Talk:schöön

New Low German

In which dialect(s) does "sköne" (or "skön"?) occur? Is it NLG at all?
Best google results I found:

1. "Dat wull de sköne Helena don" in Deutsche Volkslieder. Sammlung von Franz Ludwig Mittler and Alte hoch- und niederdeutsche Volkslieder mit Abhandlung und Anmerkungen
2. "Im skönen Frühmlinge" in Mustersaal aller teutschen Mund-arten, vol. II [1] -- older South-Westphalian? intro states: "Uebersetzung [...] (Aus dem Aengelländischen) Erster Versuch [...] Die Absicht dieser Uebersetzung ist, die Aehnlichkeit und Verwandtschaft beyder Sprachen, so viel wie möglich darzustellen; ferner, so viel es die Eigenform der niederdeutschen Mundart zulässt, den richten Sinn [..] anzugeben"
3. "Bitte skön, darf ich gleich einskenken?", "Hier sprechen sie alle unseren skönen Namen falsk aus" in Aantenfloot un Räubensluck by Günter Wahrendorf -- his regular forms are "schön" and "ick", and the cited parts look like some kind of Mischmasch, High German dialect, High German with accent or the like
4. "und sköne hüser" in Laurembergs Scherzgedichte in handschriftlicher Fassung (ed. 1909) -- Danish influence? only in the manuscript or the edition thereof, or also in the printed text?

So:

• The 3rd shouldn't attest it.
• The 2nd could attest it, but doesn't reveal whether it's "sköne" or "skön", that is, properly speaking it's "skön-"
• Not sure about 1st and 4th, but the cited parts don't reveal whether it's "sköne" or "skön", that is, properly speaking it's "skön-" (unless the text have a more clear usage).

-84.161.45.90 22:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The cites given should suffice to keep the alternative forms. As a rule of thumb, Southern Westfalian retains Middle Low German final -e outside of parts of the Münsterlandian dialect. I have an 1861 print version of Lauremberg which I can't search automatically, if you want to tell me where to look for the hüser line. Lauremberg was Mecklenburg-ish in his writing, Mecklenburg retained at least medial and final /sk/ at least until the 19th century, so it's not out of question. From a quick look over some pages, the version uses only ⟨sch⟩ word-initially, while freely variating between ⟨sk⟩ (preferred) and ⟨sch⟩ (rarer, but not rare). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Korn Thank you for the reply and the offer to look into Lauremberg.

• East Frisian: www.platt-wb.de/hoch-platt/?term=schön doesn't have it, and in some works (Sanghfona, W. J. Willms, Hermann Meier, Louis Victor Israëls), google books didn't find skön, sköne, schön, schöne either (except schöne in Israëls as High German translation of mooje (both inflected attributive forms)). But the dictionary has initial sch (e.g. Schaap) vs. medial and final sk (e.g. wünsken, Disk) anyway.
• Southern Westfalian: Friedrich Wilhelm Grimme has schoine, and in Woeste I find initial sch vs. medial and final sk (Volksüberlieferungen in der Grafschaft Mark: [im] schappe, schap, schæpken vs. wasken; in Zeitschrift für deutsche Mythologie und Sittenkunde schiärper (with ſ at beginning even though it's in antiqua); his dictionary: schoͤn, schæper vs. disk, and beginning with sk there's only skärsen marked "H." (= from the "hinterlassene Sammlung des Schwelmer Konrektors Holthaus")).
  • BTW: Woeste's dict has both dot umlauts (ä, ö, ü) and e umlauts (oͤ), and Sauerländisch NLG "scho̊n" (small o above o) in schone might be a mistake for Woeste's schoͤn (small e above o).
• Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Fritz Reuter, John Brinckman, Wilh. Heyse already have schön, Fisch, Disch.
• Lauremberg: Is Lauremberg 1861 = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 58? This has page 8 line 132 "und schöne hüser", where in the above it's p. 9 l. 132 with sköne (or more properly ſköne). 1861 ed. also has fisch, disch, the 1909 ed. disk (or more properly diſk). A print from 1700 has 'und schöne Hüser', Fisch, Disch. Another print from 1652 has Flesch, Minsch/Minsche/Minschen [also inflected in Gen.], schimplick, Schyn, 'und schöne Hüser', Wetenschop, Wunsch, wünsch but skädlick.
• As for source 1 above, Mittler gives title and region as "IV. Gert Olbert. Münsterland." (cp. w:de:Mädchenmörder#Überlieferung). But Münsterländisch has schön (Ferdinand Zumbroock, G. Ungt, Augustin Wibbelt), and his text also lacks diphthongs, e.g. in rode instead of raude (both inflected attributive forms) and Perd instead of Piärd.
• BTWs:
  • Germaniens Völkerstimmen has sgön too, but google didn't find skön-, sköön- or skoin- in it for me.
  • In F. W. Lyra from Osnabrück initial sch (e.g. schaarpe (inflected attributive form)) does occur, but he uses mooje & moojen (infl. attrib. forms), which gets explained as "mooje: hübsch, ist holländisch".

