LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.29 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.AUG.2004 (06) * 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" 2004.08.29 (04) [E]

Dear, Dan John, John, Glen, Ron & All,

Subject: Language varieties

> >>But if we start
> >>assuming that large numbers came to Britain as traders and mercenaries
and
> >>basically took power by force of numbers when their populations had
built
> >>up, don't we have a problem with the lack of Latin and Celtic in OE
apart
> >>from place names?

I wouldn't say so. The new population names things according to their own
preferences. Consider how few Amerind names feature in the geonomy of the
Americas (Ha!)  but there are a few examples. Snorri Sturlusson himself gave
thought to the issue. Some big natural features like rivers kept their
Brythionic names, like 'Avon'. Some established cities like London kept
their Latin names, & others got transmogrified without actually being
renamed, like from 'Vectis' to 'Wight'.
The Geonomy Argument makes Bede's case stronger, not weaker.

> >>>The Old English dialects called Anglian most likely developed their
> >>>distinguishing features in Britain. So there is no one continental
> >>>dialect which can be considered the parent dialect of Anglian, but it
was
> >>>rather a levelled colonial amalgam of several dialects. The situation
is
> >>>no different for the Saxon dialects of Old English.

Well, Anglian itself is a geographical term, referring to settlers from
Angeln, irrespective of what they spoke (& therefore not altogether
satisfactory to me).
Apart from that, what tickles me, & has for a long time, that the 'Anglian'
features of Old English & Modern English are closer to Afrikaans than the
Anglo-Saxon English of King Alfred's Court. I am more willing to believe
that Anglo-Saxon developed its characteristics in isolation from the
Continent, & Anglian was more conservative of its Continental features.
As it happens, I appreciate that it is not so. Bede, & the other natives of
Old England were well aware that three distinct dialect groups (almost
certainly with internal differences too) settled in this old Roman Province,
& Bede's story is the best analysis of how THEY explained it. They were a
good deal nearer to the facts than we, they had dialectic features &
remembered as well as recorded history to go on to support their theories, &
they were not dimwits. Their tale deserves our serious consideration. Note
that Bede did not put a hard inception or cut-off time in their ingress.
I am not inclined to believe the German Auxilia had such a long-term
influence on British history, from what I know of Roman military practice.
The soldiers were recruited in one place, as unattached young men, then
marched off to another. It was not presumed they had wives & dependants on
recruitment, & they were certainly not provided for. The Auxilia, wherever
they were ultimately posted in the Empire settled down there & took women
there, & ultimately settled there. The earliest German Auxilia were surely
simply absorbed without trace into the British population.
But I think that the German Auxilia then present & active in Roman Britain
AT THE TIME of a political collapse coupled with invading Saxons will have
seriously ablated the resistance of the Romano-British forces, & perhaps
that group may have supported the invaders with their knowhow & local
dominance.
I am only annoyed that Bede did not mention Fries, & I am certain they were
there somewhere. Did they come from Angeln? Oh, & were the 'Jutes' 'Geats'?

> >>If this is the case, can anyone suggest any reason why much the same
> >>mixture of source languages gave two distinct language groups in
> >>"England"?

Make that 'dialect groups', & 'three' & lets talk.

> My guess is that the dialectal mix in the separate settlement areas was
> different - this in isolation for two or three generations may have
provoked
> different forms of levelling. This may sound far fetched, but it is
> reasonable if you compare the situation of American English where to this
> day you see two very distinct dialect groups that originated in two
separate
> settlement areas. Though basically the same language was transplanted the
> dialectal mix was a little different. Yet what emerged in the New World
was
> a new dialect different from every one found in the Old World.

This is good.

> Could it not be that the Anglian
> language was more influenced by (or even part
> of)Scandinavian/North Germanic? The territory of the
> Angles appears (stress on appears) to bridge the
> boundary between North and West Germanic. These
> factors may account for early differences in dialect
> among English settlers.

Well, if this were the case I would expect the Northern dialects of Old
English to be less like my language rather than more like it. Look at the
Teutonic god of war, the Crow Glutter. We call him 'Woden' & his day
'Wednesday', & his battle fury 'Wode'. Afrikaans 'woede' = 'fury'. The Old
Norse called him 'Odin'. The English called 'destiny' 'wierd',  Afrikaans
'word' = 'what will become' & the Old Norse called it 'ord'. This is only
one annoying point (to me). I beg you not to make me itemise them all.

> In addition, mixtures of
> tribes and ethnic groups (e.g frisians and Jutes) that
> settled in different locations in England may have
> influenced local dialects.

Right!

