to fill the gap quite
nicely. And they were so cheap, & so convenient! Who could imagine what
consequences would follow? Of course 'everybody' was doing it, not just
Britain.

>    I’m afraid it may be a little more complicated than that. The Germanic
> tribes doidn’t come in like a bang the minute the Romans left. The Roman
> armies had been using Germanic mercenaries for centuries. The
Romano-British
> kings continued to do so after the Romans left, so the ‘Anglo-Saxon
invasion
> ’ may have been a home-grown problem. A British King would have promised
the
> mercenaries land, and once they had finished their military service they
in
> turn would have brought families (and friends, and tribes) over to live
with
> them. Maybe settlement was even encouraged at an early date to have enough
> fighters against the Picts that were pushing into the south after the
Roman
> withdrawal. So I believe Germanic bases were already established before
the
> actual mass immigration. The latter may have been caused by blight, or
> another catastrophe and the people affected will have had a place to go –
> across the channel or the North Sea to Britain. But a lot of this is, of
> course, speculation.

Apologies, Dan, your speculation is more thorough than mine.

One more thing - when exactly was that fearsome inundation in which the sea
broke through the 'Dutch' coast behind the heads that were to become the
Fries islands? I read that the Zuider Zee was a recent phenomenon, in
historical terms, & the Nederlanders have spent the time since then winning
back the same lost land from the sea.

I imagine the final event must have been awesomely catastrophic, but the
writing was surely on the wall for some time before then. I reckon if the
Bangladeshi's heard of a dry place they could go to, now, they'd go! So
where did all those pre-inundation Angels & Fries go to? Guesses!

Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: John Duckworth <jcduckworth2003 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Language Varieties


Críostóir Ó Ciardha wrote:

"John Duckworth mentioned _moydering_ and _gansey_. Both these terms also
appear(ed) in Hiberno-English, and may derive from there."

_Gansey_ or _gansy_ for 'jersey' seems to be more widesperead than I
thought.

It used to be used in the Anglo-Manx dialect of the Isle of Man (see: 'A
Vocabulary of the Anglo-Manx Dialect. 1924.
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/fulltext/am1924/pt_g.htm ); in the
dialect of Filey in NOrth Yorkshire (there is a webpage on 'Fishermen's
Ganseys from Filey at: http://members.lycos.co.uk/Fileybay/gansey.html ; a
site about Shetland handknits (
http://members.lycos.co.uk/Fileybay/gansey.html ) mentions Edward the VIII
when still Prince of Wales wearing a Shetland 'gansy' ; a site on Historical
Boys' Clothing mentions the 'gansy' becoming known on both sides of the
Atlantic (http://www.histclo.hispeed.com/style/cold/sw-jer.html ); there
also appear to be many men tions of the word on the web, inclusing a quote
from James Joyce's _Ulysses_ (which must, I suppose be Hiberno-English).

As far as _moyderin'_ goes (meaning to pester, or 'bug' someone; to nag
someone), it is hard not to interpret the word as a varaint pronunciation of
the word _murdering_ , and in some Irish English dialects _murdering_ would
probably be pronounced just like that. What confuses the issue is the fact
that other Lancashire dialects use the word _maytherin'_ , which is
obviously the same word, but why is it phonetically so different? I wonder
if the two words might not actually derive from some totally different
source.

Speaking of _murder_, this noun was, and is, often used in Lancashire in an
almost adjectival manner, meaning something like 'troublesome',
'bothersome', 'difficult'; e.g. _it wer murder trying ter get through ter
'im._ (It was 'murder' [difficult] trying to get through to him / trying to
get him to understand) ; _it wer murder in town today_ (it was crowded /
tyring in the town centre today).

JOhn Duckworth
Preston, UK


----------

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

In Willy Sanders' book "Sachsensprache, Hansesprache, Plattdeutsch" I found
a map showing the southern boundary of "Niederdeutsch". Data from 1957 or
earlier. The isoglosses for ik/ich and maken/machen are very close along
most of their length but there is a prominent loop of the maken/machen line
around Berlin so that like Frankfurt a O it is in the transitional zone with
ik+machen.

In the same book (p 157) Sanders writes that in 1793 the upper middle class
of Altona still spoke Niederdeutsch but were so mocked by French aristocrats
fleeing from the Revolution that "das Niederdeutsche alsbald aus der guten
Gesellschaft verschwand". It occurred to me that these aristos might not
previously have heard even High German spoken in the sort of circles they
moved in because French was widely used at this time in the German royal
courts. Is this plausible? Did the Altoners switch to HG or French? In
German literature of the 18th century one finds the 2nd person pl used as
the polite form of address. Is this borrowed from French or just the older
German convention? To stay on our side of the Sprachgrenze, what was the
general picture as regards the language choice of top people in the LS
region?

John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.26 (07) [E]


John Feather writes:
"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."

Don't be so childish. There is an important distinction between disagreeing
with someone and wanting to censor them. You prefer the latter. And who are
you to take it upon yourself to define what is "reasonable free expression"?
We have a moderator on this list for that.

