LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.10.15 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 15 October 2009 - Volume 01
lowlands at lowlands-l.net - http://lowlands-l.net/
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.10.14 (04) [EN]

Ron:

I think we could say then that generally languages in contact tend to
simplify.  However, clearly something else operates as well.  It just
doesn’t seem satisfying to me to say that each language presents its own
case, and that we don’t know from one situation to the next which course it
will take.  I would prefer to believe that although we may not know at
present, we have some good ideas.

So, my ideas go like this: 1) language contact in itself can cause
simplification, 2) power or prestige inequality can influence which language
simplifies, but 3) neither of those alone or together can completely explain
all situations.  What else might operate in these cases?

Mark Brooks

----------

 From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.10.14 (04) [EN]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language varieties
> Again, could there have been other factors that we haven't looked at?

Couldn't we not just add:
- ordinary dialectal diversification after settlement,
- followed by a standardization 100 to 500 yrs later,
leading to "solving developped differences" by "simplification"?

In West-Limburgish we have dialectal differences with some patterns:
- a gradual transition from Low-German to Middle German elements
- some Romance influence, especially in the South: "de venster" (feminin, as
la fénètre) versus "het venster" in Dutch.
- a move to some standardization (modernization, mainly adopting Dutch and
Brabantish elements) tendency spreading from within the major market towns
(as e.g. Hasselt).

followed by pressure towards some kind of Standard Belgian Dutch ("opte
letter" = as one writes; "gowd vlams" = Good Flemish, should be understood
"Good Brabantish") leading to regiolects
but with loss of tonality, with loss of quite some cases with Umlaut,
and finally with loss of masc/fem distinction for objects when evolving to
std Dutch

Add to that "migration" (within the slightly diversified language area),
especially strong during thre religious wars.

Regards,
Roger

----------

 From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.10.14 (04) [EN]

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties
..Look at the Eskimo-Aleut languages! Their long-standing contacts with
Danish, English, French and Russian seem to have led to no grammatical
simplification.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

Possibly because the Danish, English, French and Russian speakers by and
large made little or no attempt to communicate with the Eskimo-Aleut
speakers in their own languages; there was thus little or no
cross-fertilisation.  If the latter wanted to speak the new-comers, they had
to learn the new language.  There was no need for them to simplify the
grammar of their own speech, since they only used it with people who
understood the "proper" version anyway.

Such immigrants as did have an interest in the native languages learned it
for just that reason: they wanted to learn about the language and culture of
the people, so learning a simplified or modified form would have defeated
the object, they wanted the "real thing".

The advent of the colonial people and their technology probably led to the
meeting of different native languages, but even this would not have
encouraged simplification: if the other language was similar enough to
understand, they just spoke their own language; if it wasn't, it was easier
to speak English or Russian or whatever.

Paul

----------

 From: clarkedavid8 at aol.com
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.10.14 (04) [EN

I dont think the Normans ever left Britain. They slowly dissolved. It is
interesting that the Normans had themselves presumably spoken Norse, not
French, a couple of generations before they came to England.

David Clarke

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

 people adopted Norman as their first language and English was perceived as
being endangered around the time the Normans left Britain,.

----------

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

Excellent, point, David!

You can tell by the many "English" surnames of Norman origin. So, Norman and
Normanized English adoption of the English language must have contributed to
the development.

Normans in what are now France and the Channel Islands probably started off
with a Romance language on a Norse substratum, and this Romance language
came with a Celtic substratum. Add to this sporadic Saxon influx on the
Norman coast.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

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

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20091015/a9dd44c2/attachment.htm>