# Hueth is riucht?



## luitzen

What is right/justice? I put three sentences in Old Frisian here because I'm curious how much trouble native English speakers need to go through in order to understand the text. As far as I know, the original text is from the thirteenth century.

- Hueth is riucht? List ende kenst riuchtis ande godis. Riuchtes, thet queth rethelika thinga ande riuchtelika thinga, alsa bithiut hit thi paws.
- Hwet queth thet wird godis? Nethelikera thinga and erlikera thinga, sprecht thi kaiser.
- Hv monich riucht ister? Twa, en godelic ende en manslic; thet erste is thi onbern, thet other scoltu lernia; thet en hath naturalis, thet other ciuilis.


----------



## luitzen

Translation:
- What is right? Awareness and knowledge of what is right and good. To right, that is to say reasonable things and rightful things, so suggests the pope.
- What does that word good say? Useful things and honest things, speaks the emperor.
- How many rights is there? Two, one godly and one manly; the first is you born unto you, the other you should learn; the one is called naturalis, the other civilis.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings

To native English speakers with no knowledge of philology, of Anglo-Saxon or other closely cognate tongues, these statements will appear as a completely foreign and incomprehensible language - though I daresay (as with, for example, Chaucer) if they are read aloud, some words might be vaguely understandable, though hardly the whole conceptual thread.

To me, with fluent German, some knowledge of A-S and of middle English, the sentences are certainly decipherable ("godelic" = "godly" [God-given], "manslic" [Germ. _menschlich_] = "human", for example, "hath" [German _heissen_] = Middle Engl. "hight"), but I would have been at sea without your translation, or a Frisian dictionary.

Σ


----------



## luitzen

I thought that words such as _hueth/hwet,_ _is, riucht, ende/ande/and, thet, thinga, hit, thi, wird, queth, kaiser, hu monich, ister, twa, godelic, manslic, onbern, other, lernia_ might be quite understandable to English speakers, especially those interested in language. Maybe I should make a voice recording of how I think it should be pronounced. Maybe this will make it more easily understandable.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> I thought that words such as _hueth/hwet,_ _is, riucht, ende/ande/and, thet, thinga, hit, thi, wird, queth, kaiser, hu monich, ister, twa, godelic, manslic, onbern, other, lernia_ might be quite understandable to English speakers, especially those interested in language. Maybe I should make a voice recording of how I think it should be pronounced. Maybe this will make it more easily understandable.


I agree with Scholiast. Knowledge of German is more helpful than that of modern English. This is actually to some extend true for Old English as well. When I try to decipher Old English texts, especially when it comes to grammar, I think of it more as a version of German then of English.


----------



## Walshie79

Try to just read it by sight and it's Martian. Read it out loud and it could easily be Middle English. It's just the different spellings that make it look totally foreign. Ister, scoltu look completely incomprehensible until you read out that sentence, then they register as "is there" and "shalt thou". Only "paws" still makes absolutely no sense. (Is the first element of "nethelikera" cognate with "need", or OE "nyttian" [use] though?)

It's about as intelligible when sounded out as 13th Century English, funnily enough.


----------



## berndf

One or two centuries earlier and I would be with you. 13th century English had already replaced too many Germanic roots. Replacing the OF words by relatively obvious German cognates (rather than modern translations) still produces a better match, keeping in Mind the well known shifts th>d, t>s/z/ß, k>ch and that at some places definite articles have become mandatory which then weakens the genitive -s to -n. The result is a bit archaic but easily understandable. The only exception is OF _queta _(_to say, to speak, to mean_). The German cognate _keden _is only understood by people familiar with early Modern German. 

-  Hueth is. riucht? List ende kenst......... riuchtis. ande godis....... Riuchtes, thet  queth rethelika thinga ande riuchtelika thinga, alsa bithiut. hit thi  paws.
- Was.. ist recht? .List und..Kenntnis [des] Rechten.. und..Guten. [Des] Rechten., das. kedet redliche. Dinge. und. rechtliche. Dinge., als. bedeutet es..der.Papst.

