# Frisian and English



## mark85

I have heard that Frisian is the language most closely related to English. Does anybody know how true this is? Does anybody speak Frisian? 

Thanks


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Did you hear the statement, or did you hear (listen to) Frisian yourself already? If so, which Frisian variant and what are your impressions?
Anyway, we have a thread about this topic here.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

_Old Frisian_ and _Old Saxon_ are the closest relatives of _Anglo-Saxon_ a.k.a. _Old English_. This doesn't mean that_ Modern Frisian_ is close to _Modern English_.

_Modern Frisian_ has split into three dialects. _North Frisian_ is the dialect closest to the reagion where the Anglo-Saxons came from. _West Frisian_ is the largest surviving dialect.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> This doesn't mean that_ Modern Frisian_ is close to _Modern English_.



"Myn boat kin seil yn de wetter"
"My boat can sail in the water"

"Wat is jo namme?"
"What is your name?"

"Kin jo my helpe?"
"Can you help me?"

Of course there are absolutely millions of other sentences that won't show a single obvious cognate, it still can be demonstrated that they can be close, and the question was about the closest language to English (no matter how distantly). I think it can be said that Frisian (though I'm not sure what sub-dialect is the closest) is the closest main language to English, though this doesn't mean it is 'close', but is the closest.

If anyone can demonstrate an even closer relationship I'd be really interested to see it!


----------



## Hulalessar

If it is a language and not a dialect, Scots is the language closest to English.

*Moderator note: For a discussion of the status of Scots, please refer to this thread.*


----------



## berndf

You can easily construct similar sentences with other West-Germanic languages. Knowing the genetic relation it doesn't mean much (eg. Low German "Wat is joon name=What is your name").

Taking the Helgolandic sample sentence in the linked Wiki article on North Frisian, can you understand
_"Lochte, ool Muun, lochte!" rüp Heäwelman, oawers de Muun wear naarni tu sin’n en uk de Steern ni; dja wear al allemoal tu Baad gingen_
any better than the Standard German version
_"Leuchte, alter Mond, leuchte" schrie Häwelmann, aber der Mond war nirgends zu sehen und auch die Sterne nicht; sie waren schon alle zu Bett gegangen_
?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> You can easily construct similar sentences with other West-Germanic languages.


Yes, because all the West Germanic languages share a close genetic relation, this is why you can construct similar sentences, because they're all part of the same group and to that extent should be considered 'close'.

I think "_close_" and "_being able to read and understand the other language_" are getting mixed up between our definitions. As stated before, English stems from the Anglo-Frisian dialects that were brought to England so is by definition 'close'. However, so is Scots so I am happy to accept Hulalessar's suggestion. Either way it'd be any of the Anglo-Frisian group: 
English / North Frisian / Saterland Frisian /  Scots /  West Frisian.


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> I think "_close_" and "_being able to read and understand the other language_" are getting mixed up between our definitions.


Exactly. That's what your examples did; and that's why I didn't want to let them stand uncontradicted.


Alxmrphi said:


> As stated before, English stems from the Anglo-Frisian dialects that were brought to England so is by definition 'close'. However, so is Scots so I am happy to accept Hulalessar's suggestion. Either way it'd be any of the Anglo-Frisian group:
> English / North Frisian / Saterland Frisian / Scots / West Frisian.


Historically, you should also include Saxon a.k.a Low German. The reason why this isn't mentioned any more is probably because it is today considered a German dialect and not a language in its own right any more. Dutch isn't too far off either. When Anglo-Saxon separated from West-Germanic it probably was still pretty much one language, except maybe High-German dialects which already underwent their characteristic sound shifts.


----------



## Malti

alxmrphi said:
			
		

> "Kin* jo my helpe?"


*'kinne', surely?

I think the similarity between  English and other Germanic languages in general is often underplayed,  and too much is focused on the differences. How long does the list of  mutually intelligible random sentences need to be before it starts to  count? And does it matter what those sentences are? For instance I don't  often talk about my boat's ability to sail, but when  we were at a somewhat noisy house-party in Germany a neighbour shouted  "Eure Musik ist zu laut!" or similar, and my brother (who speaks no  German) turned to me and  asked why she had shouted in English. For that brief moment at least,  German and English were mutually intelligible. And I'd assume there  would be way more examples of it between Frisian and English because  their consonants are much more similar. I don't think treating similar  sentences as just a peculiarity is any more helpful than their use to  exaggerate a connection.

On the occasions I've encountered  Frisian it certainly does feel a lot closer to English than Dutch or Low  German to me, but I'm not sure I could put that into anything close to  objective terms. In terms of sounds, the 'g' being more like English and  'r's and 'l's often behaving more like in English possibly explains  feeling the greater similarity as opposed to Dutch. I find my "guesses"  are always much better in Frisian. Like for example, when I heard the  word "hynder" I could at least narrow it down to something animal-y  because it's like "hind" (as in deer), "paard" offers no such help. 

