LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.02 (01) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 02.OCT.2005 (01) * 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: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.01 (05) [E]

Dear Ron

Subject: Language varieties

> When you look at a map of erstwhile Celtic populations, you see that Celts
> (northern Gauls?) went northward as far as what is now the southern parts
> of the Netherlands, and their habitation stops pretty much where Saxon
> populations were to be found (then in the future?).  I would give a good
> sum of money to know what sort of people lived there before southward
> Saxon spread and the arrival of Slavs and what sort of language(s) those
> people spoke, probably people from whom we Lowlanders partly descended.
> Obviously, people had lived there for a long, long time, considering the
> ancient dolmens, grave bolders, "giants' graves.

Seconded to that!

The most I can contribute is half-remembered report that the Gaelicae in
Britain were closely related to their counterparts on the mainland, also to
the 'Fir Gaeloin' in Ireland. They also numbered among their Deities one
Gwidion ,a storm-god, who had two spies, but they were owls. If this isn't
Woden in another coat then I don't know---.

Didn't the Romans deem the Belgicae a blended race of Celtic & German
origin?

Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.10.01 (02) [E]

["slQ:G=N] is another example that we *can't*  pronounced, just like your
["lE:v=m]. We, Low Saxons of the Netherlands, could only say *["slQ:G=n]
and *["lE:v=n] with [=n], not with [=m] and [=N], because [G] and [v] are
fricatives. But, we never pronounce these words with [G=n] and [v=n], but
with [g=N] and [b=m]: ["slQ:g=N] and ["lE:b=m], or even ["slQ:(=)N:] and
["lE:(=)m:].
Probably the same in Jonny's Low Saxon, and most others. I am curious how
this is in Missingsch, maybe your Low Saxon prono was influenced by your
first language?

For ["vE:z=n] to be usually [vE:n] it said, but also ["vE:d=n]
with a [d]. I can imagine this [d] is from [r] originally, so [vE:rn] to
[vE:dn], because the verb has a past [va:rn]. Maybe even [vErd=n] to
become has something to do with it?

Ingmar

R. F. Hahn:
>By the way, I have notices that there are apparently personal variations
>even within supposedly one dialect, and one person may use both forms,
>depending on the register or occasion.  It's a bit like some people
>pronouncing _morning_ ["mOrnIn] in casual contexts but saying ["mOrnIN] in
>more formal contexts.  In Low Saxon, this can apply to contracted forms as
>well; e.g., ["ve:z=n] vs [ve:n] 'to be', or ["slQ:g=N] ~ ["slQ:G=N] vs
>[slQ:n] 'to beat', 'to hit' (cognate of "slay").

----------

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

Haai, Mark!

> The most I can contribute is half-remembered report that the Gaelicae in
> Britain were closely related to their counterparts on the mainland, also 
> to
> the 'Fir Gaeloin' in Ireland. They also numbered among their Deities one
> Gwidion ,a storm-god, who had two spies, but they were owls. If this isn't
> Woden in another coat then I don't know---.

Actually, what I was referring to were the areas that were *not* populated 
by Celts, especially in the span of time when Celts were living south and 
southwest of it and Saxons had not yet moved into it.  (Was there such a 
period?)

However, yes, of course I wonder what sort of people and language varieties 
were found in the entire areas before the arrival of Celtic and Germanic 
tribes, before Indo-Europeans in general.

My history is a bit spotty, as you can tell.  So I need to bug you folks 
with some naive questions and propositions here and there.

We know that Indo-Europeans are supposed to have arrived in Europe from the 
southeast (with the  remote possibility of some east-west migration from 
parts of what is now Russia, then pre-Slavonic).  Obviously some went into 
Scandinavia and developed the oldest known Germanic cultures.  So they must 
have traversed at least parts of what is now Northern Germany.  The usual 
pattern was that of some members settling along the way and of other members 
migrating farther on, thus leaving something of a migration trail, unless 
they traversed lands of hostile tribes that prevented settlements.