- Hwet queth thet wird ......godis? Nethelikera thinga and erlikera thinga, sprecht thi kaiser.
- Was. kedet.das..Wort [des] Guten? Nützliche.. Dinge. und erliche. Dinge., spricht der Kaiser.

- Hv. monich riucht ister.? Twa, .en .godelic. ende en .manslic...; thet erste is.  thi onbern..., thet other. scoltu... lernia; thet en.. hath. naturalis, thet  other.. ciuilis.
- Was manch. Recht. ist da? Zwei, ein göttlich und. ein menschlich; das. erste ist dir angeboren, das. andere sollst du lernen; das. eine heißt naturalis, das..andere. ciuilis.


----------



## Walshie79

Some 13th and even 14th Century English is still largely devoid of French words, e.g. Ayenbite of Inwit (the OF actually reminds me somewhat of that). "Rede" for example, which I presume is the first element of "rethelika" was found alongside French "conseil" right through Middle English.

As for nethelike, I never realised that "noteful" comes from the OE word for "use". I always assumed it was note+full. That word does survive then. It surely had a form "noteliche" in Middle English then.

"Quoth"(said) and "ken"(know, knowledge) are still known and understood by most English speakers, and "inborn" is certainly understandable although I've never actually come across it. Just looked and it is in the dictionary. "List" ("awareness, cunning") is very archaic, but still in there as well. "Erste" survives in "erstwhile". "Arliche" (erlikera) is found in Middle English, but not in any form today.

So my attempt at a Middle English version (southern, 1300ish):

What is rihte? Liste and ken of rihtes and godes. Rihtes, þet is redeliche þinges and rihtliche þinges, suo beþuhte hit þe pope.
What gode quoth þet word? Noteliche þinges and areliche þinges, spake þe casere.
Hou mony rihtes þer ben? Two, oon godliche and oon manliche, þe erste is inborn, þe othere shaltou lernen, oon highte naturale, þe othere ciuile.


----------



## luitzen

I made a recording of what I believe is the correct pronounciation. Does this make it more easily understandable to you guys?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tpbe5l566z74e4k/riucht.wma?dl=0


----------



## luitzen

queth does still exist in Saterlandic Frisian as kwede (to talk).

And I don't think that English has lost so many Germanic roots, it's just that non Germanic roots are so dominant in certain domains, but in everyday speech, Germanic roots are still used the most.

And Frisian and English separated long ago, but when I study different forms of Frisian, or when I study Scots or any other nonstandard form of English, or when I study archaic (but nonetheless understandable) English poetry or literature, I see so many similarities between English and Frisian. I believe that during the period of Early Modern English up to around Shakespeare there was definitely some kind of heightened understanding between English and Frisian. Mutual intelligibility might be a stretch, but I think that English and Frisian sailors and traders were able to communicate with relative ease, more than would be the case for English and Dutch.


----------



## berndf

@Walchie

A few comments to your ME version:
I don't think _redeliche _ever meant _honest, truthful, righteous_, etc. Do you have an attestation?
I don't understand "beþuhte" where would the "h" come from? The OE cognate of _thiuda _is _geþieddan_.
Why "*of* rihtes and godes"? In the original they are both genitives.
I think with _Nethelikera _we were both wrong. The word means _equitable_. I can't find cognates.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> more than would be the case for English and Dutch.


That's for sure. Frisian, Low German and English are all North Sea Germanic languages while Dutch is Rhine-Germanic. That should count for something.


----------



## luitzen

I'm not sure what the ME word means, but rethe means the same as Dutch rede (reason). rethelika thinga are things that appeal to reason.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> I'm not sure what the ME word means, but rethe means the same as Dutch rede (reason). rethelika thinga are things that appeal to reason.


...and reason leads to justification and that leads to_ honest, righteous_ for the adjective. I am surprised bot to find this meaning in ME but I can't.


