LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 18.JAN.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 18.JAN.2000 (01) * 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: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 15.JAN.2000 (01) [E]

Just a few comments on the Scots/Gaelic question.

Firstly, Mark's comment about Gaelic speakers being Catholic is of course
historical - though there are still some Gaelic speaking Catholic areas, in
more recent times many Gaelic speakers have been followers of a
particularly strict form of Presbyterianism. Gaelic is, therefore, not a
religiously polarised issue nowadays. (By the way, I would spell
_teuchters_ and _sassenachs_).

To Andy's comments about the attitude to Scots taken by the Government, I
would add that, in my opinion, this is partly the fault of the Scots
movement itself. I find that, when I talk about the necessity for a stable
orthography and conservative grammatical guidelines for written Scots, most
Gaelic activists understand what I mean immediately. Many academics and
writers in the Scots field, on the other hand (some of whom, of course, are
not Scots speakers, and in the case of some academics and lexicographers
not writers in Scots either) look on the idea that Scots should have
written standards as self-evidently ridiculous. Moreover, many writers
regard the slang status of Scots as its _raison d'e^tre_. I recently had an
argument in a bar about this, with me and a Gael on one side and a Scots
academic and a Shetland writer on the other. You therefore have a situation
where Scots activists are arguing for Scots to be given status akin to that
of Gaelic, where meanwhile many writers and academics, if consulted by the
government, will most likely tell them that Scots has, and should have, no
rules and no standards. It is not surprising, therefore, that officialdom
equates status for Scots with status for slang.

This also creates considerable problems with collaboration between Scots
and Gaelic, because the presuppositions are totally different. A Gaelic
activist told me that, on one joint committee, the two Scots
representatives spent most of their time arguing with each other about
whether Scots was a language or not. In another joint effort in which I
have been involved recently it was all fairly plain sailing (because my
approach is similar to that of the Gaels) until other Scots representatives
started to arrive each with their own totally different views about what
Scots is, and what should be done about it. Put a Scots activist, a Scots
academic, a Scots writer and a Scots speaker (which none of the others need
be) together in the same room and you will get much the same effect as the
molecules in a gas - they will all move around, but all in different
directions colliding with each other, so that the net effect will be no
movement at all!

Ron is probably right with what he says about Gaelic. I think many Lowland
Scots see Gaelic as a harmless assertion of national identity - harmless
because it is confined to the fringes of the country where they don't have
to think or do anything about it. There are, however, many complaints about
Gaelic T.V. programmes. Norn fulfils an even more effective romantic role
in Shetland. Not only does it represent the pure original Shetlandic, which
allows modern Shetlandic to be dismissed as bad English; it is also
conveniently dead which means that it isn't going to shove games programs
off the telly.

Here endeth the haivers,

John M. Tait.

----------

From: Andrew Eagle [K27 at compuserve.com]
Subject:  Language politics

Ron wrote:
Subject:  Language politics

>Andy, Colin, Mark, Ian, and other Lowlanders,

>Don't you also think that, despite their relatively small numbers of
speakers,
>Gaelic in Scotland  (Gàidhlig) and Ireland (Gaeilge) also play important
roles
>symbolically and that this helps them to attract more support?  I am
referring
>here to the fact that they are perceived as emblems of Celtic ethnicity
that
>distinguish Scotland and Ireland from the "Saxon conquerors" (= English).
>Certainly, this is how many outsiders have been conditioned to view these
>countries (as well as Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man): as Celtic, vs
>Germanic England.  Languages make good flags.

>What I am wondering is if Gaelic is seen as a more convenient symbolic
asset
>than Germanic _beurla_, "quasi-English" Scots to set Scotland and Northern
>Ireland apart from England and from perceived English (= Germanic)
cultural
>and linguistic infiltration.  Most certainly, it is predominantly Highland
>culture that is shown as "Scottish" to the world outside the British
Isles,
>and I would be surprised to hear that Scotland herself did not have a hand
in
>this also.

It may well be true that the Celtic element does have significance in
defining 'non-English' culture. But what exactly is the true nature of this
celtic element?
Celtic and Anglo-Saxon culture had been mixing for a long time.
Most of the 'culture' that is presented abroad (and in Scotland for
tourists) has been invented in the last few hundred years.
Military Pipe bands were invented to help enrole Highlanders into the
British Army. While the men were off fighting the kin-folk were being
cleared off the land to make way for sheep. Most ended up in the cities or
in the new world. It's a myth that each clan had its own tartan etc. etc.
Its only since WWII and later that it's become fashionable in the lowlands
to get married in Kilts. Traditional music (usually played in pubs and at
home etc. by fishers and farmers with little or no tartan attire, and now
their not so fishing and farming descendants) always had its Celtic
flavour. Strangely the Scottish Tourist board and others interested in
marketing Scotland have only recently started to market this real culture.
Traditional Music has long been supported in Ireland.
Many Scots cringe at this pseudo-culture - the Disneyfication of Scotland,
our country has become a themepark for tourists - As a Scot living abroad
I'm often complemented on this 'culture' and 'countryside'. People seem
surprised when I say  "its not the Scotland I come from".

As for the 'English conquerers' - Scots let it happen and were quite happy
to get involved in the process of anglification. Maybe that's why this
pseudo-culture had to be invented. To compensate for the original culture
that had been abandoned.

As for the language element. No one questions the language status of
Gaelic. Gaelic is of course the most 'non-English' language as can be
easily used to show 'differences' from England. Wide spread prejudice an
misinformation still ensures that many people consider Scots to be 'bad
English'. Who wants to been seen upholding 'bad English' as a cultural
icon?

Andy

----------

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

John Tait wrote:

<...>

> You therefore have a situation
> where Scots activists are arguing for Scots to be given status akin to that
> of Gaelic, where meanwhile many writers and academics, if consulted by the
> government, will most likely tell them that Scots has, and should have, no
> rules and no standards. It is not surprising, therefore, that officialdom
> equates status for Scots with status for slang.

<...>

> Put a Scots activist, a Scots
> academic, a Scots writer and a Scots speaker (which none of the others need
> be) together in the same room and you will get much the same effect as the
> molecules in a gas - they will all move around, but all in different
> directions colliding with each other, so that the net effect will be no
> movement at all!

In my opinion, you would get a pretty accurate picture of the Low Saxon / Low
German situation if you replaced "Scots" with "Low Saxon" or "Low German" in
the above.

This applies in part also to what Andy wrote above.  Many North Germans who
love showing off to the "outside" the supposedly prototypical
fisherman's-hat-and-Piejack-wearing, squeeze-box-playing and
sea-shanty-and-Nordseewellen-singing "Waterkant" icon of the German Lowlands
still relegate the original language to song-and-dance routines and almost
mocking caricature-type entertainment, and they do everything else in German,
for the sake of wider appeal.

Bravo! Well stated, John and Andy!

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
 =========================================================================