LL-L "Grammar" 2010.03.15 (03) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===============================================
*L O W L A N D S - L - 14 March 2010 - Volume 03*
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===============================================

From: Diederik Masure <didimasure at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2010.03.15 (04) [EN]

Hey guys,
 I'm currently working on a Ludwig Holberg project and he quotes a lot of
Middle Low German authors which rose a lot of questions! And where else to
come with those but here;) I found it very interesting to read those, as
they are so recognisable even for a Belgian like me, and to see they even
differ less from Dutch than modern Low Saxon.
He quotes a poem by a crazy religious woman from around Hamborg (or rather
the 'Eiderstædiske' region around Slesvig Holstein) called Anna Ovena Høier:


*Dit heft juw gesecht *

*De truw GOttes Knecht, *

*Den gy verdömen: *

*Siin liif ist verbrandt,
Siin Seel in GOttes handt, *

*Ik darf em nicht nömen.*

**

I checked some books on modern Low German dialects and the questions that
arose were those:

3rd singular 'heft' meaning "has" looked really Dutch to me, and I didnt see
any similar form in those modern LG dialect books, is such a form still
alive somewhere in northern Saxon? Also Juw instead of Juk, I thought the
forms without -k were more southern while mik, dik and juk would be expected
more northern Low German in this region.

Also Dutch looked the form 'gy' for 2nd plural, isnt modern Low Saxon 'ji'
with the original -j? It would seem strange to go from Germanic ji to gi
back to ji. I thought gi-forms were Franconian (at least in Dutch they are
southern/franconian, whereas more saxon-frisian influenced dialects have
ji-forms.)

verdömen shows einheitspluralis in -en, rather than -t which I would expect
in that region, or did I mix up both?

Also "Gottes" genitive of 'god' looks High German to me, right? Is there
still a -d-form used in Low German?



And from the city of Hamborg:

*Dorchluchtigster, Groß**mächtigster Herr König, Durchluchtiger Hochgeborner
Først tho Holsten, gnädigst und gnädige Herren! Nachdem Ju Königl. Majestät
und Förstl. Gnade tho Holsten dorch den Willen Godes des Almägtigen in disse
gude Stad gekommen sind, so erschienen wy Börgermester und Rath, samt dem
uthschote der gemeinen Börgerschafft, und bekennen, uns, tho wesen de
gledematen des Förstenthum Holsten und Stormarn, und willen uns by Ju
Königl. Mayst. und Förstl. Gnaden als Försten tho Holsteen und Stormarn
holden in allen gehörlichen Sachen, wo fromen Lüden by öhren natürlichen
gebohrnen Lands-Försten und Herren tho dohnde geböhrt, und unser Forfahren
alletydt geholden hebben. By also dat wy by unsern Privilegien,
Gerechtigkeiten und olden geböhrlichen Gewohnheiden bliwen und gelaten
werden. Wo nun Ju Königl. Mayst. und Førstl. Gnaden uns gnädigst und gnädig
Willen annehmen, und unsere Privilegien, Gerechtigkeiten und olde redlichen
Gewohnheiten confirmiren, holden und handhaven uns ock gehlich ander Ju
Königl. Mayst. und Førstl. Gnaden undersaten tho recht vorbidden und
vordedigen. *

Tho clearly Low and not High German, these seem High-German to me:
*DURCH*luchtiger
(cfr earlier DORCH with O), -heiten and -keiten with T (altho one time with
D), saCHen, groSZmächtigster, gehliCH (=gleich? then the vowel would be LS
and the consonant HG), natürLICHEN, redLICHEN

Would those "High German" consonants be influence of an early HG written
language influence, or would they actually already be spreading into urban
LS speech in those times? We're talking late 1500's here. especially in
suffixes like -lich and -heit they seem to occur (and formal words like
'sachen') so that would rather be a written language-influence or is that a
wrong assumption?

Is nachdem a LS word or would that be HG written language? "Nun" also seems
HG to me or is it a LS word as well? Is the Suffix -schaft (börgerschafft)
also LS or does LS have -schap like Dutch?

The use of ø seems Danish to me, or would that have been in use among LS
writers as well?

 I know I ask a lot of questions, and don't expect all of them will be
answered but if anyone can give any imput on these matters, or sees other
interesting things he wants to share those would be much appreciated!
Cheers!
Diederik, Bergen (Norway)

----------

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

Subject: Grammar


Hey, Diederik!

I'll let others respond in detail first.

In the meantime, however, I can assure you that the prose text is most
definitely a mixture of Low Saxon and German. It appears to be Early Modern
German, probably at a time when German was becoming the prestige language in
the north.

Are you sure this prose text is from the then Hamburg? Might it be from
Altona (now a part of Hamburg) or some other then separate place in Holstein
under what was essentially Danish power ("king" referring to the Danish
king, which would also explain the use of "ø")?

Do you have any dates that go with the texts?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

===================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
===================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20100315/5c4989ec/attachment.htm>