----------



## merquiades

Maybe if I go word for word with the translation I understand something, for example:  I can see how "hweth" could be "what", but reading it I pick up nothing, and listening to the recording it just sounds like Dutch to me.


----------



## Hulalessar

Was it really the case that during the Early Modern English period English and Frisian sailors and merchants were able to communicate because their respective languages had a significant degree of mutual intelligibility? By the start of the Early Modern English period there would have been something like a thousand years for Insular Germanic to go its own way with the emphasis being very much on the "insular" in the sense of being separated. If they did communicate was it not because there was some North Sea pidgin?

Native speakers of English who have not studied any other modern Germanic language find Old English as opaque as any modern Germanic language. The fact that some Germanic roots have survived does not help because they may have have become unrecognisable, been subjected to semantic shift or survive only in compound words. The odd phrase in Old English, just as the odd phrase in any modern Germanic language, may leap out and convey some meaning, but that should not of course be taken as evidence of even limited mutual intelligibility. Genetically, Frisian may be the closest language to any variety of Insular Germanic (and probably slightly closer to Scots than English), but that does not help. Practically, it may just as well be Swedish.


----------



## Walshie79

berndf said:


> @Walchie
> 
> A few comments to your ME version:
> I don't think _redeliche _ever meant _honest, truthful, righteous_, etc. Do you have an attestation?
> I don't understand "beþuhte" where would the "h" come from? The OE cognate of _thiuda _is _geþieddan_.
> Why "*of* rihtes and godes"? In the original they are both genitives.
> I think with _Nethelikera _we were both wrong. The word means _equitable_. I can't find cognates.



"Reason" is one meaning given for OE raed (though the main one is "counsel, advice"), so it must have continued into ME rede. There must surely have been a "'redeliche" derived from it, if not a ME speaker would still surely understand the word.
That use of the genitive in OF isn't found as far as I know in ME, which is why I turned it into of+plural, "of good things and right things", though it could have been singular I suppose. Bithiut looks so like the archaic English "bethought" I didn't even look twice, but I can't find "geþieddan" in any Old English dictionary (even trying slightly different spellings). Never come across any word like it in ME either. Is it a derivative of þeod (people)?

Nethelikera is very mysterious, if it's not the "use" word. "Ferhtlic" seems to be the best OE translation for equitable.


----------



## berndf

Walshie79 said:


> "Reason" is one meaning given for OE raed (though the main one is "counsel, advice"), so it must have continued into ME rede. There must surely have been a "'redeliche" derived from it, if not a ME speaker would still surely understand the word.


This text is known in legal history of the Empire (to which West Frisia belonged at the time). It is always represented as _redlich _in German (_Deutsch,Teutsch, Duits, Dudesch, etc.=German/Dutch_ was at the time an umbrella term for all West Germanic languages spoken on the continent and our modern separation of languages vs. dialects had little meaning). The primary meaning is _honest, truthful, righteous_ and this is also what makes most sense in this context. I doubt a ME speaker would make that connection. At least I am not aware of any attestation that would point in this direction.


Walshie79 said:


> Is it a derivative of þeod (people)?


Yes, indeed. This produced the meaning _translate, make understandable, interpret_ (in a similar way as _þeodisc, Deutsch, Dutch_ originally meant _popular language _>_ commonly understandable language_; mainly in opposition to Latin) but also _point_. With the prefix _be-_ it can mean in a passive sense _mean_ and in an active sense _opine, explain, voice, state_. In this context, the meaning is obviously active (=_as the pope said/stated/explained_).


Walshie79 said:


> Nethelikera is very mysterious


To me too.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings


> Nethelikera is very mysterious


 (Walshie).
When I first read luitzen's original post, and his translation, I assumed (with my amateur philology) that it was cognate with _nützlich_. Is this impossible? A link to the sense of "equitable" is surely not necessary, since the whole text is dealing with the principles of justice. But the sense of "expediency" would fit the context nicely.

