Re: [tied] Re: Dissimilation of gW/kWVw to gVw/kVw

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:53:34 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:06:26 +0000, tgpedersen
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >On the subject of the reliability of *-(i)ko: what is that
>soundlaw
>> >that (simultaneously) gives Dutch -tje (-je, -pje, -ie) and
>Flemish
>> >-ke ?
>>
>> -(i)ki:n > -(i)c^i:n. Frisian/Ingvaeonic palatalization,
>> retained in Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland and West-Flanders
>> (despite the Frankish superstrate).
>>
>> In the Frankish area (Oost-Vlaanderen, Brabant, Gelderland,
>> Limburg), we have -(e)ke. The Saxon area (Drente,
>> Overijssel) has mainly -(e)chi (except Groningen, which has
>> "Frisian" palatalized forms, and de Achterhoek, which has
>> "Frankish" k-forms). See the map in
>> http://www.vanoostendorp.nl/pdf/mandsand.pdf
>>
>
>Oh right, skûtje.
>
>
>How come that substratal Friesian/Ingvæonic substrate palatalisation
>only occurs in that context in Dutch (afaIk)?

Diminutives are part of the affective and popular register,
and are quite resistant to change imposed from above. The
same can be seen in Aragón, where the local language has
largely been given up in favour of Castilian, but the
diminutives (casica, caseta) have retained their local form
(instad of Castilian casita).

The coastal areas retain quite a number of other
Ingvaeonisms.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...