But,  despite the historical, phonetic, vocabulary-related and grammatical  closenesses, for an English speaker and Frisian speaker to understand  each other completely with neither having any prior knowledge of the  other language the conversation would undeniably have to be fairly carefully  orchestrated beforehand.​


----------



## Alxmrphi

*<reaction to deleted post deleted>*



> *'kinne', surely?


 
I got it from here.


----------



## berndf

Malti said:


> *'kinne', surely?​


If I am not mistaken, "Kinne jo...?" is usually contracted to "Kin' jo...?".​ 


Malti said:


> And I'd assume there would be way more examples of it between Frisian and English because their consonants are much more similar.​


This is true for all West Germanic languages/dialects North of the Benrather line, i.e. those which did not undergo the High German consonant shift.


----------



## Malti

berndf said:


> This is true for all West Germanic languages/dialects North of the Benrather line, i.e. those which did not undergo the High German consonant shift.



Does Low German not still have 'k' in words such as cheese, church, etc?


----------



## berndf

Malti said:


> Does Low German not still have 'k' in words such as cheese, church, etc?


Low German for "Church" is "Kerk" [kɛrk] or, less frequently, "Kerke" ['kɛr.kə].

"Cheese" has a /k/ also in High German ("Käse"). The High German consonant shift does not affect word-initial /k/; or at lease it hasn't survived there: there is an attested Old High German spelling "chirihha" (presumably ['çi.riç.ça] or ['çI'.rIç.ça]) for "church" and "chasi" (presumably ['xa:.zi], maybe already ['xɛ:.zi]; it is not known exactly when the umlauting started) for "cheese" but already in Middle High German all initial "ch"es have disappeared again (except in a few proper names). The palatalized allophone [tʃ] for [k] as you find in English "church" and "cheese" (Old English spelling "cirice" and "cyse", later "cese"; the allophones [k] and [tʃ]  for "c" were not distinguished in writing) is a peculiarity of Old English. At least, I am not aware of any other West Germanic language which had this.


----------



## Malti

berndf said:


> Low German for "Church" is "Kerk" [kɛrk] or, less frequently, "Kerke" ['kɛr.kə].



My point being that Frisian has "tsiis", "tsjerke" for "cheese", "church", not the initial /k/s one finds in other West Germanic languages, even those not affected by the High German consonant shift.


----------



## berndf

Malti said:


> My point being that Frisian has "tsiis", "tsjerke" for "cheese", "church", not the initial /k/s one finds in other West Germanic languages, even those not affected by the High German consonant shift.


Yes, that is extremely interesting. The palatalization of /k/ to /tʃ/ or, in this case /ts/, in certain contexts is indeed alien too all other West Germanic languages, including Old Saxon! Thank you for drawing my attention to this.

PS: I checked this Old Frisan dictionary. You find many examples of this /k/ to /ts/ shift in Old Frisan already. The Dictionary is Modern High German to Old Frisian. Look at words starting with "K" in Modern High German.


----------



## Frank06

Malti said:


> My point being that Frisian has "tsiis", "tsjerke" for "cheese", "church", not the initial /k/s one finds in other West Germanic languages, _even those not affected by the High German consonant shift_.


I might have misunderstood the phrase I italicised in the quote above, but I don't see a relation between /k/ > /tʃ/ and the High German consonant shift.


----------



## Malti

Frank06 said:


> I might have misunderstood the phrase I italicised in the quote above, but I don't see a relation between /k/ > /tʃ/ and the High German consonant shift.



There isn't a relation. The /k/ > /tʃ/ shift only applied to English and Frisian, making their consonants more similar even than other West Germanic languages which did not undergo the High German sound shift, which contradicts: "[The consonants being more similar] is true for all West Germanic languages/dialects North of the Benrather line, i.e. those which did not undergo the High German consonant shift."

@berndf: Thanks for the link, really interesting


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> I might have misunderstood the phrase I italicised in the quote above, but I don't see a relation between /k/ > /tʃ/ and the High German consonant shift.


Yes, this is exactly his point, Frank. It is not related. He reacted to my earlier post where I mentioned OHG words with initial "ch". Until now I always argued that Anglo-Saxon is equally close to Old Frisian and to Old Saxon. The fact that Anglo-Saxon and Old Frisian show these obviously related shifts /k/ > /tʃ/ and /k/ > /ts/ which is completely alien to Old Saxon or its descendents Low German and Nedersaksisch is indeed an argument which makes we wonder if I was right.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Just a little clarification for those of us who haven't been able to make coffee in the staff kitchen all day... This palatization that Frisian underwent, was this a change that applied to English/Frisian before splitting off, proving they were related after the others or are we talking about coincidental changes that happened (given that it's fairly well attested in other languages i.e. Latin -> Italian)? Or is the actual speculation of both of these what we're considering at the moment?