Σ


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> A link to the sense of "equitable" is surely not necessary


I don't understand. Why would that be unnecessary, if it were exactly that what the word meant? I haven't seen any reason so far to assume that _Nethelik- _does mean _useful_.  The only source I have found is a dictionary that translates it into German as _billig_ (_equitable_).


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all

Berndf, the estimable, asks (about _Nethelik)_:





> I don't understand. Why would that be unnecessary, if it were exactly  that what the word meant? I haven't seen any reason so far to assume  that _Nethelik- _does mean _useful_.  The only source I have found is a dictionary that translates it into German as _billig_ (_equitable_).


...whereby he touches on Moral Philosophy as much as on Philology. In the context, a distinction is being drawn between two understandings or meanings of justice (_riucht_/_Recht_/right), or indeed, "equity" - one based upon human regulation, the other on divine dispensation.
To contrast "equitable" (in humanly devised law) with "honorable" (_ehrlich_/_erlikera - _in divinely sanctioned moral rules) implies a connotation of "equitable" (meaning essentially just "fair") which devoids the antithesis of sense - hence my suggestion of "expediency": there are, in short, human standards of equity/justice/law, based on expediency, as opposed to those ordained by God, which are "honorable" in the sense of being "authentic", universally true.

Oh dear, I am not sure whether I have made sense here.

Σ


----------



## berndf

It seems we are talking cross-purposes here. It seems that you are looking for a better word for _useful_. I am advancing the idea, based on the translation I linked to in #20, that the translation _useful _does not only leave room for improvement but that it is plain wrong and that the true meaning of n_ethelik-_ in indeed _equitable_ (German _billig_).


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

This with temerity, for I fear that the exchange is bordering on forbidden "chat":

If I have understood berndf's post #22 correctly, he is saying that _nethelik _means "equitable". Of course I bow to his immense philological scholarship, but if he is saying that _nethelik_ here means "fair", I must respectfully disagree. And _billig_ has nothing to do with it.

I think my chief point stands: the text implies a contrast between _nethelik _(_nütlich_/useful/needful/*expedient*) and _erlik_/ _ehrlich_/honorable - thence God-given - and therefore "absolute".

Σ


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> but if he is saying that _nethelik here means "fair", I must respectfully disagree_


Based on what evidence? We have no evidence where _nethelik_ comes from or to which German or English word it corresponds nor have we see an Old Frisian (of modern Frisian, for that matter) dictionary that states this meaning.


Scholiast said:


> And _billig_ has nothing to do with it.


It is the translation given in the resource I quoted. So it is relevant, unless someone gives a reason why this should be discarded and _equitable_ is the relevant meaning for _billig_.


----------



## Scholiast

Again, greetings

Shall we go back to the original question? Is _nethelik_ essentially _nützlich_? No disrespect at all, berndf, very much the contrary. That was your translation in #7.

All I was - and am still - suggesting is that in the text luitzen presents there is an implied contrast between man-made law(s) with their faults and inadequacies (on one hand) and the absolutely demanding, and commanding, laws of God-given justice (on the other).

Both concepts of "justice", however, implicitly involve equity, "fairness". I cannot from a linguistic point of view see "equitable", or "equity" as being in any way contrasted with the God-given moral framework involved in _erlika_.

Sorry if I am making things yet muddier, but 

Σ


----------



## berndf

What I did in #7 I did because I didn't question the translation in #7. Walshie then brought up the question of the English cognate which led me dig a bit into the matter and my opinion has changed.

I agree with what you said earlier that "equitable" essential means "fair" and I can't understand your problem with the statement that "riucht" (law, justice, jurisprudence) is about what is "fair and honest".

How is the concept of "erlik" (honest) related to God-giveness?


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

Berndf asks...


> How is the concept of "erlik" (honest) related to God-giveness?


...and I must apologise if I failed to make myself plain in my earlier contributions.

