LL-L "Phonology" 2011.09.06 (02) [EN]

Tue Sep 6 18:19:36 UTC 2011

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 06 September 2011 - Volume 02
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: Mark and Ruth Dreyer mrdreyer at lantic.net
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2011.09.05 (03) [EN]

 Dear Ron & All:

Subject: LL-L "Phonology"

While it's still simple, Ron, I have a no doubt impertinent question. Am I
correct in seeing this as a bilabial voiced plosive drifting (regularly, in
grammatical context) to a bilabial voiced fricative?

One finds it in the Bantu languages & some indicate this sound with the
symbol '6'. The 'human class  plural 'b' in 'bantu' (people) for example is
one, & as you go north it drifts clear across to 'w' also, incidentally,
bilabial semivocalic, as in for example 'wabenzi' (possessor of a Mercedes
Benz - the Elite).

By my experience this sound is found in Hebrew too. The 'vaw' prefix
indicating 'and' as well as the Scriptural ('vayarad vayamar malakh etc...)
& here too, in the former case, there is drift to a well in this case
vocalic, hey, 'u' as with the 'makhbal' sounds for the root word;
'ubasof...' (and in the end) instead of 'vekashe li...' (and it is hard for
me).

In Afrikaans for 'I remain' we say 'Ek bly'. However for eg 'a lasting
benefit' we say ' 'n blywende voordeel'. Fossils in language...

As you wrote:
"The basic thing is that Old Saxon -ƀ- (a barred “b” that occurs
intervocalically, which Ingmar assumes to stand for [w] and I assume to
stand for [β]) developed in two ways in Modern Saxon (Low Saxon): [v] and
[b], depending upon the dialect. In Northern Germany it is particularly the
dialects of the Low Elbe region that have the [b] pronunciation, while most
other regions have the [v] pronunciation.
Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: list at marcusbuck.org
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2011.09.05 (03) [EN]

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

 The basic thing is that Old Saxon -ƀ- (a barred “b” that occurs
> intervocalically, which Ingmar assumes to stand for [w] and I assume to
> stand for [β]) developed in two ways in Modern Saxon (Low Saxon): [v] and
> [b], depending upon the dialect. In Northern Germany it is particularly the
> dialects of the Low Elbe region that have the [b] pronunciation, while most
> other regions have the [v] pronunciation.
>

And as we have the great Wenker-Atlas for German and Low Saxon dialects,
I'll point to it's map for the word "geblieben" (focusing on the "blieb"
part of it): <http://137.248.81.135/diwa/ECW.asp?ID1=295>

The maps are hard to access, because they need a special plugin or a java
applet. If you cannot get the map to work with the plugin, try clicking on
"Kartenverzeichnis" (showing you links to all of the 600 maps of different
language characteristics), after clicking on the "weiter..." link after the
respective map you'll see a "Kartenassistent". Under "Anzeige" try using
"Java-Applet" instead of "Plugin" and then click on "Diese Karte einzeln
anzeigen".

The map for "geblieben" shows that east of Stettin-Berlin-Wittenberge-Cal
be-Jüterbogk and west of
Münden-Paderborn-Warendorf-Osnabrück-Diepholz-Vegesack-Wilhelmshaven "blew"
is common, while in the region inbetween "bleb" is common (with some amount
of regional variation).

(Wenker-Atlas of course also has a map on the participial ge-: <
http://137.248.81.135/diwa/ECW.asp?ID1=278>)

Marcus Buck

----------

From: Brooks, Mark mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us
Subject: LL-L "Etymology" 2011.09.02 (02) [AF-EN-NDS-NL]

Marcus wrote: words with metathesis and without metathesis must have existed
even before the Angles and Saxons went to Britain (e.g. "-thorp/-dorp" vs.
"-throp/-drup" in placenames).”

Coincidentally, the town in Texas that has the largest of the wildfires in
my area is Bastrop. Bastrop is about 30 – 50 km east of Austin. History
tells us it was settled by the Dutch. I don’t know if that’s true, but they
sure could use some water right now.

I live about 30 km north of Austin and about 30 km from a different fire at
Steiner Ranch. Our dry conditions are just as bad. In fact, Williamson
County (where I live) has banned welding, grilling or barbecuing, and
cigarette smoking. I don’t smoke or weld ;-), but being Texan I do barbecue
and grill. In Texas grilling is one of our constitutional rights (just
kidding). Fortunately, we did all that before the ban went into effect.

We’d be more than happy to take some of that rain from next door in
Louisiana and Mississippi.