----------



## berndf

The distribution of /k/ and /tʃ/ for "c" is not systematic as it in in Romance languages. To answer the question satisfactorily we'd have to analyse a larger sample of cognate pairs to see if the distributions in Old Frisian and Old English match. If yes then it is a strong indication that the phenomenon is not incidental but due to a common ancestor dialect which is not also an ancestor of Old Saxon. In this case, Frisian and English would be more closely related to each other than both to Saxon.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> The distribution of /k/ and /tʃ/ for "c" is not systematic as it in in Romance languages. To answer the question satisfactorily we'd have to analyse a larger sample of cognate pairs to see if the distributions in Old Frisian and Old English match. If yes then it is a strong indication that the phenomenon is not incidental but due to a common ancestor dialect which is not also an ancestor of Old Saxon. In this case, Frisian and English would be more closely related to each other than both to Saxon.



If we wanted to test this ourselves with a random sample of, let's say 50 words beginning with "c", how would be the best way to go about it?

This article suggests a close connection as well, one that Dutch didn't undergo, that:



> Consider the following examples in which an _*eg*_ in certain environments became an _*ei*_ or _*ai *_in Frisian and English, but not in Dutch or
> German:
> 
> Frisian: .... d*ei* ...... r*ei*n .... w*ei* ..... n*ei*l
> English ..... d*ay* ..... r*ai*n .... w*ay* ..... n*ai*l
> Dutch ......dag ...... regen ...weg .... nagel
> German ....Tag ..... Regen ... Weg ... Negel


I only managed to find basic preview pages but I think this book/article talks about this in more detail ('_The development of the West Germanic diphthongs /ai/, /au/ in anglo-frisian: A generative restatement_')

The first article goes on to mention:

/tʃ/ in Frisian & English being contrasted with /k/ in Dutch & German.
/i/ in Frisian & English being contrasted with /a/ in Dutch & German.
/j/ in Frisian & English being contrasted with a /g/ or /x/ in Dutch & German.

(I'm not trying to prove any point here, just talk about the evidence I am finding, it seems to all be pointing in one direction though ) Though many postulations about Frisian influence in Kent (closest point between two) or English influence on Frisian explain these changes, but without much proof it looks like. Of course we can't tell for sure, but I am beginning to see that a case can certainly (and validly) be made for the argument that Frisian & English split off from each other after Dutch / German. (Though I'm not saying I fully believe that, there's an interesting case to be made).

[Edit]:

I found more /tʃ/ comparisons.... from "_Phonology & Grammar of the West Frisian Language_":

Cheese - tsiis
Chaff - ...tsjef 
Church - tsjerke (interesting that the ending isn't palatalised?)


----------



## berndf

Firstly, I would always compare Old Frisian and Old English, never Modern Frisian and Modern English. Secondly, of the consonant shifts, only the "c" allophones are of interest because other West Germanic dialects had the "g" allophones as well, e.g. the modern (Northern) German pronunciation of the adjective/adverb suffixes _-ig _and _-lig _(corresponds to Modern English _-y _and _-ly_) [-Iç] and [-lIç] are most certainly reflexes of an original pronunciation like in Old English, i.e. [-Ij] and [-lIj]. The change of the pronunciation of the final "g" from [j] to [ç] would then be due to final obstruent devoicing which is such a prominent characteristic of German.


----------



## Alxmrphi

So all the other claims can be easily explained away? (Not being devil's advocate this time, genuinely not sure ).


----------



## berndf

A-fronting is another valid example. But be careful not to confuse it with umlauting if you look for examples (e.g. German the "e" in "gehen" = "to go/walk" though it is derived from "gang"). In general, I find consonant shift always much more convincing than vowel shifts.


----------



## DenisBiH

berndf said:


> Firstly, I would always compare Old Frisian and Old English, never Modern Frisian and Modern English. Secondly, of the consonant shifts, only the "c" allophones are of interest because other West Germanic dialects had the "g" allophones as well, e.g. the modern (Northern) German pronunciation of the adjective/adverb suffixes _-ig _and _-lig _(corresponds to Modern English _-y _and _-ly_) [-Iç] and [-lIç] are most certainly reflexes of an original pronunciation like in Old English, i.e. [-Ij] and [-lIj]. The change of the pronunciation of the final "g" from [j] to [ç] would then be due to final obstruent devoicing which is such a prominent characteristic of German.




But two of the above examples (rain, nail) are not word-final g's.


