Re: American Dutch dialects

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > I would ask, is the fact that /w/ became /v/ in Danish
> > > > also due to French influence?
> > >
> > > I think it came the same way, through the same stages, Jysk still
> > > has /w/, but also that it happened all over Europe, Belorussian
> > > still has /w/, says Piotr. It started in the 18th century, with
> > > French at its peak influence.
> >
> > Only in the 18th century? In German it started soewhere around
> > 1350. But I can't believe that it was due to French influence.
> > It's a natural tendency for /w/ to shift to /v/,
>
> That point of view makes the English unnatural. In English /v/ is
> obviously from French, the 'front line' between /v/ and /w/ being
> frozen as a result of Norman elite realizing they had to come to terms
> with the vanquished, after their ambitions in France were crushed.

I said it's a tendency (with reams of evidence), not a law. The
English preservation of /w/ is no more unnatural than the Danish
preservation of /sk/, which changed in all other Germanic languages at
least before front vowels, and in some before all vowels.

>
> > and therefore happened in many languages, but independently.
>
> 'Independently' is your claim, not a fact.

You're saying that the change to /v/ in Sanskrit, Finnish, Vietnamese,
and Mandarin dialects, as well as most European languages, was all due
to one language which experienced that change?

>
> > Cf. Sanskrit, some modern dialects of Mandarin, Vietnamese,
> > Finnish, etc. etc. And similarly /r/ could
> > easily switch to /R/ independently in many languages.
>
> But it didn't
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttural_R
>

I read that article before I replied to you last time, and it nowhere
says anything refuting the idea that /r/ could become /R/
independently in different languages. All it says is:

"Many Low Franconian and Low Saxon varieties adopted a uvular rhotic.
While many of the Upper German varieties maintained an alveolar trill
(IPA [r]), many Central German varieties also adopted a uvular rhotic.
The development of a uvular rhotic in these regions is not entirely
understood, but a common theory is that these languages adopted a
uvular rhotic because of French influence, though the reason for
uvular rhotic in modern European French is not itself well understood
(see above)."

It just says that the idea of French influence is a common theory, not
that French influence is known to have been the cause of the shift of
/r/ to /R/ in these regions or elsewhere in Europe.

> ...
>
> > Jysk has [w] only before rounded vowels,
> > otherwise [v] (or the labiodental approximant), true?
>
> Brøndum-Nielsen says, I think (I can't find it now) south of the
> Limfjord /w/ before back vowel, /v/ before front vowel, north of it
> (Vendsyssel, Han Herred, Thy) /w/ everywhere. It matches what I hear
> from the few who still use that part of the dialect.
>
>
> > > Also the 'thick' l, according to contemporaneous
> > > writers, was disappearing in Swedish late 17th century, due to
> > > city and German influence. English has been able to set up
> > > barriers against that kind of French influence. On the continent,
> > > /w/, apical /r/, thick /l/ all became marked as boorish manners.
> > >
> > > > Or could Danish and French have
> > > > developed them independently, and if so why not uvular /r/?
> > >
> > > Danish, German, Southern Swedish, Southern Norwegian, parts of
> > > Dutch, even Russian, later reversed, going through the same
> > > development simultaneously independently? No.
> >
> > How do you know it was simultaneous?
>
> I'm pretty certain in the case of /r/ > /R/.

I believe you, but could you possibly cite references or any article
available on the Net? I still think it's quite possible that these
languages developed /R/ independently, despite the simultaneity (which
may have been near-, not exact simultaneity?).

And if a large part of

> the city population in Denmark and Scania were German-speaking,it's
> not difficult to imagine how it would spread to Danish and Scanian.

I agree with you on this, your theory probably makes more sense than
mine. OK, maybe I will have to acknowledge your theory as more
probable than mine.

>
> > What exactly do you mean by "reversed"? The order of languages in
> > which this shift appeared reversed, thus it appeared twice in each
> > of the above languages?
>
> No, I only meant to qualify the case of Russian with this reversal;
> some circles in Russia adopted the uvular R sometime in the 18th or
> 19th century, but later dropped that habit.
>
> > And I would say that the fact that it appeared in so many languages
> > over such a wide expanse, many far from French-speaking areas, is
> > evidence that it was an independent change in each of them.
>
> Please argue against my actual proposal instead of what you think I
> ought to have said. Before the Napoleonic wars, French was the snob
> language of German nobility, many were bilingual, before the Schleswig
> wars German was the snob language of Danish artisans, many were
> bilingual. I never claimed French was the direct cause of Danish R.

In any case I now think you are probably right about foreign-language
influence causing [r]>[R] in Danish at least.

>
> > And if it happens in one language (French), it can happen in other
> > languages, just like /w/>/v/. Many other languages.
>
> And yet it didn't happen in English, in which the French influence had
> been contained.

Although it did happen in Northumberland and Durham county: see the
Wiki article on Guttural_r.

> >
> > >
> > > > Similarly, why couldn't American English have developed
> > > > retroflex (and bunched) /r/ independently, from the original
> > > > English speakers, and not due to foreign influence?
> > >
> > > You gotta make up your mind now. Is it some English substrate or
> > > is it spontaneous, if it can't be the horrible Dutch? ;-) The
> > > Dutch were there, they had the retroflex r and r-colored vowels.
> > > I think making those two things independent stretches credibility.
> > >
> > >
> > > Torsten
> > >
> >
> > I believe it was mostly inherited (either from Ulster or other Irish
> > and Scotch as Rick has mentioned, or from rhotic English dialects in
> > England, which in the 17th century were probably more widespread),
> > but perhaps slightly (spontaneously) modified (either made more or
> > less retroflex or made "bunched", or both). That is my belief, and
> > if you reject it that's fine, you believe something else, we can
> > agree to disagree. I can understand your belief and respect it,
> > but I don't agree with it.
>
> Oh, no you don't. I've followed the rules; I made a proposal
> consisting of a number of assumptions about events at specific times
> and places, which should be easily falsifiable; as long as no one has
> shown any one of the assumptions to be false the proposal stands.
> Therefore, please refer to it as a proposal, because that's what it
> is. Now if you want to call a truce based on higher principle, such as
> eg. that this belief in the ethnic purity of the American English
> language is a supporting wall in the construction of the American
> identity, and should therefore not be subject to questioning, by all
> means do, but don't forget that by opting out of preserving your
> traditional claim the science way, you are accepting that your point
> of view is a belief, but mine is a proposal.
>
>
> Torsten
>

Yes, you're absolutely right. To tell the truth, I should have
withdrawn from arguing with you long ago because I do not have enough
knowledge of European and American history to make any claims which
might be any more than just beliefs. Yes, your proposal stands and
mine is just a belief. And you have every right to question my and
any other belief about the origin of American English. I apologize
for calling your proposal a belief. However, your proposal has not
yet changed my belief, if your ultimate aim is to convince me or any
other members of the list of its validity. I still think it's easier
to believe that American retroflex /r/ was inherited from Irish,
Scotch, and some English settlers, rather than due to Dutch influence
or a Dutch substrate. Hope that's not opting out. I would have to
read a lot of books and articles to argue my belief the science way,
and I can't do that during the course of this discussion/argument with
you.

Andrew