A clear antithesis is being set up between _nethelik_, applicable to law(s) of human origin, and _erlik_,  applied to those ordained by God: and in the entire context this  suggests the commonplace distinction (well, commonplace among moral  philosophers) between "utility"/"expediency" on one hand, and absolute  moral values on the other, unsullied by the impurities and imperfections  of human judgment. _erlik_ then means not quite "honest", here,  but "pure", "uncontaminated" - and Latin (with which the original  document's creator(s) will undoubtedly have been familiar) _honestus_ could convey precisely that.

I never imagined I could be such a Platonist.

Σ


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> A clear antithesis is being set up between _nethelik_, applicable to law(s) of human origin, and _erlik_,  applied to those ordained by God


I fail to see why this should in any way be clear. We are confronted with a very simple statement: _The emperor says that law is about what is fair and honest._ I see no reason to disappear with it in such remote spheres of sophistication.

Line one describes "law" from the point of view of the church.
Line two describes "law" from the point of view of the temporal authorities.
The antithesis of human and divine law only appears in the third line.



Scholiast said:


> _erlik_ then means not quite "honest", here, but "pure", "uncontaminated" - and Latin (with which the original document's creator(s) will undoubtedly have been familiar) _honestus_ could convey precisely that.


Yes, _Erlik _can mean of _honorable_ or _honest_. Both are spiritual as well as temporal attributes.

You will have to find at least some philological argument that _nethelik_ can _useful_. Until now I haven't seen anything of the sort. Your argument so far was only that you can imagine a reading of this line where a word meaning _useful_ could make sense. I would need something a bit more tangible.


----------



## Scholiast

Once again, greetings


> Line one describes "law" from the point of view of the church.
> Line two describes "law" from the point of view of the temporal authorities.
> The antithesis of human and divine law only appears in the third line.


 - berndf's #28.

Granted:  luitzen's first post presented us with three discrete specimen  sentences, rather than a continuous extract from a systematic treatise  of jurisprudence: I was probably trying to synthesize with a philosophical precision that is not to be sought there.

Nevertheless, all three of these utterances contain what are (to me at least) clear, if implicit, antitheses:
In the first, *rethelika* vs. *riuchtelika* thinga - "advisable"/"expedient" vs. "just"/"righteous" [absolutely, in and of themselves];
In the second, *Nethelikera* vs. *erlikera* - goods that "useful"/"expedient" vs. goods that are so because they are inherently or naturally so, in and of themselves;
And in the third, *godelic* vs. *manslic*, amplified by "inborn" vs. "learned", and *naturalis* in contrast with _*ciuilis*_.

Not  to mention the contrast between (1) and (2), the pronouncements on the  matter of, on the one hand, the Pope, as God's presumed mouthpiece, and  the Emperor on the other - the quintessential earthly, human and  therefore imperfect representative of civil, as opposed to morally absolute, jurisdiction.

There still seems to me therefore to be an over-arching conceptual dualism in the thinking here.

And purely from a methodological point of view, if a word (here _nethelikera_)  is philologically problematic, especially for people as admirably and  enviably expert as berndf, is it not reasonable to try to make sense of  it by examining the contextually implied sense(s)?

Σ


----------



## berndf

Well, you construct the opposition by putting _redelika _and _nethelika _into a utilitarian and _riuchelika _and _erlika _into a moral context of right or wrong. Your interpretation is entirely dependent on this, so there should be some evidence to support this.

In the same text you find e.g.: _Rethlic side is cristenlic masterschip, Vnriucht side wiucht the tha riuchte._
This puts _rethlic _in explicit opposition to _vnriucht_. This certainly doesn't support a purely utilitarian interpretation.
And further on you find _Thet riucht is alle riucht, ther wida werde nout ne fiucht and nethlic is an rethlic and erlic._
I would read_ nethlic, rethlic_ an _erlic_ as semantically closely related adjectives.

From a methodological point of view, to solve an equation with several unknowns, I would look for more equations, at least as many as we have unknowns, rather than arbitrarily assume one value for one of the unknown and deduce the other unknowns from that.

