LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.17 (01) [EN-NDS]

[Lowlands-L List]

===============================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 17 February 2010 - Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===============================================

From: Jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties"

 Dear Lowlanners,

yesterday I wrote to my friend Piet Bult (NL) the following sentence:

> Un' 'soms-' hett dat in Middelnedersaksisch ouk noch geben t.B. in
'somstiid' = NL
> 'somstijd' = E 'sometimes'; man - dat kennt wii ne meyhr.
(And 'soms-' did exist in Middle Low Saxon as well, e.g. in 'somstiid' = NL
'somstijd' = E 'sometimes'; but we don't know it any longer.

I didn't feel comfortable using the term 'Middelnedersaksisch' in this
context. Though it probably shouldn't make a great difference to the sense
of the whole I better should have written 'Middel-Nedderdüütsch' =
'Mittel-Niederdeutsch' = 'Middle Low German' instead because I haven't got
any knowledge around the kind, the special variety of Middle Low Saxon used
in The Nederlands at that time.
In other words: the vocable 'somstiid' is from the German type of Middle Low
Saxon and could have been different in NL.

Perhaps we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water and keep the old
linguistic terms alive - 'somstiids' they may be useful.

Allerbest!

Jonny Meibohm
Lower Saxony, Germany

----------

From: Hellinckx Luc <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties"

Beste Marcus,

You wrote:

> It's just a common lack, nothing that would be a base for a new Aldietse
Beweging (C. J.
> Hansen's Aldietse Beweging actually was an Alnederdietse Beweging, <
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldietse_Beweging>). The genetic relation of
> Dutch and Saxon is not closer than the relation of Saxon and German.

Just look at the map here:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Aldietsterritorium.png
And cut off the southern half of Belgium btw ;=).
A new Chile has been born with Hamburg as Nueva Santiago and Ron starring as
Allende.
Moreover, Scotland will be like the Chilean claim in Antarctica and not
surprisingly, Chile has the best credit ratings in Latin America. Yes, yes.

Kind greetings,

----------

From: Peter Snepvangers <snepvangers at optushome.com.au>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.16 (04) [EN-NDS]

 ----- From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>

Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.16 (03) [EN-NDS]

From: Joachim <soz-red at jpberlin.de <mailto:soz-red at jpberlin.de>>


Nu, wou dünket ju dat? Is dat nig förwaar en grunt, et us nig tou swår to
maken met de benöimge van den Nidderdüüdsk-Nidderlandsken dialektkontinuum?
Wan to'ner tiit, dau platdüüdsk no åldagsprauk was, auk de Flaamsken un
Nidderlandsken eere sprauk "Nederduits" nöimt hewwet. (Ås je auk de
Ousterriiker nin problem hewwet eere sprauke Düüdsk of
Buawendüüdsk/Haugdüüdsk to nöimen?)
___________________________________________

What do you think about that? Wouldn't that be a reason, not to be too
scrupulous / complicated in the term for the Low-German-Netherlandish
dialect continuum? As to times, when Low German still had been everyday
speech, Flemings and the Dutch called there language "Low German". (Like as
the Austrians have no problem calling their language German or
Upper-/High-German?
_________________________________________

Things change.

Marcus Buck

Hello Lowlanderen,

my parents have both passed away now, but I do remember distinctly my father
referring to his Limburgs dialect as Platts! He knew and could speak Frisian
as well but I cannot ever remember him calling Frisian as Platts. He always
said Fries was not Dutch or Limburgs but was Fries!!! He could speak at
least 10 different languages very fluently and fondly spoke of old Saxon as
Platts  or Nederduits as well. He genuinely believed his Limburgs was a
tonal pitch language and was as old as Old Saxon, unfortunately I was too
nieve to know any different or to even be able to ask him to explain his
thoughts. Opportunity lost here. My dad did not believe that Limburgs was a
transistional language between Dutch and German but accepted the closeness.
He thought it was sufficiently distinct but never bothered to argue his
point. What I am trying to say is that he had no problems with Sax being
called Nederduits rather that some Dutch variation. Beste

Peter Snepvangers

snepvangers at optushome.com.au

Australia
----------

From: Helge Tietz <helgetietz at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.16 (04) [EN-NDS]

Marcus, you wrote: "The genetic relation of Dutch and Saxon is not closer
than the relation of Saxon and German"

