LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 23.MAY.2005 (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
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: Tom Carty <cartyweb at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (05) [E]

If we can count local heavy accents as being dialects and languages in
English, such as Northumbrian, surely Lower Saxon can have that status?

Rooted from German, just related close... hence the assosoation.

Not neccessarily German, politically or culturally. Not neccessarily non
German either.

Just my tuppenceworth.

Tom

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (05) [E]

Ron wrote:
> > You may not
> > even be aware that you are doing this, since you, too, grew up with
those
> > conjoined twins in mind. And that's where I often get the feeling: "This
> > is
> > German. Then why can't he say it is German?".
>
> Actually, no.  As far as I can remember I have been aware that this is a
> different language, and I was able to tell _Patentplatt_ from the real
thing
> already as a child.  My "intuition" was confirmed to me when I began
> learning English and Scandinavian and exposing myself to Dutch and
> Afrikaans.  And this was before I found out that sizeable communities use
> the language outside Germany without German in tandem.  So it seems that
you
> and I approached the subject from different angles, using different
> faculties.  (This may simply be that I was a weird kid and never accepted
> things as facts just because people touted them as such.)  However, it
> should be at the latest when you realize that the language is used
elsewhere
> without the German umbrella, including in the country in which you lived
and
> whose standard language you know, that a light bulb goes on in your head
and
> your intellect tells you, "OK, I'll take it from here."

But I have always known that, too. I have been exposed to "purest" Platt
from a very young age, and have always regarded it as a separate language,
albeit a mysterious one with many dialects. What I was trying to say is that
you often "sell" German expressions as purely Lower Saxon ones, even if they
happen to be a literary translation from High German. And if this even
happens to you, on a frequent basis, isn't that proof enough for the very
close proximity of the two languages? This is the entire point I wanted to
make, and I have no idea where you got all those other assumptions as to my
background, motives, and "emotional" state of mind. My standpoint in this
matter is entirely pragmatical, and I can voice it freely because I have no
political agenda to go with it whatsoever.

Anyway, I do not feel that you have really answered what I was trying to
address. "Because I have seen the light, and you haven't" (this is how I
translate your reply) isn't the answer. I still put it to you that, even for
you, the borders and distinctions between Lower German and High German are
not always clear. This is not helped by the fact that you have been living
abroad for decades now (sorry, I know this one always pushes your button,
but that is still the way it is).

This is something that actually happens a lot between related languages -
for example, those spoken regularly in my own household (German, English and
Dutch): you use an expression, and suddenly you're not really sure whether
it came from the right language, but it seems to fit in beautifully anyway.

On a different note: if Lower Saxon is to survive as a seperate language fit
for everyday use, where is all the necessary modern-day vocabulary going to
come from? Old Saxon? Dutch? English? Or wouldn't it be adapted from German
after all?

To state my final, and biggest, heretic view, so I can get them over with
all at once: why can't a language be allowed to die in peace, surrounded by
its loved ones? Aren't most efforts to resurrect minority languages derived
from political and nationalist agendas, even on a local basis? Aren't they a
struggle for power, one way or another? Mind you, I do love languages like
anyone here on the list and don't want any of them them to die because of
all the sadness involved, but how realistic is it to try and keep them alive
when their time is so clearly over? Isn't it enough to enjoy old literature,
songs and tales, and think fondly of what once was used as an everyday means
of communication? Cultures change, nations change, generations change, and
barely any language is spoken today as it was a thousand years ago. Is it
really that important to stem the tide? Isn't it much, much more important
to ensure the survival of living species and environments? Given the fact
that quite a few species of large mammals (to name just an example) may be
extinct within the next twenty years, never to walk on Earth again - just
how important is a small facet of human "culture", no matter how beloved? We
are just another animal, with more varied grunts than most. And an awfully
obnoxious one most of the time (or maybe I'm just speaking for myself here).

Just a thought, to put things into perspective.