We also know that the very early Saxons lived no farther south than in 
Holstein, north of the Elbe, later migrated south- and southwestward, in the 
early part of the post-Christianization era then also eastward -- all in all 
in a fan-shaped fashion.  If we assume the settle-and-migrate pattern 
mentioned above to have applied earlier during Indo-European migration 
northward, might it not be possible that in the areas that were not 
Celtic -- namely Northern Germany and the northeastern Netherlands south of 
the Elbe (Westphalia, Angria and Eastphalia) -- they mixed with people of 
those pre- or proto-Germanic settlements?

Moyen, Ingmar!

> Probably the same in Jonny's Low Saxon, and most others. I am curious how
> this is in Missingsch, maybe your Low Saxon prono was influenced by your
> first language?

I hardly think so, Ingmar.  All "Oostersch" speakers of _-v-_ type varieties 
that I know say _-ven_ [v=m], _-gen_ [g=N] ~ [G=N] and _-sen_ [z=n].

Much though we adore our Jonny, you ought not take his dialect(s) as 
evidence, simply because it is (they are) of the _-ben_ type, *not* of the 
_-v-_ type.  This applies to his native dialect (near Cuxhaven = _Cuxhoben_, 
see _affbleeben_ in his Hadeln translation) and in the dialect of 
Bremerhaven (_Bremerhoben_) where he lives now, also because he seems to be 
somewhat conflicted, possibly due to his stay in Eastern Friesland and his 
exposure to the written language (see _mitgeeven_ in the same translation). 
He writes _-v-_ most of the time, sometimes _-b_.  Even if you don't go by 
how he writes his LS, you may take my word for it that in a large area 
around the Lower Elbe and also in Bremerhaven all varieties are of the type 
_-b-_, not of the type _-v-_, that _-ben_ thus predominates throughout the 
area.

This includes the dialects of Hamburg, and I say [b=m] when I'm in that 
mode.  Missingsch, too, being German  with a _-b-_ type LS substrate, is of 
the _-b-_ type and has [b=m].

(Or lig ik daar verkeyrd, leyve Jonny?  Segt Jy in Kehdingen _leber_ or 
_lever_, _öber_ or _över_?  Wenn Jy dochen _över_ un den _öben_ segt, den 
neem ik an, dat Joun dialekt de sülvige regel het as Ingmar syn.)

Ingmar, however, what we are talking about in *your* case are _-v-_ 
varieties that make _-ven_ surface as [b=n] or [b=n].  That this is a 
special phonological rule is evidenced by what you write today:

> We, Low Saxons of the Netherlands, could only say *["slQ:G=n]
> and *["lE:v=n] with [=n], not with [=m] and [=N], because [G] and [v] are
> fricatives. But, we never pronounce these words with [G=n] and [v=n], but
> with [g=N] and [b=m]: ["slQ:g=N] and ["lE:b=m], or even ["slQ:(=)N:] and
> ["lE:(=)m:].

> For ["vE:z=n] to be usually [vE:n] it said, but also ["vE:d=n]
> with a [d].

This clearly points to a pre-nasal hardening rule applying:

[+continous] -> [-continuous] / __ [+nasal]

... if not even ...

[+continous] -> [-continuous] / __ [-continuous]

* The second one would also create words like _he(e)bt_ instead of 
_he(e)ft_.

I rather suspect the second one to apply, thus a non-fricative assimilation 
rule.

> For ["vE:z=n] to be usually [vE:n] it said, but also ["vE:d=n]
> with a [d]. I can imagine this [d] is from [r] originally, so [vE:rn] to
> [vE:dn],

_Wesen_ ["ve:z=n] ~ ["vE:z=n] (~ _ween_ [ve:n] ~ [vE:n]) and _weren_ ~ 
_weern_ [veIVn] ~ _wier(e)n_ [vi:Vn] are different words in our dialects: 
the former means 'to be', and the latter means 'were'.

Kumpelmenten,
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.
=======================================================================