So even though the sources provided above might attest it, there's IMHO some fishiness. (But I'm not gonna remove it or RFV it.) -84.161.52.141 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Aside from whether we can attest this specific word in these specific spellings, it's well recorded in grammatical/phonetical works that SK exists in East Frisian and Southern Westphalian in all positions (but not all dialects of these two) up to today and that medial/final sk exists within Mecklenburg's (rural, western half) dialect at least up into the 19th century. My version of Lauremberg, also Stuttgart '61, but not the manuscript version, has schöne hüser in that spot. I don't find anything suspicious about skön/e; but I do have to admit that can't recall whether I added it after reading about it in a specific book using that spelling or just because I know it exists in actual spoken language. ps.: Westphalian ⟨sch⟩ and Low German ⟨sg⟩ in any dialect depict /sx/, in case that's relevant knowledge to your research. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Korn: Regarding the PS: Thank you very much. I'd guess I've read something like that before (for example, the Germaniens Völkerstimmen above have a similar note for one text and region). But from my experience/hearing I doubt that for Westphalian. In Westphalian <st> sometimes is [ʃt] and <sch> sometimes should be [ʃ]. From my hearing, Sprichwörter has <Schullen>=[ˈʃʊlən] (and <Schnai>=[ʃnaɪ̯] which is a schn vs. sn thing). Well, might be a mishearing (feel free to correct) or NHG influence, degeneration. Then there is Proben (from 1922) {the text might at least once confuse x and χ}, which has Soestisch [st-]=*<st> and [sx-]/[sχ-]=*<sch>, but also Soestisch and Paderbornisch [št-]=*<st-> and [šx-]=*<sch->. [šx-] is not [ʃ-] but also not [sx-]/[sχ-] anymore. Joseph Brand's Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Hochstiftes Paderborn gives 'Paderborner Mundart sχ, sx = lippische Mundart š'. That should either be a generalised Paderbornisch form, or contradict with the Proben. For Lippisch that would be š=[ʃ] and not be a matter of my hearing. kinder-lippe IMHO has <scheun>=[ʃɔɪ̯n]. siene-puttkers (offers free text and mp3 download) {they might sometimes confuse <ey> and <ei> and pronounce <ey> as [aɪ̯] and <ei> as [ɛ​ɪ̯]} sing <sch-> as [ʃ-] in De Schönste in´n Sienesand! (from CD1). karl-vom-ebbe IMHO has [ʃ-] too (in: Musikalischen Heimatabend 1981, ca. 4:10-4:20: <schriewen>; Schützenfest-Frühschoppen 1960, at the beginning <Schandal>, ca. 1:00-1:10 <schöüne>). -84.161.52.141 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's High German influence, yes. Traditionally Westphalian has [s̺̠], as every continental dialect had at some point, which sounds like [ʃ] to the an ear which isn't used to the sound, but does not have actual [ʃ]. They retain Middle Low German word-initial /sk/ as [s̠k~s̠x~s̠ç] up to - I think the number I read was 1920s. Thereafter, [s̠] is split by non-conservative speakers (conservative variants continue to exist) into fronted [s] and palatal [ʃ], which occurs in /ʃC/, including [ʃk~ʃx~ʃç], which I also know from East Frisia. The shift /sC/ > /ʃC/ can be seen anywhere, where High German is more common, cf. Fritz Reuter who lived in a highly germanised environment and wrote in a Low German my grandmother from the other side of Mecklenburg considers 'nicht schön'. It might be a native development for Brandenburg, where it seems to start as early as the 17th century, we can't know for sure. Further germanisation towards [ʃ] also exists in Westphalia, even in the same village as other variants. Accompanying the s-split in Westphalia is usually a shift of initial ⟨g⟩ [x~ç] to [g] and a shift from [ɾ] to [ʁ]. I personally consider speakers using these foreignisms to be less native, but an opposing view is of course defendable. But with modern speakers who are usually less than native, you can't really expect to find traditional Westphalian, and it sounds to me that your sound files use [ʃ]. I'd like to restate that 'Low German' here refers to Modern Low German, which is the period after Middle Low German, and thus begins around 1600. Therefore I'd always rather err on the side of conservatism, if I must make a binary choice, as it's more representative of the language of an average actual native speaker of Modern Low German. More notes on transcription: Old German works use a Theutonista-based transcription. It might look like IPA, but it's a safe bet that any German text up to 1930 uses ⟨χ⟩ for IPA's [ç]. Similarly, ⟨ʒ⟩ is IPA [ɣ] in the Theutonista. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Korn:   Karl von Ebbe (both persons acting as this fictional person) might be a native, and so could be the singer in the Lippisch source. For Lippisch, Brand's Studien zur Dialektgeographie [etc.] (1914) and Hoffmann's Vocale der lippischen Mundart (1887) already have š. Brand has "šaut, m. Schoss" and similar, but also states: "Statt des š-Lautes, [...], kann in der lippischen Mundart auch eine Aussprache eintreten, bei welcher man zuerst s und dann ein praepalatales χ [..] vernimmt. [...] Die Aussprache sχ (= š) ist indessen im Verschwinden begriffen, man hört sie fast nur noch von älteren Leuten. Beispiele: sχoin, adj. schön; [...]" According to both, in Lippisch *<r> should already be [ʁ], and by Brand *<g> should still be [ç] (as in "χaus, f. Gans", "weχ, m. Weg") or [ɣ] (in the examples only between vowels like "wāᵹən, m. Wagen"). Even if /ʃ̲x̲/ (using ʃ̲ for ʃ or ʃ-like sound and x̲ for a not specified ch-sound) would be more original and thus better (I'm not saying it isn't), when trying to speak Lippisch with a Lippisch person nowdays, [ʃ] seems to be more native-like now and seems like the better choice (I'm not saying that I like this development).
• Older sources, like the Proben above, might use a pre-Teuthonista system, and sources with Teuthonista or Teuthonista-based systems would rather be "newer works" (often not PD or not freely avaible in the net anyway) instead of "old works" to me.
  Proben: "χ vertritt ch als ich-Laut, x als ach-Laut". But "fęr̄ix" (p. 83 l. 36) seems strange to me, I'd rather expect *fęr̄iχ with [ç] or ich-sound. In the Dialektgeographie, I didn't find *<-ig> but similar eχ, viəχ/veχ (from Old Saxon weg), kre·iχ and would assume *-iχ for *<-ig> (Dialektgeographie only has one i). In nowadays speech by elderly people - which might have been careless and NHG influenced speaking -, I did indeed hear -iχ. As for the Proben system, it's IMHO more problematic, that it only has s and š (and thus can't differ between ʃ, ɕ and other ʃ-like sounds), only x (unlike IPA which has x and χ), that it has an open a, ą, which w:en:International Phonetic Alphabet chart#Vowels can't express or which is isn't more open than a but more front/back and is thus poorly described. But well, some modern linguistic works do indeed state that the 'Standard' High German a's (short; long) vary in openness, which would mean wikipedia's IPA system linked to above can't properly express these sounds.   --84.161.63.109 18:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you say the Proben were from 1922? When I speak of "older works" using Theutonista, I mean works 1750-1920. (I know two or three sources from the early to mid 20s, but I've no idea what they used thereafter. Post WWII it's all IPA of course.) Also, 'fęr̄ix' is how it's said in my family ([fæɾɘx]), and lack of a true palatal fricative is normal for Mecklenburg. I think most Low German dialects which palatalise the velar fricative in a front-vowel context either do so in all positions or not at all, but I never actively paid attention to that. Since [ç] seems a rare exemption for the Wewer speaker in Proben p. 83, I assume he's having a free variation between a default velar and an occasional and contextual weak palatalisation, which the transcriptor was eagerly trying to depict properly. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Korn: According to w:de:Teuthonista (Lautschrift) (and other sources), proper Teuthonista is from 1924/1925. So the Proben would use a pre-Teuthonista system. wikisource: Zeitschriften doesn't list Teuthonista and I also didn't find it at google books or internet archive, and at hathitrust it can't be read (not even with US IP). Another pre-Teuthonista system mentioned at German WP can be found in Zeitschrift für hochdeutsche Mundarten (1900). Newer systems would be Teuthonista-based, like the one abstracted at [2]. This even differs between "ich-Laut" ('palatal'), "ech-Laut" ('postpalatal') and "ach-Laut" ('velar') though doesn't mention an uvular ch. -84.161.1.94 04:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was referring to the mentioned 'Grundlagen' from the 19th century then, which were in wide and pretty uniform use in dialectal works of the time, while gradually introducing IPA characters here and there. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)