I am not too certain about that. There a more common features between
Northern Germany and the Netherlands than just linguistic ones. Take a look
on rural settlements style and traditional farm houses, the diet and folk
songs and traditions. East of Amersfoort you effectlively find the same
traditional farm houses in style as you do over the whole of Northern
Germany up to Sleswick. Along the North-Sea coast you find the Frisian style
houses which you also encounter in East and North Friesland. The single farm
style spread across the country side is predominant, while south of the
Benrath line (the linguistic border of the Low Saxon / Low Franconian
language area) rural settlements are predominantly organized in narrow
villages. The Northern German Hanseatic league had never a foothold in
southern Germany but was strongly present in the Netherlands and
communication between the Dutch Hanseatic cities and the Northern German
ones was usually in either Low Saxon or Dutch which was mutually
intelligible, something which was not possible when communicating with
Southern Germany. Until 1871 quite a few territories of what is now Germany
had actually Dutch as their educational and church language, such as the
Klever Land almost down to Krefeld, East Friesland and also many schools in
North Friesland had Dutch as their first language because many North
Frisians worked on Dutch trading ships which made it necessary to be able to
communicate in Dutch while High German was irrelevant. This changed
drastically after 1871. I have been living for more then 10 years now in the
Netherlands as a Sleswig-Holsteener and there is no doubt to me that
culturally, linguistically and genetically the Netherlands and Northern
Germany are much closer linked to each other then to Southern Germany and
the national border between Northern Germany and the Netherlands is an
absolute artificial one. But there are, of course, many examples around the
world where that is the case. And it is not always that easy and black and
white, Although, I would say that the Lower Franconian-speaking area in the
German Rhineland is definitely more Dutch/Northern German, to draw a border
to the Ripuarian-Franconian speaking areas further south would also be an
artificially one. South Lower Franconian and Ripuarian is mutually
intelligible and the language shift appears gradually and not abrupt as is
the case e.g. between Hann. Muenden and Witzenhausen on the border of Lower
Saxony and Hesse. So although the national border between the Netherlands
and Northern Germany is artificial to draw a border on the southern extends
of Low Franconian speach would be equally as artificial. I tend to forget
about national states and rather see the localities as units, perhaps even
each individual, it is up to anyone to decide where he/she feels they belong
to.

Groeten,
Helge

----------

From: "Joachim Kreimer-de Fries" <soz-red at jpberlin.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.17 (01) [EN-NL]

 Dag auk wier, Marcus & ålle Nidderlandisken,

Am 17.02.2010, 05:03 Uhr, Marcus Buck scraif:

Things change.
70 years ago Austrians happily joined Germany and felt good under the label
German. They still feel okay with labeling their language German, but don't
dare to call their nationality German. They would strongly refuse that. And
the Dutch nowadays refuse to be labeled "German" too. Sentiments like that
are of limited relevance for linguistic terms, but if you want to establish
terms you cannot neglect it.

Apart the fact that the the treatment by and the *majoritarian attitude
toward* Hitler-/Nazi-Germany has been extremely contrarian of Austria on the
one hand and Netherlands and Belgium on the other hand, you have in the case
of Austria (as of the *then manaced* and multilingual Switzerland) the
ability to distinguish between the *terms of language on the one hand and
nation/state (and/or ethnicity) on the other.*

Not to make this distinction, a scientific, historical, linguistical debate
and explanation renders almost impossible or at least extremely complicated
to have a reasonable talk about it, so that on the end even cultured classes
(to say nothing of the cultural disadvantaged masses) are confused.

Your postulate, beste Marcus, would end in calling US-, Canadian, Australian
etc. English *not "xy-English" but "United-Statish", "Canadian",
"Australian"* etc. - But what than with the indegenous languages there?

It would also end in *British English speakers to refuse having a "Germanic"
language *because there is another state of "Germany", with which having had
terrible experiences.

On the other side, at least in German "Niederdeutsch" already is an
established term for anything not affected by the High German sound shift.
So there actually is no reason to "search" for a term.

That has been the message of my post. Oh no, again this inevitable
misapprehending of your quoted phrase above. Of course, you think "Low
German /Niederdeutsch / Nederduits / Nidderdüüdsk / Nederdütsch" being
restricted to Low German language varieties *in the Federal Republic of
Germany, including though the former GDR*. But why this reduction of
language family to state territory?

Has the Alsatian dialect changed from belonging the Upper German to the
French/Gallian/Roman family since belonging to France?

That states, because of the influence of the main and official language and
of politics can change the further development of a minority language, is
selfevident. But because of that such a language variety does not stop
belonging to the language family it is from.

The Wisconsin-Pommerian of the Old-Lutheran emigrants after 1817 (because of
the church unifying edict of king Friedrich Wilhelm III of "Prussia") by
changing the state had not *by this* stopped to speak their Pommerian
vernacular belonging to the Low German language family. Westphalian Saxon
has not changed its character to French during the Napoleon rule (though
loaning some terms from that time) and not changed to a Prussian language
thereafter.

Belong the official languages and also the all-day languages of Belgium to
another language family than those of Netherlands? And further: have the Low
Saxon (nedersaksisch) idioms, as long as really spoken, on both sides of the
Germany border to Netherlands and Belgium changed there *language family,* *by
this?*


And to add my personal opinion: Dutch and Saxon share several common
features not shared by German. But I don't think, that there is much reason
to think of it as a genetic unit that needs a name of its own.

Do you really think I were speaking of *ethnic* genealogy? That is of
historical interest, too. But is not identical with the *cognation,
relatedness and genealogy of languages and tongues. I don't see how to speek
about the filiation, parentage, the linguistic relation between the Low
Germanic (+/- 500 p.C. not consonant shifted) languages of Middle Dutch ≈
Middle Low German and there followers without a common denomination.
*

If not, it results inevitably in very cryptic, complicated and
incomprehensible argumentations, of which the debates and contributions on
this LL-List is full of, too (as all the language science and language
education today).

