LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.09 (09) [E]

Thu Mar 10 00:14:54 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.MAR.2005 (09) * 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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.08 (11) [E]

Yes, in Low Saxon, German and Dutch final voiced stops are pronounced
voiceless: -b>-p, -d>-t, -g>-ch.
But that was not the case in Old Norse/Old Danish, there these were
pronounced voiced.
So, when Old Danish p/k/t > b/g/d, the old b/g/d had to move to bh/gh/dh,
to avoid coinceding with the new voiced stops. In this respect, there was
no difference between intervocal and wordfinal consonants, because the
were already pronounce the same in these positions. Later on, the whole
process was repeated once again, so now the 'new' b/g/d have also become
bh/gh/dh, although they are still written as b/g/d, pronunciation tends to
vocalize them, like 'peber' ["peuQ] pepper, where we see [w] < p.
Note also: s[b]ise = spise, to eat, s[d]Ã¸d = stÃ¸d, s[g]ib = skib, ship
etc.

Southern Jutish has these developments too, or even "worse", but I think
our friend Kenneth could tell us all about that, if he'd have the time for
it ;-)

What I said about the possible Low Saxon origin: I mean that the Jutes
copied the voicing of stops, but it worked out more rigorously because
they pronounced those stops as voiced in more positions.

In fact, these Danish consonant developments are quite similar to those of
French, I noticed...
So it may well be a autonomous, natural development as well which took
place in different languages. In French one could suspect Gaulish Celtic
substrate influence, but in Hymbria?

Ingmar

>Gary Taylor wrote:

>Ingmar stated:
> My own theory is in fact that these changes started outside
>Denmark, in Northern Low Saxon, with the devoicing of
>intervocal stops -p-, -k-, -t- > -b-, -g-, -d-. In Groningen Low Saxon we
>see the same tendency. Further developments in Danish were then: -b-
> -bh-, -g- > gh-, -d- > -dh- etc etc"

>>Gary replied:
>I've always wondered about this myself, why Danish p, t, k changed to b,
d,g. In the middle of a word it's quite a natural process, Spanish had it
in its history too, for example - but it doesn't go to explaining why these
>changes took place at the end of a word, and I don't think this can be
from
>the influence of Low Saxon, cos this tends (or tended) to go in the
opposite
>direction so that b, d, g change into p, t, k, as in High German and
>Dutch... - But anyway this is all rather off topic for the list... :/
>
>What does Southern Jutish do? - I think I'm allowed that one as a contact
>language ;)

----------

From: Roger Hondshoven <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.09 (04) [E]

Hi Ron,

I would like to add two other x-words: in Dutch there is, next to 'ruw',
also 'ruig'. In East-Brabant they say 'teeg' instead of 'taai'.

Best regards,

Roger
>
>> > From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Phonology
> >
> [skip]
>
> > I admit that once in a while it crosses my mind that English _gh_ [x]
> > > _f_
> > is due to a Celtic substrate.  But I usually quickly dismiss it for
> > lack of
> > evidence.
> >
> > Besides, it's not as though the alternation between velar/uvular and
> > labial/labiodental fricatives is confined to Britain.  Consider the
> > following:
> >
> > Dutch: lach [...x]
> > LowSax: lach [...x]
> > Scots: lauch [...x]
> > Engl: laugh [...f]
> >
> WFris: laitsje, past tense "lake", so here there was a "hardening"
>
> > Dutch: genoeg [...x]
> > LowSax: noug [...x]
> > WFries: genôch ~ genoch [...x]
> The ge- is a later addition, by Dutch and/or Low Saxon influence.
> Eg nôch also exists, but means "cooked" (as opposed to raw), and is (I
> suppose of the same origin).
> Also in compounds nôch is used (besternôch = goed enough).
>
> > Scots: enouch [...x]
> > Engl: enough [...f]
> >
> > Dutch: ruw
> > LowSax: ruug [...x]
> > Scots: roch [...x]
> > Engl: rough [...f]
>
> WFrisian rûch [rux]
>
> > Dutch: taai
> > LowSax: taag [...x]
> > Scots: teuch [...x]
> > Engl: tough [...f]
> >
> > Dutch: dracht [...xt]
> > LowSax: dracht [...xt]
> > Scots: draucht [...xt]
> > Engl: draught [...ft]
> > < *drag- 'carry', 'pull', 'draw'
> >
> WFris "dracht" is also a normal word. Eg the place name "Drachten".
>
> > Dutch: gracht [...xt]
> > Dutch, Middle: graft ~ gracht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> > LowSax: graft ~ gracht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> > Engl: graft
> > < *grav- 'dig'
>
> WFris grêft
>
> > Dutch: lucht [...xt]
> > LowSax: luft ~ lucht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> > WFries: luft ~ lucht [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> > Scots: laft
> > Engl: loft
>
> Also "loft" in WFRis, but this is "sky", not "air", which still is the
> Dutch loan "lucht".
>
> > Dutch: zacht [...xt]
> > LowSax: sacht [...xt]
> > WFries: sêft
> > Scots: saft
> > Engl: soft
> >
> > Dutch, Middle: nifte ~ nichte [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> > Saxon, Middle: nifte ~ nichte [...ft] ~ [...xt]
> > Engl: nift (arch. for 'niece')
>
> WFris also had (19th century) "nift", but this has died out. Now
> "nicht" and "neef" are used (both from Dutch).
>
> > Regards,
> > Reinhard/Ron
> >
> Mei freonlike groetnis,
>
> Henno Brandsma

----------

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

Thanks for all the additions to the collection, folks.  Of course, there are
tons more, not to forget this one, for 'behind' and 'after':

Dutch/Afrikaans: achter [...xt...] < OLowFranc: after [...ft...]
LowSax: achter [...xt...] < OSax: aftar [...ft...]
(ModGerm: After [...ft...] 'anus' < OGerm: after)
WFries: efter [...ft...] < OFries: efter [...ft...]
Scots: efter [...ft...] < OEngl: æfter [...ft...]
Engl: aft(er) [...ft...] < OEngl: æft(er) [...ft...]
ModScand: efter [...ft...] > etter [...t:...]
ModIcel: aft... [...ft...] < ONorse: apt- ~ ept- [...pt...]
Gothic: afar [...f...]
Germanic: *after, *afta [...ft...]
Indo-European: *apero- [...p...]

So in this case we can say that /after/ > /axter/ is specific to the Low
German branch (Dutch, Afrikaans, Low Saxon, etc.).

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