I don't say I certain of my interpretation. But I think, I have presented some evidence for my reading (starting with the translation linked in #20) whereas for your reading I currently see _only_ interpretation.

Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming you for anything. I'm just pointing out where I think independent evidence would be useful and indeed needed.


----------



## luitzen

berndf said:


> It seems we are talking cross-purposes here. It seems that you are looking for a better word for _useful_. I am advancing the idea, based on the translation I linked to in #20, that the translation _useful _does not only leave room for improvement but that it is plain wrong and that the true meaning of n_ethelik-_ in indeed _equitable_ (German _billig_).


I have to admit that I had the most difficulty with nethelikera and bithiut. I don't speak Old Frisian and I'm just an amateur linguist at best. I never have had course on this or anything like it, but I'm aware of some easy to make mistakes. Having said that, I do think that it's easier for me to understand this because modern West Frisian is my native language and the language hasn't changed that much either.

To me the word nethelikera really much looks like modern West Frisian need (need) and nut (usefulness) plus some -erlikera ending. Some Dutch sources indeed give the translation usefulness. German sources mostly give billig though.

I think it's quite interesting though what the word really means, what it's etymological origins are.


----------



## luitzen

I found this source: https://sites.google.com/site/westrafryskeside/Home/aldfrysk

Here the sentence is translated as: De dingen dy't sa hearre, en de dingen fan eare, sprekt de keizer.
Which could be translated as: The things that are supposed (need) to be, and the things of honour, the emperor speaks.

For me the association to _need_ and _nut_ is very hard to let go of.


----------



## luitzen

Hulalessar said:


> Was it really the case that during the Early Modern English period English and Frisian sailors and merchants were able to communicate because their respective languages had a significant degree of mutual intelligibility? By the start of the Early Modern English period there would have been something like a thousand years for Insular Germanic to go its own way with the emphasis being very much on the "insular" in the sense of being separated. If they did communicate was it not because there was some North Sea pidgin?
> 
> Native speakers of English who have not studied any other modern Germanic language find Old English as opaque as any modern Germanic language. The fact that some Germanic roots have survived does not help because they may have have become unrecognisable, been subjected to semantic shift or survive only in compound words. The odd phrase in Old English, just as the odd phrase in any modern Germanic language, may leap out and convey some meaning, but that should not of course be taken as evidence of even limited mutual intelligibility. Genetically, Frisian may be the closest language to any variety of Insular Germanic (and probably slightly closer to Scots than English), but that does not help. Practically, it may just as well be Swedish.


I really doubt that there was mutual intelligibility, but I think that communication wasn't too complicated though. A lot of the changes that make English seem unique are shared by Frisian. It's just that Frisian is such an obscure group of languages that most Brits or Americans have never heard of it and they will assume that either German or Dutch are the most closely related languages, making the perceived differences with the 'next of kin' larger than they actually are. Of course English still takes a quite special place and Frisian varieties were also influence by Dutch, German, Low German and to a smaller extent Danish, but there are so many similarities between English and Frisian that do not exist between English and German. There are quite some words and sometimes entire sentences completely the same in English and Frisian while they differ in Dutch which is much rarer the other way around.

For example, I have MTV on in the background and I hear the word doorbell which, except for the r, sounds exactly the same as West Frisian doarbel. Even in sounds, English and Frisian match each other better than English and Dutch. For example the word stool is the same in English (stool), Dutch (stoel) and Frisian (stoel), but in Frisian the oe is pronounced exactly as the English oo here while the sound is short in Dutch. I'm talking about the thing you sit on, not feces.

I really think communication would have been quite easy, but there was probably no mutual intelligibility.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> For example the word stool is the same in English (stool), Dutch (stoel) and Frisian (stoel), but in Frisian the oe is pronounced exactly as the English oo here while the sound is short in Dutch. I'm talking about the thing you sit on, not feces.


/u/~/u:/ counts as tense/long in Dutch independently of its true phonetic length. Same is true for English.


