LL-L: "Language confusion" [D/E] LOWLANDS-L, 29.JUL.1999 (01)

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 =========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 29.JUL.1999 (01) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: Pepijn Hendriks [pepijnh at bigfoot.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language confusion" [D/E] LOWLANDS-L, 27.JUL.1999 (02)

Hallo John,

Je schreef:

>[...] I have had to translate them word for word into French and look them
>up in a French dictionary. Thus the differences between ABN and "Vlaams"
>seem to me to be greater than a matter of "accent", or even an occasional
>dialect usage.

Natuurlijk zullen er in het Nederlands zoals dat in Vlaanderen gesproken
wordt veel meer gallicismen zitten dan in het Nederlands zoals dat hier
gesproken wordt.

Tussen het Servo-Kroaats zoals dat in Servië en Kroatië gesproken wordt,
zitten een aantal duidelijke verschillen. Net zoals in de Nederlandse
taalgemeenschap, weet je na een paar woorden al of een Vlaming of een
Nederlander aan het woord is. Er zijn ook een groot aantal lexicale
verschillen (vooral bij woorden die op een of andere manier te maken hebben
met de technologische ontwikkelingen van de negentiende eeuw: aangezien
Kroatië en Servië bij verschillende rijken behoorden, en het (taal)contact
beperkter was, hebben beide talen hun eigen woordenschat ontwikkeld. Maar
om het dan meteen een andere taal te noemen?

Ook het Surinaams Nederlands (dat niet alleen lexicaal, maar ook
grammaticaal afwijkt van het Standaardnederladns) kun je gewoon Nederlands
noemen. In Suriname geldt overigens dat hoe hoger de opleiding is die
iemand genoten heeft, hoe kleiner de afwijkingen met het
Standaardnederlands zullen zijn. (Erg interessant is "Nederlands in de
wereld : het verslagboek" (ISBN 90-74302-01-7), het verslag van een
internationaal colloquium met deelnemers uit de landen waar
Nederlands/Afrikaans wordt of werd gesproken).

Ik wil de verschillen tussen de verschillende taalgemeenschappen van het
Nederlands niet verdoezelen of bagatelliseren, maar ik ben ervan overtuigd
dat de verschillen tussen Nederlands en 'Vlaams' veel kleiner zijn dan die
tussen het Servisch en Kroaats, te meer daar wij ons nog altijd op dezelfde
norm richten, in tegenstelling tot de taalgebruikers in die landen.

Ron added:

>> Since I didn't know the name I looked Weinrich up in my Oxford
Dictionary of
>> Quotations - no sign of him or his wonderful phrase!
>Might this be Max WEINREICH?

I have known this quote for quite some time. When looking for the source, I
think I found it in the faq for the sci.lang newsgroup (which I believe can
be found at http://www.zompist.com/langfaq.html). The original quote is "A
language is a dialect with an army and a navy". I thought I copied the name
carefully, but if unsure, you might be able to find it there.

-Pepijn

--
 pepijnh at bigfoot.com -- http://www.bigfoot.com/~pepijnh -- ICQ - 6033220

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language confusion

Pepijn wrote:

> >> Since I didn't know the name I looked Weinrich up in my Oxford
> Dictionary of
> >> Quotations - no sign of him or his wonderful phrase!
> >Might this be Max WEINREICH?
>
> I have known this quote for quite some time. When looking for the source, I
> think I found it in the faq for the sci.lang newsgroup (which I believe can
> be found at http://www.zompist.com/langfaq.html). The original quote is "A
> language is a dialect with an army and a navy". I thought I copied the name
> carefully, but if unsure, you might be able to find it there.

Pepijn, it *is* "Weinreich," and my supposed question above was meant to be a
bit -- uh -- "challenging."  This is what it says at
http://www.zompist.com/lang9.html#11, a page off the one you gave:

"At this point we usually quote Max Weinreich: "A language is a dialect with an
army and a navy.""

Max Weinreich (1894-1969, Yiddish "Maks Vaynraykh," not to be confused with his
colleague Uriel Weinreich) is very well known, being one of the "deities" in
20th century linguistics as well as perhaps _de baas_ in Yiddish linguistics.
He published in Yiddish, German and English.  An important Yiddish language
research and promotion center is named after him: the Max Weinreich Center for
Advanced Jewish Studies of YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.

The actual quote (in Yiddish):

"'a shprakh iz a diyalekt mit an armey un a flot.'
                Weinreich, M. 1945. _Der yivo un di problemen fun undzer
                tsayt._ [YIVO and the problems of our time.] Yivo-bleter
                25.1.13.

However, all this is debatable.  Some say that Robert A. Hall was the first to
say this (in English).  Secondly, as has been suggested many times on this list
and on other language lists as well, the truth of the statement is
questionable.  Sure, languages that have a history of being suppressed and/or of
being denied official recognition are almost always minority languages, and
those that may be argued to be dialect groups of other languages often come to
be officially recognized as languages and to rule supremely simply because this
serves political separation.  But to declare this as being a hard and fast rule
amounts to gross oversimplification.  For example, Frisian has been a minority
language in Germany and the Netherlands for quite a few centuries; yet I don't
think anyone at least halfway educated and sane would even think of doubting
that Frisian is a separate language (or is a group of several modern
languages).  Likewise, the two Sorbian (Lusatian) languages of Eastern Germany
have never *really* been state languages, yet no one I know of has ever
questioned their language status (though some opposed the separation between
Upper and Lower Sorbian), and no one who knows anything about them would regard
them as belonging to Polish and/or Czech (their closest relatives).

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 ===========================================================================