From: Imre
Message: 5021
Date: 2005-03-18
>germanista@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Imre,
> Well, I think you also ought to consider "Low German"
> (Niederdeutsch), because Hochdeutsch really is the language
> of Southern Germany, which differs in many respects from the
> Anglo-Saxon that you are interested in.
>
> Low German, Frisian and Dutch are really much closer
> to Old English.
>
>
> About the language of the oldest runic inscriptions, the
> experts differ. People from the West Germanic regions
> seem to wish to equate Scandinavian with Anglo-Saxon
> at around the year zero. I do not know what reasons
> they have for this, but I suspect it is motivated in a
> kind of cultural imperialism, just like Grimm by linguistic
> means tried to "prove" that Jutland really belonged to
> Germany, which was used to motivate several campaigns of
> suppression.
>
> Remember that the earliest runes (ca. 200 AD or somewhat
> earlier) are very few, and that there are not many other
> records of the Scandinavian tongue as early as that.
>
> What I should like to look into, are the vocabularies of
> Old Norse, as compared with Old English. Are the words
> basically all adaptions of the same roots, or do the Scandinavian
> languages contain many roots (what percentage?) that are not
> found in Old English?
>
>
> Vale,
> Xigung.
>
>
>
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Imre <hobbi-
> >have
> >
> > Dear Haukur, Diego, Xigung and Llama nom,
> >
> > thanks for the contributions from all of you, indeed. Meanwhile I
> > realized that my question was somewhat improper, as it is veryof
> difficult
> > to say if two similar tongues can be considered dialects of the very
> > same languages or two separate languages. Separate statehood
> > the speakers might contribute to considering them separatedifference
> > languages, just as in case of the split of the former Yugoslavia, the
> > once "indivisible" Serbo-Croat today is considered to be 3 separate
> > languages, such as Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, though
> > may be less significant between Bosnian and Serbian than Swisssame
> > German and Hochdeutsch (the latter two are thought to be the
> > language).Germanic
> >
> > It could have been similar in the age of shifting from common-
> > to Western-Germanic languages and Old Norse. Since this wasto
> > continuous we could only set a symbolic date or estimate a longer
> > period during which it could have happened. But of course mutual
> > intelligibility does not end at the time when the dialects split >into
>
> > separate languages, e.g. written Dutch is more or less intelligible
> > German-speakers, or Estonian is also understandable to Finns insome
> > extent. But because of the mutual intelligibility no one would saythat
> > these are dialects of the very same language, any longer.Norse
> >
> > The reason for my question was that I wanted to when the Old
> > word `lög' acquired the meaning `law'. According tomy "presumption #
> > 1", this must have happened after that Old Norse and WestGermanic
> > languages split form each other, because the English cognate `lay'and
> > German cognate `Lage' do not have the same meaning as `lög'.the
> >
> > But again ("presumption #2") – since dialects can be well different
> > before formally splitting into different languages – it could have
> > happened that in the Northern dialects of the common-Germanic
> > proto-Germanic *'lag' (or whatever the correct form may havebeen)
> > already had the meaning "law" (or some kind of commonlyaccepted
> > social custom etc.), but not in the West or East dialects.and
> >
> > This latter argument could be supported by the fact that German
> > OE both use words ("Gesetz" and "gesetnys") with the similaroriginal
> > meaning: "setzen" and "to set" also have the same primarymeaning
> > as Swedish "lägga" (`to lay') and ON "leggja", both having theprimary
> > meaning `to lay, to put, to set etc.'. I presume that the Northernwhatever
> > dialects and Western dialects meant the same thing, but one of the
> > dialects shifted to an other word, though a secondary meaning
> > (i.e. `law') of "*lag" could have been intelligible to the Western
> dialects
> > or a secondary meaning of the word "*set" or "*geset" (or
> > the correct proto-Germanic may have been) could have beenSwedish
> > understandable to the speakers of the Northern dialects, e.g.
> > still has the verb "sätte" with a similar meaning asGerman "setzen"
> > and English "to set".
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Imre
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>
> Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
>
> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>
> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>