Yrs all round,
Mark

----------

From: Camillo Bastrup <camillo_bastrup at operamail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.08.25 (12) [E/Cornish]

In order to avoid the errors of soaking up 'too much' of the 'spin' that say
"National Geographic" has put in it's 'reconstructionism', we must remember
that our commonest prejudices NOW are really but "180's" on what was being
peddled just a half-century ago, that is, to be disabused of our
disorganised thinking, we must always remember that for instance; that Early
Latin was close-cousin of Old Irish! So to 'split hairs' as it were we must
first of all remember that we are in every single instance talking of one
great family, and there must be some 'connections'!(Rememeber the James
Birks show? PBS; which followed upon Sri Kenneth Clark's 'CIVILISATION'.) So
what we have is a loose-knit 'EURO- Union' with-out our text-books being
able to follow all the action, but if we remember that 'nations' in and of
themselves, with their peculiar 'lingos' is but a scenario of theatrical
backdrops for the political mechanations of the Celts, who when THEY
'petered out' the FIRST time, allowed...the rise of the ROMAN REPUBLIC. The
demise of Rome allowed the development of English 'yeomanry' and other
Germanic democratic institutions, again, spread by Vikingism to North
Africa, etc. And from before and then after, whether in Greece, Rome,
Balkans, etc. the insistant re-establising of aristocracies, in imitation of
the Celts, who were but 'lasped' "PATRIARCHS of OLD", resultaed in evrything
from the Roman EMPIRE to the OTTOMAN, etc. with tiny enclaves of resistance
as were Venice or Switzerland, Alfred's England or Iceland. What may have
occured is that the need for a 'different from the MAIN' -language,n helped
these 'duchies' or 'Sherwood Forests' or 'villas' create inummerable
'cockneys' such as "Luxembourgisch" and soforth as a principal to retiring
from the fray, and where a language retained prominence as did Latin &
Gaelic & English
the effect of time & place did all the work of creating changes, effectively
seperating even further very small populations within an area not in itself
very large, and making the self-reliance issues one of having a language,
border & culture which would be vastly unrecognisable from the NEAREST
neighbors, for the reason of isolation. So I say one might find at further
distance more 'relationships' within languages, and especially over some
great lenghths of time! The Mediterranean basin which saw Crete in infancy,
was hardly much different from the English Channel, Baltic, and Transalpine
areas of 2500, 2000, 1500, 1000, & 500 years ago, in the sense that either
'something was going on' or 'nothing seems to change!' The only languages
which seem to stay BIG and not EVOLVE are the TRADE or CHINOOK kind-of
jargons. And English as we now have it was the "INTERLINGUA" of manyplaces
before it just 'popped-up' all million-worded in vocabulary, and a phonolgy
not more difficult th
 an Spanish, the 'tech' of the time was always an involvement in SHIPPING
and that and that alone ties the CELT, VIKING, ROMAN, GREEK, etc. together
to these 'insignificant dialects' of the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks, etc.
In otherwords, before we can 'tie-in' by any 'etymological processes' we
must 'FLAT-EARTH" the subject matter itself. The "LOWLANDS" are most
acessible by boat! The speakers on board had from earliest time,
indescribably rich and imaginitive way of 'sorting' and 'preserving' their
"WORD HOARDS". The results seem to be a 'link' in these minority languages
to ALL the EUROPEAN 'actions' and SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT which tied in the
SAILOR of the forested North, to the larger trading routes.
Many believe that there is more to be found out by looking at some of the
words in these languages, to see if they can be traced to other farther
lands. Who knows?

----------

From: daniel prohaska <danielprohaska at bluewin.ch>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties"

Glenn,
Of course your theory on the topic is possible. What are the features of
Anglian that especially link it to Scandinavian (or appear to do so)?
Dan

Glenn Simpson wrote:
>'Dan wrote:
>>>The Old English dialects called Anglian most likely
>>>developed their distinguishing features in Britain. So
>>>there is no one continental dialect which can be
>>>considered the parent dialect of Anglian, but it was
>>>rather a levelled colonial amalgam of several
>>>dialects. The situation is no different for the Saxon
>>>dialects of Old English.

>>If this is the case, can anyone suggest any reason why
>>much the same mixture of source languages gave two
>>distinct language groups in "England"?'

>I wouldn't disagree with the above but perhaps the
>differences in dialect can also be attributed to the
>fact that the Angles came mainly from area/islands
>that are now Denmark (plus north Germany), i.e. in the
>Scandinavian area. Could it not be that the Anglian
>language was more influenced by (or even part
>of)Scandinavian/North Germanic? The territory of the
>Angles appears (stress on appears) to bridge the
>boundary between North and West Germanic. These
>factors may account for early differences in dialect
>among English settlers. In addition, mixtures of
>tribes and ethnic groups (e.g frisians and Jutes) that
>settled in different locations in England may have
>influenced local dialects.

>Just some thoughts.

>gan canny,
>Glenn Simpson

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