LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.11.18 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 18.NOV.2004 (05) * 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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.11.18 (07) [E]

>>>>> It may have to do something with the High German sound shift. In that
case this voicing feature would have spread from "High German" to "Low
German", i.e Low Franconian and Low
Saxon.
Within Franconian there is no real language border between the "low" and
"high" varieties, it is more a continuum from the North to the South in
Middle German - Kleverländisch, Bergisch,
Limburgish, Rheinlandish, Ripuarisch...
So in this kind of situation a feature like initial voicing can spread
easily throughout such an area.
And from Low Franconian to Low Saxon is the next step, since the both were
very closely related...

High German p>pf>f may have caused original f>v, and HGerm t>tz>s may have
caused original s>z?
The only problem here is that initially German has pf and z [ts] as in HG
pferd, LS peyrd, Du paard = E horse and HD zehn, LS teyn, Du tien = E ten.
In other position HG offen/auf vs LS
apen/up, Du open/op = E open/up and HG essen/was, LS/Du eten/wat = to
eat/what we find f and s, but that is in other than word initial positions.
High German th>dh>d looks like a reaction to d>t to me in that languages,
which had lead to a short of initial d's.

On the other hand, this whole High German sound shift, including initial
voicing, reminds me of the Celtic mutations too. And they must have started
in the far South of Germany, I believe maybe
in Switzerland which had been a stronghold of Gaulish for relatively long.

Something else, about the "infamous Dutch voiceless v that is distinct from
f in native speakers perception": Reinhard, as a native speaker I can assure
you once again that our perception is not mislead by orthography, as you
seem to think, but yours may be mislead by the fact that Low Saxon and
German gave up this distincion.

Can't you see the prove of that in the fact that in South Western English,
Yola etc, the subject we are talking about all the time, this initial f
became v too?
So why then it would be impossible all of a sudden that in Dutch we have
this v < f too?

In Dutch we find:
wier [vi:r]  = seaweed
vier  [Vi:r] = four
fier  [fi:r]   = proud

wrede    ["vre:id@]     = cruel
vrede     ["Vre:id@]    = peace
Frederik ["fre:id at rIk] = Friedrich

hold Vast, Ingmar

>  R. F. Hahn :
>
> I think it is not entirely unreasonable to postulate that by the time of
> migration to Britain Old Saxon (and related varieties that later moved
> southward from the Elbe region to become the ancestors of German dialects)
> had begun a trend toward prevocalic fricative voicing, and that this trend
> continued in the varieties that further developed in Southern England,
even
> though this was not (or rarely?) reflected in writing.  Bear in mind also
> that it is well accepted that in intervocalic position within words Old
> English <s>, <þ> ([T] th) and <f> were pronunced [z], [ð] ([D] dh) and [v]
I am not
> sure if anyone can tell if this is an inherent feature or emanated from
> German to Saxon and Low Franconian (considering that Old German had this
> feature earlier).
>
> I do not know if orthographic ambivalence between <f> and <v> in medieval
> Dutch, Saxon and German is any indication that at one time there had been
a
> "struggle" between initial /f/ and /v/.  What at one time was written <v->
> (of which there are still remnants in LS and G, as in _vad(d)er_ / _Vater_
> 'father') came to be pronounced /f/ in today's dialects, while in Dutch
the
> "infamous" and elusive "voiceless /v/" is involved that in native
speakers'
> perception is distinct from initial /f/ (which occurs in loanwords).

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