From: Torsten
Message: 66609
Date: 2010-09-16
>I was commenting on
>
>
> > I wasn't blaming you, but that compiler of Mieses who I hope
> > didn't himself mix up facts that way.
>
> It doesn't matter where Thuringian or Silezian or Alemanian stay
> in the known taxonomies. What matters is: all middle and southern
> dialects build a big family; they are in a way to such an extent
> close to one another (as vocabulary, grammar, phonetics are
> concerned) that they profoundly differ from the northern dialects
> (north of a line drawn through cluster Aachen-Düsseldorf-Köln
> and Berlin and Königsberg/Kaliningrad, the "Bernstorf-Linie".
> Everything which is North of that is Niederdeutsch, with the
> last soundshift "unfinished", and everything which is south of
> that is "genuine" Deutsch; Althochdeutsch and Mittelhochdeutsch
> were themselves variants of German spoken in southern provinces
> of Germany!).
> And scrutinizing Yiddish variants prompt anybody (within minutes)It prompted Mieses (presumably within months and years) that Yiddish belongs with Ostmitteldeutsch
> to conclude it is also a dialect from this family.
> In addition toYes, and?
> the territories where these German dialects have developed, we
> all know that there are further regions, outside the "reich",
> namely in the medieval Hungary's territory (i.e. Slovakia,
> Transylvania, Romanian Banat, Serbian Banat + Batchka, Western
> Hungary, Bukovina, Poland and regions in the Ukraine and Russia,
> where German-speaking colonists settled down in the 12th-13th
> and then much later, in the 17th, esp. 18th-19th centuries --
> most of them coming from the middle and southern dialectal regions
> of the German language; those from the Northern & Low German
> regions as well as from what's the Netherlands were also existent,
> but in lesser numbers and settled in the middle ages chiefly in
> what's today Eastern Germany and Poland.
> Yet again: Yiddish hasI don't know what you are arguing against here; no one ever claimed that Silesia once was Platt-speaking.
> virtually no influence from Northern dialects, but its structure
> is middle and southern German, with striking common features for
> the German spoken in Suebia, Bavaria, Austria (and in the former
> Sudeten-German provinces, and of course in Silezia, since Silezia
> was, at that, for a timeperiod... Austrian;
> even in TransylvanianYes, yes. And?
> "Saxons"' German there are major Austrian influences that mixed
> with the typology of Mosel-Frankish, i.e. a middle-German dialect
> that also has some Low German features, such as rests of -t and -k
> instead of -s and -ch.)
> So, all environments and possibilities for the evolvement of YiddishYou can take it into consideration if you want, but didn't you just tell me that all the German colonists from the North had no influence on the Yiddish language? Why should those from the South then have had any?
> are known. Torsten's hypothesis isn't worth talking about if the
> medieval colonists in Eastern Europe cannot be taken into considera-
> tion.
> >Yes. And irrelevant, since I was not referring to your opinions.The
>
> You refer all the time to things existing in your imagination only.
> Namely to things that have virtually nothing to do with the
> deutsche Sprache. And since you... acknowledge that Yiddish is also
> deutsche Sprache, than do yourself and do me a favor: do not leave
> German out of the discussion. Without German there is no Germanic
> occurrence in Eastern Europe. There was only one: a rest of Gothic
> spoken by a tiny population until roughly the 16th century in
> Crimea. A thing that seems to be attested by some people who then
> traveled from Germany to Crimea and talked with such locals. If
> that was a lie or some misunderstanding, it doesn't matter. That's
> the only Germanic language presence there after the Vikings and
> prior to the German (deutsche) colonizations that are all known
> and well documented.