----------



## luitzen

berndf said:


> /u:/~/u:/ counts as tense/long in Dutch independently of its true phonetic length. Same is true for English.


That's not the point. My point is that when Dutch, Frisian and English have the same word, Dutch is most likely to deviate at least somewhat. Frisian sounds are more like English (or English sounds more like Frisian). Dutch sounds are more like German.

Of course one example still doesn't prove anything either way.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> That's not the point.


I think it is.


luitzen said:


> Frisian sounds are more like English (or English sounds more like Frisian). Dutch sounds are more like German.


Because I contest that. In your example, Dutch behaves phonologically more like English and Frisian more like German. In this case because the true phonetic length is irrelevant in English and Dutch languages whereas in German and Frisian it is relevant.


----------



## luitzen

What makes phonetic length relevant? I'm not aware of Frisian words that differ in meaning because of the length of oe/û and I also do not know how Frisian orthography is able to distinguish short and long oe/û. True, the length of oe/û can change depending on whether the word is inflected and depending on other sounds around it and it can even change into uo.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> What makes phonetic length relevant? I'm not aware of Frisian words that differ in meaning because of the length of oe/û and I also do not know how Frisian orthography is able to distinguish short and long oe/û. True, the length of oe/û can change depending on whether the word is inflected and depending on other sounds around it and it can even change into uo.


Maybe I misunderstood you, but you said so:


luitzen said:


> For example the word stool is the same in English (stool), Dutch (stoel) and Frisian (stoel), but in Frisian the oe is pronounced exactly as the English oo here *while the sound is short in Dutch*.


----------



## luitzen

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you pronounce the sound long in Dutch, it doesn't change meaning, it just sounds weird, if you pronounce the sound short in English or Frisian it also sounds weird, but people would stil understand you. There are also words in Dutch that have a long pronounciation (such as boer) and there are words in West Frisian as well that have a short pronounciation.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> if you pronounce the sound short in English ... it also sounds weird


Not so much, depends a bit on the dialect, though.
It is German, where it really matters.


----------



## Hulalessar

luitzen said:


> I really doubt that there was mutual intelligibility etc



We cannot be sure exactly what it was like centuries ago because on both sides of the North Sea dialects may have been spoken which were never recorded and they may have resembled each other more than they do today. It is true that genetically Anglo-Frisian is the next taxonomic level up from Insular Germanic but that does not help intelligibility. Apart from anything else not all varieties of Insular Germanic are necessarily immediately mutually intelligible and I understand the same applies to Frisian. If you speak two genetically related languages it is not too difficult to see connections which would not be spotted by a speaker who only knows one of them. It would be interesting to drop monolingual English speakers from different parts of the UK into a Frisian speaking family for a week and see how they get on and whether there would be a regional difference. I would suggest a reverse experiment but I think there may be difficulty finding a Frisian speaker who does not know at least some English!


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

Not this time (fellow-contributors will be relieved to know) to reprise my earlier _Auseinandersetzung_ with berndf:  for economy I only cite here





> Anglo-Frisian is the next taxonomic  level up from Insular Germanic...If you speak two genetically related  languages it is not too difficult  to see connections which would not be spotted by a speaker who only  knows one of them


.
This is spot-on, and works between  dialects of the same language as well. Use of, or even mere  acquaintanceship with, two (or more) dialects brings with it a  linguistic stereo that enables one to make sense of a third, or all  together. So "*sore* [afraid]" (KJ Bible) ≃ Scots _*sair* afeart_ ≃ *sehr*.

Sadly, I think precious few folk even in my beloved Scotland still recall the "proper" sense of "sair". I have only heard it recently among a few elderly gentlemen. 

Sorry, that's probably for another thread.

Σ


----------



## luitzen

berndf said:


> Not so much, depends a bit on the dialect, though.
> It is German, where it really matters.


I still don't really understand what you're trying to say.