Gabriele Kahn

----------

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

Tom, dialects have no protection and no legal standing whatsoever.  Until
recently, before official recognition, you were not even allowed to have
your civil marriage ceremony in Low Saxon.  Furthermore, language status
"legitimizes" and "justifies" certain things, such as state funding,
educational curriculum inclusion, a publishing industry, also things like
community college courses.  Dialect publishing does exist, but it is minimal
and inconsistent, except in the case of Swiss Allemannic (German), and in
this case only because there is a separate language movement as well as a
need to enhance Swiss identity and separation from Germany and Austria.  The
same applies to Luxembourgish which, technically speaking, is a German
dialect but has gained separate language recognition for the benefit of
Luxembourgish independence and identity.  Furthermore, when a language is
recognized or aspires to be, you will get things like Internet services and
representation in it.  If this happens with dialects (such as Bavarian and
Swabian dialects of German) it is usually just for a lark.

Gabriele, I thought I did answer you question.  Let me do it again: Yes, I
have always known that Low Saxon and German are very closely related, but at
the same time I have always seen them as separate languages, have always
been aware when someone set foot over into the other territory, and this
even between Missingsch and Low Saxon.  However, it did take me quite a
while to tell the difference between Missingsch and "good German."  So, no,
I have never been confused in this regard.  However, I found out very early,
not from theory but by way of exposure, that the closest relatives of Low
Saxon are Dutch and Afrikaans.  If there is ever any confusion it would be
between Low Saxon, Dutch and Afrikaans, not between them and German.  But
that's me.

However, having said this, I need to sort of cede some territory to you.  We
must not lose sight of the fact that northern dialects of German, even
within the acceptable standard range, are to varying degrees
Low-Saxon-influenced.  I would go as far as venturing the guess that they
started off as Missingsch dialects and step by step "improved," "got cleaned
up," entering the realm of "good German," though with a noticeable northern
touch (which Southerners will always notice, even if a Northerner thinks of
him- or herself as speaking _astreines Hochdeutsch_).  In this dialect
range, literally translated Low Saxon idiomatic expressions abound.
Clearly, to people using these northern dialects the difference between Low
Saxon and German (as they use it) must seem smaller.

Furthermore, you grew up close to the southern reaches of Low Saxon, at the
meeting place of Westphalian, Eastphalian and the tight bundle of
isoglosses, transitional dialects known as _Mitteldeutsch_.  The situation
is similar in the southern reaches of Sachsen-Anhalt and Brandenburg.  Also,
your area is close to the Harz Mountains which have a very confusing
linguistic situation, German dialects having been imported to the mining
areas in the past, while in other, northern areas previously rather insular
dialects of Low Saxon are used.  Dialect differences in that southern range
are apparently quite abrupt as well as "spotty" or "erratic," more so than
in North Saxon.  I can well imagine that this creates a kind of muddled
picture and more nebulous language boundaries in people's minds.  I have
noticed the same in my communication with a few other speakers and writers
of Eastphalian.

(I wonder if there is a comparable situation in Scotland, and, yes, I'm
curious about Northumbrian, being a sort of transitional range between Scots
and "English proper," genealogically closer to Scots, at least in theory.)

Gabriele, I won't go down the other garden path and reinvent that old wheel
with you, nor will I respond to the last-resort button-pushing attempt.  It
serves no worthwhile purpose as far as I am concerned.  You can dance that
tango by yourself, unless someone else feels like obliging.  (I know from my
own experience that our Sandy is a killer tango dancer, very nimble on his
feet.  But watch *your* feet while he's at it!)  I'm sure you won't stop
loving me althogether just because I pass on this one.

> And who would
> follow that, given the proverbial stubbornness of Lower Saxons?

Indeed!  I'm often reminded of that.  "I disagree because I can. And I
*like* it!"  I wonder if this started off with resistence against the
_Hoogduytschen_.  Whatever came from the towns, cities, landlords, offices
and any kind of authority was _geel_ ("yellow," i.e., German proper), and
the first thing you do, before even knowing what it is, is reject it, argue
against it even before you yourself know how you really feel about it.  Oh,
yes!  I grew up with it plenty, and, yes, I run into it often even now in
certain arenas.  (My wife holds the erraneous belief that I belong to the
same camp, but we all know she must be wrong, and we reject and deny any
such thing. Right?)

