LL-L "Language varieties" 2011.03.08 (05) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 09 March - Volume 05
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: Helge Tietz <helgetietz at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Tradition" 2011.03.08 (02) [DE-EN]



Dear Lowlanders, dear Ron!

I have checked the article and map under
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/ripoaresch-info.php and I have a dispute:
In my opinion the dialects of the cities of Neuss and Duesseldorf are not
categorized as Ripuarian but as Low Rhenish. Neuss and Duesseldorf have
"maken" and not "machen", "lopen" and not "lofen" as further south. I spend
part of my childhood in a place called Kaarst-Buettgen, 5 km to the west of
Neuss which is just to the north of the Benrath line and they definitely
have "maken", "lopen", "jruet" and "voot" for "make", "run", "big" and
"foot" but they have "tsiit" for "time" while the next village to the west
(Kleinenbroich) has already "tiit". My cousin is married to a real
Duesseldorfer from the Wersten neighbourhood and they also have "maken",
"lopen" and "jroot", Wersten is even south of the Duesseldorf city centre,
just north of Benrath which has already "machen", "lofen" and "jrooss". The
usage of ziit instead of tiit is typical for the transitional character of
the Low-Rhewnish diealects, moreover, old documents from the city of Neuss
have shown that the t > z development is a rather recent thing, in middle
age documents Neuss had tiit. My dispute of the above document is also
confirmed by the studies of Joseph Frings and the DWA (
http://www.diwa.info/main.asp?P=catalog). Ron, please study them in more
detail, you will find that Neuss and Duesseldorf are not Ripuarian but Low
Rhenish. You can argue whether Low Rhenish as a whole is "Lowlandic" since
it has already some Middle-Franconian features but if we are going to
include it into Lowlandic, it has to include Neuss and Duesseldorf.

Another obvious mistake on the map is that Low Rhenish is not the northern
variant but the southern variant akin to Limburgish spoken south of the
Uerdingen line while Clevish-Bergisch is the northern one spoken north of
the Uerdingen line. The map shows it the other way around. The dialects of
Eupen and Kelmis in German speaking Belgium are also part of Limburgish
(while Raeren is Ripuarian) and thus also the dark green Limburgish area has
to edge a little bit into the orange of the the East Belgium Ripuarian area.


Let me know your opinion!

Groeten,
Helge



----------



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



Thank you very much for the great help, Helge.

I have corrected the errors. Please let me know if anything else needs
attention.

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.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
===========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20110309/705a0153/attachment.htm>