From: johnvertical@...
Message: 65688
Date: 2010-01-18
> --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Torsten wrote:So are you in agreement that NWB would have been speaking a language related to Germanic? Etymological nativization does require a close linguistic relationship. If their languages were distantly (or not at all) related, ie. opaquely to the layperson, there would be little motivation for NWBers to adopt Germanic soundchanges just because they were invading (no more than foreign components of English-based creoles will undergo GVS).
> My point is that in order for two different forms to appear, seemingly affected and non-affected by some soundlaw, there must be a connection in the mind of the speaker between those two forms, ie. the soundlaw is alive and still functioning in his mind as a mark of a *sociolect*. And this is what I imagine happened in case of the incoming Gemani in NW Germay and Holland: they spoke a sociolect of a common language in which Grimm's law had already applied.
>
> *****GK: How would this differ from what I said earlier, viz., that the doublets remained as part of the developing "local" Germanic language because the Grimm-shifted incoming Germani mixed with the NWB-ers and in the linguistic interplay many of the old place names survived as part of the common stock, while the NWB'ers adopted the Grimm-shifted speech of the colonists. On this perspective the actual Grimm shift could have occurred in the colonizing area a long time before their invasion of the NWB territory.*****