Gabriele also wrote (in her previous, supposedly last installment ;-) ):

> "Kumm wedder" or "Kumm taurüch" (come back)

I'm not picking on Gabriele here (as if I ever would), just want to point
out that this is a great example of Germanization, of declining language
competency.

_Kum_ (<kumm>) for singular imperative 'come!' is, technically speaking,
incorrect but has made such inroads that in many dialects it is now
considered correct.

Low Saxon has a very regular system of producing imperative forms:

singular: verb stem
plural: verb stem + (e)t

The infinitive form of 'to come' is _kamen_, underlyingly /kaam-n/.  Thus,
the correct original signular imperative form is _kaam!_ ([kQ:m] ~ [ko:m]),
with a long vowel, and the plural is _kaamt!_.  In the wake of
Germanization, influence from German _komm(e)!_ 'come!' has caused the vowel
to be shortened.  Most really competent speakers still say _kaam!_ and
_kaamt!_, but I have heard some of them wavering between that and _kum!_ and
_kumt!_ (under majority pressure, I suppose).  Grammars and dictionaries
still show only _kaam!_ and _kaamt!_ as grammatical.

So, in the much beloved song _Dat du mien Leevsten büst_ (That You are My
Sweetheart) you get:

Kumm bi de Nacht, kumm bi de Nacht!

and

Klopp an de Kamerdöör, fatt an de Klink!

Grammatically, this ought to be:
Kaam bi de Nacht, kaam bi de Nacht!
Klopp an de Kamerdöör, faat an de Klink!

... where _vaat!_ (<faat!> [fQ:t] ~ [fo:t]) ought to be the imperative of
_vaten_ (<faten> ['fQ:t=n] ~ ['fo:t=n]) 'to grab', 'to seize', but under
German influence, namely _fassen_ with a short vowel, the vowel has been
shortened.

These days few people are aware of all this.  This goes to show you.
Moribundy and morbidity do indeed abound.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Hi Criostóir and anyone else interested

You asked about Canadian 'about':

"Why do Americans hear [u:] and myself - whose native
sound range is
Nottingham English / Cornish English - [o:] for this
disputed phoneme?
I
have raised this with my Australian-accented wife and
my Irish-accented
friends and they all hear [o:], not [u:]. So what's
happening?"

When people start to speak another language, or listen
to a language or dialect they're not very used to, but
can recognise, they tend to use the closest sounds
from their own dialects. This is why I still find it
very difficult distinguishing ü and u in German,
because to me they both sound like possible English
pronunciations of our oo in boot for example, even
though I know they're very different and can
distinguish them if I really concentrate, in the same
way Germans always call me Gerry (with a hard G but
with an /e/) and spell my name thus, because they find
it hard to distinguish between /e/ and /æ/.

The sounds involved with the words 'about', 'boat' and
'boot' in American, Canadian and 'British' English are
as followed

American
/@bAUt/(main stress on A)
/boUt/ (main stress on o)
/bu:t/

Canadian
/@bVUt/ (main stress on U) [V is posh southern England
English u in up]
/boUt/ (main stress on o)
/bu:t/

'British'
/@baUt/ (main stress on a)
/b at Ut (~ boUt)/ (main stress on U)
/bu:t ~ by:t/

With Canadian 'about', Americans hear their /u:/
(boot), as the stress on the second /U/ part of the
diphthong is the strange thing about the vowel for
them, whereas Brits hear our /oU ~ @U ~ 6U/ (boat),
(as would Australians and New Zealanders), as the
starting point of the diphthong is the thing that
seems strangest for us. You possibly go one stage
further and recognise your /o:/ which is the vowel
you'd use in boat, as the Canadian vowel sounds
similar to other English accents you're used to, where
it is diphthongised, in the same way as I would hear
/6Y/ with a front second element.

Gary :)

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