----------



## berndf

The OE "ġ" (the dot is of course modern spelling to distinguish the "g" allophones) is not confined to final positions. There are German dialects where the "g" in "Re*g*en" and "Na*g*el" (and "*g*estern" = "*y*esterday", and, and, and) is pronounced [j] as well.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> The OE "ġ" (the dot is of course modern spelling to distinguish the "g" allophones) is not confined to final positions. There are German dialects where the "g" in "Re*g*en" and "Na*g*el" (and "*g*estern" = "*y*esterday", and, and, and) is pronounced [j] as well.



What I think would be really illustrative is if you took the coloured lines I wrote before and replaced them with IPA (I don't know about German/Dutch/Frisian) I can only be sure of the English but I think looking at them, assessing your point through seeing the phonetic representations would take away a lot of the confusion that the spelling system shows.


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> What I think would be really illustrative is if you took the coloured lines I wrote before and replaced them with IPA (I don't know about German/Dutch/Frisian) I can only be sure of the English but I think looking at them, assessing your point through seeing the phonetic representations would take away a lot of the confusion that the spelling system shows.


Regarding only these four standard languages, there is no confusion. But if we want to show that Frisian the *the* closest relative of English and not just *one of the* closest relatives we need to include dialects as well.


----------



## Malti

The palatisation of /k/ > /tʃ/ doesn't occur word-finally in Scots ("thack" for "thatch", "birk" for "birch", etc), but, and I'll confess I wasn't entirely sure which words to look further at so I may well have missed something, the only word I can find in Scots where the initial /k/ hasn't become /tʃ/ is "kirk", and the pronunciation of that particular word seems to be attributed to Norse influence in a lot of sources. Which would leave us with English, Scots and Frisian that palatalise /k/ word-initially(/before vowels?), and only English that does it at the end.

Not that I'm sure that really helps any, to be honest.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> the only word I can find in Scots where the initial /k/ hasn't become /tʃ/ is "kirk", and the pronunciation of that particular word seems to be attributed to Norse influence in a lot of sources


 
Yeah that would absolutely be the explanation.
"Kirk" was a part of so many place names (even around where I live) and I've studied a bit of Scandinavian influence on the English spoken in the Northern areas and this is one of the most well known influences. That and sk- being a signal of a borrowed word from Old Norse (because English had changed them to sh-).


----------



## berndf

I did a bit more reading about _k_-palatalization in West-Germanic languages. Contrary to what I thought, there was _k_-palatalization in Old Saxon which did not survive into Middle Low German. This was taken as an indication of a common origin of Old Frisian, Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon by some scholars. Here it is claimed that the Old Saxon _k_-palatalization was unrelated to the Frisian/Anglo-Saxon _k_-palatalization, see especially pp.211sqq.
 
Word-initial _k_-palatalization seems indeed to be a peculiarity of the Anglo-Frisian group.


----------



## Havfruen

Having studied Danish (but not other Germanic languages) I believe Danish has many similarities to English, and may be at least as close to English as German and Dutch are, if not closer. In particular the dialect spoken on the West Coast of Jylland (Vestjysk dialect) is said to be most close to English. I would be interested if the linguists can extend this discussion to consider Danish, in comparison with English, Frisian, German, and Dutch.
„Frisian: .... d*ei* ...... r*ei*n .... w*ei* ..... n*ei*l
English ..... d*ay* ..... r*ai*n .... w*ay* ..... n*ai*l
Dutch ......dag ...... regen ...weg .... nagel
German ....Tag ..... Regen ... Weg ... Negel“
Standard Danish ..dag [ˈdæˀ]...regn [ˈʁɑjˀn]...vej [ˈvɑjˀ]... negl [ˈnɑjˀl]
Note that g can often be pronounced as [j] in Danish too.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I believe Danish has many similarities to English, and may be at least  as close to English as German and Dutch are, if not closer


I think that the impression we've all been under is a diachronic one, not a synchronic one. We've been trying to find out what languages had not split off from the group, in that sense Danish is further away because it belongs to the North Germanic Branch, which then developed into Old Norse, then split into East/West with Danish staying on the_ East_ side. While North Germanic had become distinguishable and different (approx 200AD?), at the same time the West Germanic dialect was also different (and then split into its various dialects that became languages) so before Frisian and English even existed (i.e. they were all the same language), there was a separate branch that Danish belonged to that can be shown as different.

Synchronic aspects are interesting, like the way people compare English to French with regard to the vocabularly and other related aspects, but historically (diachronically) they are completely independent.

I think it's possible for languages to become synchronically more alike over time, but we're talking about evidence here of late break-offs from Germanic that show that it was a 'later dialect split' by the changes present in both languages. In this respect Danish is so much more alike to Swedish, and then Icelandic/Norwegian, than it is to English (from my experiences with Icelandic and a bit of Swedish).


----------