It's just a common lack, nothing that would be a base for a new Aldietse
Beweging (C. J. Hansen's Aldietse Beweging actually was an Alnederdietse
Beweging, <http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldietse_Beweging>).

Not about my topic, as far as I understand quickly, it's aim had been
another nation-stately order, bringing together all regions where at that
time (18./19. century) and centuries before, the continantal variants of the
Middle Netherlands ≈ Middle Low German follow-up varieties were at home. So
*not* (or only as part of the background) *an engagement in linguistic
terminology,* as the mine.  But interesting, though. At least the map
provided there -  in big:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Aldietsterritorium.png
-gives an idea of the regional spread of the language family I'm
seeking a
name for, in Europe.

It's quite right, what is commented on this wikipedia page:

»Het Aldietse territorium is de eenheid van Frans-Vlaanderen, Vlaanderen,
Nederland, Noord-Duitsland, Noord-Polen met Oost-Pruisen. Dit territorium
bestaat in de realiteit niet enkel meer uit Nederduitse volkeren. Zo is
Frans-Vlaanderen verfranst en de Nederduitsers in Polen/Oost-Pruisen zijn
verdreven door Polen en Russen. De grens in Duitsland is de Benrather linie,
maar het Hoogduits heeft zodanig aan belang gewonnen dat het gebruik van de
Nederduitse taal sterk afnemende is.«

But this had not made them stopped to belong to the same Low Landic / Low
German language family.

The genetic relation of Dutch and Saxon is not closer than the relation of
Saxon and German.

Again:* My topic is the linguistic relationship, not any ethnical. If you,
beste Marcus, with the above assertion/statement mean also strictly l
inguistic closeness and distances between Dutch, Saxon an HiGerman, I would
like to hear some more arguments than those given before:*

»'diep' instead of 'deep', 'boek' instead of 'book'. Then there are phonetic
adaptations like the switch from short 'u' to 'o' in words like
'grund'->'grond' or 'up'->'op', which is clearly Dutch-induced (…).«

This kind of differences are much smaller than those between various
platdüüdske, Low German varieties within the FRGermany. Though I admit, that
with the verhaugdüüdsking / HiGermanizing of the plat-tallen in Northern
Germany, it's sometimes difficult to see their differences to Standard
HiGerman. The mixed, hybrid, mesnish *mengelskürigge *might be funny and of
literary and linguistic interest, too. But not my field.

E. g. in my perception the *(Low) Saxon* regional variety of *East
Westphalian* (i. e. my ancesters language) sounds at least not more distant
from Standard Netherlands than to coastal Low German variants. And that's
not allone my perception. Giving a probe of classic Osnabrügs to my Berlin
plat circle (of mostly Mecklenburg-Vorpommern people), their reaction
was, *that
it sounded like Netherlands.*

But of course, in contrast to the terminology of 19th century - and the
example of dbnl - Digital Library of Netherland with L. & J. A. Leopold's
NEDERDUITSCHE DIALECTEN "VAN DE SCHELDE TOT DE WEICHSEL"-, *if* really
*t**odays
sensibility of Netherlandish and Flemish speaking people does not allow to
count them to the Low German language family*, I'm very glad to accept, as I
already indicated, the term *"Lowlandic /Netherlandic / Nidderlandisk /
Nederlandesch (Languages)" as common name* for the Continental
Low-Francish/Low Saxon language family, *if Netherland people and Flemish
don't object that.*

Finally, as a very last argument, 13.02.2010, 19:05 Uhr, Marcus Buck
admitted:

I hereby admit, that I have a hard time understanding Dutch Low Saxon,
especially when spoken (so ruling out orthography as the main reason). That
somehow contradicts my expressed belief, that Low Saxon is one language. But
the fact, that my ability to understand improves when the speaking person is
older and if the recording is older, indicates, that intensified Dutch
influence makes the language harder to understand. I guess prosody is
involved in this too.


Could it be that it is you, to *overestimate* - in the case of
"Nedersaksisch" in Netherlands - the possible ethnical background of the
speakers concerned? Trying to enlarge the differences of (continental) Saxon
follow-up idioms to the Nether-Francish ones? (Thereby overstressing the
ethnical background of the Saxon language family?). Whilst I see the
fundamental bifurcation (junction) coming from the Old High German consonant
shift, and perceiving the Low Francish follow-ups closer to the Saxon ones.
On the other hand, today's successors of this common language family are of
course very differenciated in regional idioms. *But without a special,
semifundamental bifurcation within this family between "Saxon" and "Low
Fracish" ones.**
*

That's what I meant with Low German (&Netherlandish) dialect continuum.*
*
Met echt-westfœlsken »Goutgaun!«

joachim
--
Kreimer-de Fries
Osnabrügge => Berlin-Pankow

•

==============================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/20100217/14e75ac5/attachment.htm>