My point was that even when the words are the same in English, Frisian and Dutch the sounds in English and Frisian are more likely to be a perfect match than the sounds in English and Dutch.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> I still don't really understand what you're trying to say.
> 
> My point was that even when the words are the same in English, Frisian and Dutch the sounds in English and Frisian are more likely to be a perfect match than the sounds in English and Dutch.


Disagreement with that claim is my point.


----------



## luitzen

Hulalessar said:


> It would be interesting to drop monolingual English speakers from different parts of the UK into a Frisian speaking family for a week and see how they get on and whether there would be a regional difference. I would suggest a reverse experiment but I think there may be difficulty finding a Frisian speaker who does not know at least some English!


There's this video of some experiment where Eddie Izzard learns some sentences in Old English and tries to buy a cow from a farmer, who I assume lives in relative isolation from the English language. There's no mutual intelligibility but in the end they do not have too much trouble communicating and making a deal. Off course older Frisian would be closer to Old English (understandesto is an Old Frisian word, for example) making things easier, but I'm not sure that a Frisian and an Englishman living in the 13th century would be able to readily understand each other.

I think the experiment would also have worked with an Hollandic (I use Hollandic here, because West Frisian is Dutch/Netherlandic), but it would be a little bit more difficult though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34


----------



## berndf

I am not sure what this is that supposed to demonstrate. First, that guy's accent is only mildly related to Old English and everbody in any Western Germanic language area would understand exactly as much of this simple sentence as that farmer did, viz. everthing except the verb _bycgan_ and the way way he pronounced it, an OE speaker probably wouldn't have understood it either.


----------



## luitzen

berndf said:


> Disagreement with that claim is my point.


To me it's not clear why you disagree. Your argument is that phonetic length is not really relevant in English, Dutch and Frisian, but it is in German?

I'd say that Dutch does not really have short and long vowels, but closed and open syllables. 'ie', for example is considered a long vowel even when it is pronounced short (which is almost always the case, e.g. _dieven_).

West Frisian also shares this characteristic and in addition makes a distinction between long and short vowels, but in the case of oe/û this is not phonemic and therefore in this sense not relevant. I can't really find examples in English of short u, but if we would allow examples such as put and soon I still doubt whether this would be phonemic. In English there are also open and closed syllables but they're not really associated with vowel length. I don't really know how the situation in German is though.

Also my statement is not refuted by stating whether phonetic length is relevant or not, but an extensive study in which respondents are asked how similar they perceive sounds in the same words accross different languages would be quite helpful. I might be biased, but from my own experience I can say that, yes, sounds in English and (West) Frisian are more similar.


----------



## luitzen

berndf said:


> I am not sure what this is that supposed to demonstrate. First, that guy's accent is only mildly related to Old English and everbody in any Western Germanic language area would understand exactly as much of this simple sentence as that farmer did, viz. everthing except the verb _bycgan_ and the way way he pronounced it, an OE speaker probably wouldn't have understood it either.



I already said that this would probably have worked with Dutch as well (though it might have been harder for Eddie to understand 'kaas en boter').

Hulalessar suggested an experiment and I wanted to let him know that some kind of experiment has already been conducted.


----------



## berndf

luitzen said:


> I'd say that Dutch does not really have short and long vowels,


Nor has English, really.


luitzen said:


> In English there are also open and closed  syllables...


Open and closed syllables exist in practically every language.


luitzen said:


> ...but they're not really associated with vowel length.


Yes and no. Middle English had lengthening in open syllables which is echoed in the phenomenon that "lax" vowels can only occur in closed syllables.


luitzen said:


> I don't  really know how the situation in German is though.


German underwent the lengthening in open syllables as well, though a little bit later. In unstressed syllables only the tensing that comes with lengthening occurs, i.e. in unstressed open syllables, the quality is like that of a long vowel but the quantity is short.

From the mere sound of the language it is difficult to infer genetic closeness. The English sound system has undergone huge changes and the surviving Frisian dialects have been very heavily influenced by the majority language of the countries where they are spoken. Listening to it superficially, West Frisian sounds like a variety of Dutch and North Frisian like a variety of German.


----------