Críostóir.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
Subject: Language varieties

Play nice, boys!

I very, very rarely censor, nor is there any need to do so under normal
circumstances.  So let's not start a new tradition in which I need to play
referee.

I assume that we are all adults here and can take responsibility for what we
say, as well as for our errors.  I respect all of you too much to feel the
need to take on the role of your nanny.

Number one in our etiquette rules:
   * All exchanges must be in a courteous and friendly tone.

Those of you who know they have a tendency toward knee-jerk reactions and
toward flying off the handle ought to take the commonly given advice not to
respond right away but to think about it and simmer down first, preferably
sleep on it.  Maybe this helps to see what has been said in a new, more
neutral light, given that there may be a difference between the literal
meaning and the intended meaning of an indiomatic expression.   Give folks
the benefit of the doubt!  If you read something that sounds offensive to
you, ask them if they really meant it that (offensive) way rather than
hurling angry accusations at them right away.  If they say something that is
not in conformance with your beliefs, opinions or agendas, say so (nicely)
if you need to, and be prepared to accept differences of opinion.

Let me remind you that it is conducive to a civil, if not friendly, tone and
atmosphere if you abandon any thought of you sharing the List with enemies
or with apologists for invasions, wars or other attrocities committed in the
past past, present or future.  List members are not and ought not be
considered representatives of their ethnicities or countries.  They have not
joined the List to whitewash the histories of their communities or in any
other way should be considered bearing the weight of their countries' pasts.
I should think all of us are a lot more intelligent and educated than
thinking otherwise.

So, play nice!

John Feather asked (above):

> Did the Altoners

Altonaers?
(German _Altonaer_ ['?altona:3`s], LS _Altnaers_ <Altnoers> ['?a.ltnQ:3`s] ~
['?a.ltno:3`s])

> switch to HG or French?

As far as I know, French was adopted mostly by the (would-be) aristocracy
and their hangers-on.  But much of this was just for show.  French was used
at high-society gatherings, but German was used in private life.  They may
even have spoken, at least understood, Lowlands Saxon (Low German) if they
had enough contact with "the people" and had had local nannies rather than
German- or French-speaking ones.  Some aristocrats weren't quite as refined
as they thought they were.  Especially when they "let go," such as when
drunk, they would oftentimes carry on in LS.  This was the case pretty much
everywhere in Northern Germany, I believe.

Hamburg proper had no actual aristocracy -- then still separate -- as far as
I know.  However, parts of what is now the city-state Hamborg/Hamburg were
then separate, such as the southern communities of Harborg/Harburg and
Willemsborg/Wilhelmsburg which where under the power of the the house of
Brunswick, and Ahrnsborg/Ahrensburg in the north which had (still has) its
own castle.  I am not sure about Altona before it became a part of Hamburg.
I know that for some time it was under Danish rule.

Remember that _la façon française sophistiquée_ in Germany and elsewhere had
begun long before the French invasion of the early 19th century.  So, it
wasn't much of a change for those folks.  I'm sure that quite a few
non-aristocrats learned some French during the occupation if they thought it
was benefitial to do so.  Some may not have done all that well, and this
ended up being rather comical at times.  Fritz Reuter writes about this in
his book _Ut de Franzosentid_.  By and large, Altonaers, Hamburgers and
others -- middle class and up -- switched to German, and this shift had been
well under way in the 18th century.

However, I have a feeling that even some community leaders used the language
of the land as a symbol of "us" (versus Germans and foreigners), such as
Hamburg's merchants, senators and shipowners in their guilds, societies and
clubs intent on keeping out the non-local "riff-raff," including the
Ashkenazi Jewish merchant families that had begun arriving mostly from
Southern Germany at the 17th century and spoke German (some of them still
Western Yiddish at home, while the Portuguese Sephardic community was more
established and somewhat more integrated).  Furthermore, many locals,
including leaders, resented French occupation and some of the oppressive
policies and acts that came with it, especially symbolic anti-Lutheran
actions, such as converting Protestant churches into Roman Catholic ones and
using St. Michael's Church ("Michel") of Hamburg as a stable for the French
cavalry, also the terrible retributional arson to churches and areas around
them.

(I have a German short story about this, which I could send you if you are
interested.)

> In
> German literature of the 18th century one finds the 2nd person pl used as
> the polite form of address. Is this borrowed from French or just the older
> German convention?

I am not sure, but I doubt it was due to French influence.  By the way, this
applied in LS of the time as well.

Because of Berlin's role as the center of Prussian power, the Brandenburg LS
dialects of the city and its immediate surroundings gave way to German much
earlier than in other areas.  (This also brought about the end of some of
the northernmost Slavonic Lower Sorbian dialects once spoken just south of
Berlin.)  As a result, ordinary Berliners developed various types of
Missingsch, i.e., German on Brandenburg LS substrates (which came with a
liberal sprinkling of Slavonic words).

Hopefully others will have things to add to this.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

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