Mark Brooks

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <roerd096 at PLANET.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2011.09.05 (03) [EN]

Hi Ron and everybody,

I'm sorry Ron but you got me wrong... I don't assume Old Saxon -ƀ- stood for
[w], that wouldn't be logical, otherwise it wouldn't need a special letter
like that, because Old Saxon w had the same prono as English w -  which is
unlike w- in Modern Low Saxon.

What I wrote was that the pronunciation of Old Saxon -ƀ-  was, IMHO, the
same as the sound which is spelt in Modern Low Saxon of the Netherlands (and
in Dutch) as -v-, and in Modern Low Saxon of Germany as -w-, in words like
schriever (Dutch LS) / schriewer (German LS).
I think this is proven by -ƀ- regularly alternating with -f, which is the
voiceless version of [v], and not so of [β].

The fact that Low Saxon needed a special letter -ƀ- for this [v] sound was
that there were no other [v] sound word initially or finally, and that the
letter V was already used for other sounds such as [u].

Ingmar

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

Dear Lowlanders,

Before the current thread becomes more involved, I want to give you a
summary and some more information if you have been trying to follow and have
a hard time with the Low Saxon conversation.

The basic thing is that Old Saxon -ƀ- (a barred “b” that occurs
intervocalically, which Ingmar assumes to stand for [w] and I assume to
stand for [β]) developed in two ways in Modern Saxon (Low Saxon): [v] and
[b], depending upon the dialect. In Northern Germany it is particularly the
dialects of the Low Elbe region that have the [b] pronunciation, while most
other regions have the [v] pronunciation.

“remain”:

Old Saxon
 Modern Saxon (Low Saxon)

written
 written
 clear
 less clear
 unclear

bilīƀan >
 blieven
 [ˈbliːvn̩]
 [ˈbliːvm̩]
 [ˈbliːm(m̩)]

blieben
 [ˈbliːbn̩]
 [ˈbliːbm̩]

This topic came up because Ingmar noticed what seems like inconsistency in
Hanne’s writing: -b- and -w-. I explained that Hanne’s Mecklenburg region,
as also the neighboring Eastern Holstein region (both formerly
Slavic-speaking regions, incidentally) are apparently transitional. I
believe that this explains the inconsistency.

I wonder if Hanne’s bläben ([ˈblɛːbm̩] > [ˈblɛːm(m̩)]) was interpreted as
‘to remain’. It is in fact the past participial form (‘remained’) of blieben
‘to remain’. Please note that many Low Saxon dialects have discarded old
participial ge- and its intermediate form e- (as still found in parts of the
Eastern Netherlands).

Here now the paradigm for verbs of the type -iev- ~ -ieb- in Northern Low
Saxon (including Western Mecklenburg dialects):

Infinitive: blieven ~ blieben “to remain”
Present: ik bliev’, du bliffst, he/se/dat blifft, wi/ji/se blievt ~ blieven
~ blieben
Past: ik blev’, du bleevst, he/se/dat blev’ wi/ji/se bleven ~ bleben
Past Part.: blẹven ~ blẹben ~ bläwen ~ bläben

Infinitive: schrieven ~ schrieben “to write”
Present: ik schriev’, du schriffst, he/se/dat schrifft, wi/ji/se schrievt ~
schrieven ~ schrieben
Past: ik schrev’, du schreevst, he/se/dat schrev’ wi/ji/se schreven ~
schreben
Past Part.: schrẹven ~ schrẹben ~ schräwen ~ schräben

I hope this clarified a few matters.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

----------

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

Thanks, everyone!

Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post, and thanks for clarifying it,
Ingmar.

Mark, before the Jewish diaspora in Europe (and still continuing among
non-Persian and non-Kurdish Mizrahi Jews), Hebrew ב (*vet*) was pronounced
[v] (being the voiced version of בּ (*bet*) [b]. This has not changed.
However, ו (*waw*) represented the glide (semi-vowel) [w] (being the
equivalent of Arabic و (*waw*) [w]). As prefixed  ו 'and', it was pronounced
*wa, wə* or *wi*, (Europeanized *va, və* or *vi*)*, *depending on the
following syllable. It there is a labial in the following syllable, however,
then we would expect **wu* (Europeanized **vu*), but it is *u* instead (e.g.
וּבַדֶּרֶךְ *uvadderekh* 'and on the way').

Europeanized pronunciation of Hebrew, which predominates today's
Hebrew-speaking world, is an analytical impediment. I run across it all the
time while teaching Hebrew and Judaics.

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/20110906/e8146e67/attachment.htm>