LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.08 (05) [E]

Tue Mar 8 18:31:59 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 08.MAR.2005 (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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Leslie Decker <leslie at volny.cz>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (08) [E]

  From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
  Subject: Onomastica

  Klaus, Lowlanders,

  I'm not offering an explanation for the isolated occurrence of /G/ > /T/,
  other than "weird things tend to happen to names, especially place names.

  Most fricatives sound rather alike, especially if you don't look at the
  speaker.

  Loss of fricatives and their replacement by surviving fricatives is not
all
  that unusual, especially in English and in Celtic. There is the
  better-known case of the loss of English /G/ (written <gh>) and its
  replacement by means of /v/ -> [f], as in "laugh". Then, still occurring
in
  more recent times, there is dialectal or idiolectal replacement of /T/ by
  /f/ and /D/ by /v/ (e.g., "both" as "bofe", "the" as "ve", "rather" as
  "rahver", and "through" as "frough").
There's a more modern example of this too. Take the pronunciation by some
English speakers of a famous Dutch painter who cut off his ear: [væn goT].
That is, of course, no explanation for the pronunciation here in the States:
[væn go]. :-)

Leslie Decker

----------

From: davidab at telefonica.net.pe <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (08) [E]

> From:  R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Onomastica
>
> Klaus, Lowlanders,
>
> I'm not offering an explanation for the isolated occurrence of /G/ > /T/,
> other than "weird things tend to happen to names, especially place names.
>
> Most fricatives sound rather alike, especially if you don't look at the
> speaker.
>
> Loss of fricatives and their replacement by surviving fricatives is not
all
> that unusual, especially in English and in Celtic.  There is the
> better-known case of the loss of English /G/ (written <gh>) and its
> replacement by means of /v/ -> [f], as in "laugh".  Then, still occurring
in
> more recent times, there is dialectal or idiolectal replacement of /T/ by
> /f/ and /D/ by /v/ (e.g., "both" as "bofe", "the" as "ve", "rather" as
> "rahver", and "through" as "frough").
>
> What we write <th> represents two fricatives in English: a voiced one and
an
> voiceless one.  I don't see why these should not be used to replace <gh>,
> and someone has thought so before me.  It is only that this came to be
> formalized sporadically and rarely, and then in names.  It tends to be
local
> dialects that determine the pronunciation of place names, and in some
cases
> the written language preserves the older pronunciation.  It would be
> interesting to know if in those Yorkshire dialects the shift "gh" > "th"
was
> regular at one time.
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

How about hypercorrection? Someone hears /ki:fli/ thinks /f/ is an accent
variant of /T/ starts pronouncing it /ki:Tli/ and that pronunciation catches
on

David Barrow

----------

From: rudi <rudi at its.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (08) [E]

Gabriele wrote:

"lichterloh brennen - to be brightly ablaze "

Could "lichterloh" be related to "lichte laaie"? As in: "Het huis stond
in lichte laaie.", meaning the house was burning fiercely.  What could
be the history of "lichte laaie"?

Kind regards
Rudi Vári

----------

From: Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong <Dutchmatters at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Onomastica" 2005.03.07 (08) [E]

Hi Lowlanders,Gabrielle says:
Actually, I realized only now, when I read what you had quoted, that
German "-rode" and English "root" (as well as "rood") are probably
related...

Hi Gabrielle, mag ik hier ook mijn neus in steken?

Yes, and don't forget that a "roede" is a measure which was measured
with a long pole. It has different lengths in different parts of the
lowlands
( 3.76 meters im Rheinland and 3.68 meters in Amsterdam.

For you Dutchies, "Zwarte Piet heeft een roe, een bos takken.

As to "loh": the old German word for a bright flame, "Lohe", is almost
out of use these days, except for a few remnants:

As for "lichterloh brennen - to be brightly ablaze". The Dutch
translation for lichterloh would be " in lichterlaai staan"

Also the Dutch word for a "Lohgerber" is a "leerlooier" that would fit
with your finding of lohfarben as yellowish, tawny. Maybe translated as
modern English TAN as in Tanner?
I first thought that the German root LOH-would point at the Dutch LOOG =
LYE, but that does not seems right. If I remember well, the old
fashioned way of softening leather was with the help of urine, which is
usually acid but maybe they also used ashes, which are highly alkaline?
Does anybody know?

Jacqueline

----------

From:  R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Onomastica

I wrote:

> Loss of fricatives and their replacement by surviving fricatives is not
all
> that unusual, especially in English and in Celtic.

... and gave English examples.

What comes to mind in Celtic is that in Irish and Scottish Gaelic written
<dh> is pronounced [G] (the fricative equivalent of /g/), identically to
what is written <gh>.  Both are cases of Celtic mutation.  While <gh> is
mutated <g>, <dh> is mutated <d> (which is still pronounced [d], [dʲ] or
[dʒ] depending on environment), and since both mutated forms are fricative
equivalents, <dh> ought to be pronounced [ð] (SAMPA [D], like "the" in
"then").  Apparently, <dh> was pronounced [ð] (SAMPA [D],  like "the" in
"then") in Old Irish, as would have to be expected.  So it's rather
interesting to note that a dental fricative can change to become a velar
fricative.

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