Re: Leute (was...)

On 21 Jul 2004 15:28:09 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

> J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>
>> 'Litt' corresponds to Middle High German (which was mostly based on
>> Alemannic  and Swabian dialects) 'liut(e)', which was pronounced
>> [ly:t(@)]. Many Swiss German dialects still have the same form
>> (and as Philip Newton's pointed out, similar forms are found in
>> Plattdütsch).
>> I'm not quite sure whether the actual standard form developed from
>> that very form, since the modern standard is mainly based on
>> dialects of Saxony and Austria.
>
> Certainly.  MHG /i:/ was diphthongized to /ai/, and MHG to /u:/
> to /au/, so it stands to reason that MHG /y:/ became /2y/ (and
> later /oy/) as well.
My point was: Modern standard German hasn't developed from ancient
standard MHG. Many of the sounds of modern standard German cooccured
with standard MHG, but were considered dialectal; many of the sounds
of ancient standard MHG are cooccuring with standard German, but are
considered dialectal.

> What surprises me most with the Alsatian form is the shortness and
> the open quality!
Shortness doesn't surprise me, since my own dialect has shortened
many old lengths (it's 'Schwytzerdütsch', not 'Schwyyzerdüütsch').

But I don't believe that the sound of Alsacian _litt_ is open unless
someone tells me explicitly; note that it was Mark J. Reed who
transcribed it with [I] even though he didn't know the word. All
Alemannic dialects (which are very closely related to Alsacian) have
a close vowel in this word, be it long or short, rounded or
unrounded; in my dialect, it's short and rounded: [lyt:].

g_0ry@_ˆs:
j. 'mach' wust

Reply