LL-L: "Language politics" (was "Web resources") LOWLANDS-L, 13.JAN.2000 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 13.JAN.2000 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * 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: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
Subject: LL-L: "Web resources" LOWLANDS-L, 13.JAN.2000 (01) [E]

At 12:13 13/01/00 -0800, Ian James Parsley wrote:
>That doesn't really take away the essence of my point, as I'm sure
>you'd agree, namely that Scots and Gaelic have a lot more to gain by working
>together than by against each other.

I do agree, and it certainly doesn't.

Colin Wilson.

----------

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

Dear Lowlanders,

Ian wrote, and Colin replied:

> >That doesn't really take away the essence of my point, as I'm sure
> >you'd agree, namely that Scots and Gaelic have a lot more to gain by
working
> >together than by against each other.
>
> I do agree, and it certainly doesn't.

Of course I concur, too, albeit as an "outsider."

Watching minority language activism in various places (not only in Europe), I
am getting the impression that some sort of competition or rivalry all too
often enters the scene where more than one language struggles for recognition,
survival and/or support within a given polito-administrative division (i.e.,
country, state, province, etc.).  In all these cases collaboration would seem
more advantageous, at least to the theorizing outsider.  Oftentimes the
rivalry seems to be a manifestation or extension of long-standing ethnic
and/or religious conflicts, where the languages in question are perceived and
frequently exploited as ethnic or ethno-religious symbols.  In extreme cases
it may even become well-nigh impossible for an individual to "cross the line"
by learning and using the language of the perceptively opposing group.  I
suppose that the case of Scots and Irish in Northern Ireland and Ian's
problems in finding a friendly learning environment is a good example of this.

I am also getting the impression that this is not quite as evident in many
other cases.

I am wondering, for example, why there has not been more of a united activist
front of the Scots and Gaelic movements in Scotland.  After all, both of them
struggle under the domination of English.  Or is it that, while no one would
dream of doubting that Gaelic is a separate language, the separate status of
"English-like" Scots is still widely questioned and Scots is considered the
Jonny-come-lately in the minority language movement?  Might there be an
element of territorialism and perceived threat as well, given also the
relatively large number of Scots speakers in comparison with Gaelic speakers?
I hope this is not so.  I understand that the Commun na Gàidhlig is not
opposed to Scots emancipation.

Similarly, I often wonder about the slow rate of progress in the reinstatement
of Low Saxon (Low German) in Northern Germany.  The deed is done officially,
but there is little else, just a whole lot of foot-dragging, even cases of
virtual refusal to cooperate.  I am not aware of any true umbrella
organization of minority language movements in Germany.  Is any of you?  Why,
for instance, is it that the German committee of the European Bureau for
Lesser Known Languages (http://www.eblul.org/) *still* does not list "Low
German" as one of the languages, not even as a provisional, inactive link of
their web page.  It *is* an official "regional language" now, versus the
"minority languages" Danish, Frisian and Sorbian (Upper and Lower).  So, what
is the problem?  I understand that the national committees tend to have strong
minority language representation.  Has at least one Low German representative
been appointed to the German committee?  If not why not?  (The website lists
each committee only with its representative, not with a list of current
members.)  Low Saxon is represented by the Netherlands' committee.  Why not by
the German one (expectedly as "Low German") one year after official
recognition, when other countries' committees even represent languages that
have not yet been officially recognized?   One wonders.  Hopefully this is
merely a case of innoccuous tardiness, and I will just have to keep holding my
little horses.

I would appreciate further information and opinions about this.

Best 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
 =========================================================================