LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" LOWLANDS-L, 18.JUL.2000 (03) [E]

Tue Jul 18 18:04:48 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 18.JUL.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>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" LOWLANDS-L, 18.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

Pepijn hef skreeven:
>
> >If it weren't for Dutch
> >being the standard, you might as well here people saying that Dutch was
> >just some type of weird Low-Saxon ;)
>
> The outcome of the processes of the formation of standard languages (which
> includes selection of elements from different varieties and codification of
> rules) is historically contingent.  If you put something different in (a
> different political situation, a different attitude of the speakers towards
> their language), the outcome is different.
>
> Strictly linguistically spoken, there is no reason that the Lowland dialects
> spoken some 500 years ago in the area that we now call the Netherlands and
> Belgium couldn't be dialects of German.  Look at the case of Swiss German in
> the German speaking cantons of Switzerland.  It's just a matter of accepting
> something as a standard language, in this case closely related, yet
> unmistakably different in several respects.
>
> What I really wanted to say, though, I think there's is nothing wrong with
> perceiving Low Saxon as a 'weird kind of Dutch', as long as there are no
> prejudicial judgements attached to it, in other words, as long as it remains
> the key to understanding the language.

I would completely agree with you if the two languages were just varieties of
the same languages. But since Low-Saxon is the direct heir of Old-Saxon, and
Dutch of Old-Frankish, I wouldn't put both on the same leaf of the language
tree. Of course, eventually Frankish and Saxon were both just varieties of the
same proto-Germanic language.

I just think one shouldn't perceive any language as just a dialect of another.
It sort of puts down the first and indicates one should only use the second.

If borders weren't being defined that sharp and "national" languages not being
enforced like they are now, I think you would see a gradual change in speech
all through Europe, instead of the sudden changes like you see now.

Henry

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Mutual comprehension

Hoi, Pepijn!

You wrote:

> The outcome of the processes of the formation of standard languages (which
> includes selection of elements from different varieties and codification of
> rules) is historically contingent.  If you put something different in (a
> different political situation, a different attitude of the speakers towards
> their language), the outcome is different.
>
> Strictly linguistically spoken, there is no reason that the Lowland dialects
> spoken some 500 years ago in the area that we now call the Netherlands and
> Belgium couldn't be dialects of German.  Look at the case of Swiss German in
> the German speaking cantons of Switzerland.  It's just a matter of accepting
> something as a standard language, in this case closely related, yet
> unmistakably different in several respects.
>
> What I really wanted to say, though, I think there's is nothing wrong with
> perceiving Low Saxon as a 'weird kind of Dutch', as long as there are no
> prejudicial judgements attached to it, in other words, as long as it remains
> the key to understanding the language.
>
> A teacher of mine, who is fluent in Serbo-Croat has to teach Czech.  For
> him, up to a certain point, Czech is a really weird variety of Serbo-Croat.
> This does not mean that he doesn't recognise Czech as a language in its own
> right.  To me, when reading Low-Saxon (mostly on this forum; and I rarely
> get a chance to actually hear it spoken) the key to understanding is seeing
> it as a weird kind of German.
>
> In the same vain, I read Afrikaans as wrong Dutch.  This explains also, I
> think, why I don't pick up Afrikaans on the way.  With my attitude towards
> it, it would come down to learning or memorising faulty Dutch.  Were I to
> learn Afrikaans -- which some day I might do! -- I'd have to sit down to it
> and make a very conscious effort.
>
> Again, no value judgements expressed here.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this in principle.  Nobody could
really be faulted for seeing Czech as a "weird" variety of Serbo-Croatian,
even though the two languages are miles apart within the context of Slavic
linguistics (one being Western Slavic and the other Southern Slavic).  Also, I
don't think the person I spoke with passed any value judgment when she said
that to her Low Saxon (Low German) seemed like a weird kind of Dutch.  This is
so especially when considering that she knew nothing about the struggle of Low
Saxon vis-à-vis Dutch and German and did not seem to have any incentives for
"pumping up" Dutch to the detriment of Low Saxon.

However, Pepijn, most of the time we do not say things in a social and
historical vacuum, in the absence of human emotions, in the absence of
sensitivities caused by what some see as unfortunate socio-political
situations and historical events.  This is all the more so when you are
dealing with minority languages or any "powerless" language, in fact, any
language that is or was oppressed or suppressed, or any language that had or
still has to struggle for recognition, separate status and protection, any
language that does not "dominate" its own politically defined region.

It is one thing to say that Czech seems like a weird kind of Serbo-Croatian,
or, for all I care, that Spanish seems like a weird kind of Italian.  They are
power languages in their own countries and are, for all intents and purposes,
on an equal level and no threat to each other.  Hey!  If I were Chinese I
might even go as far as saying that to me English seems like a weird kind of
Russian, because I learned Russian first, and there are structural and lexical
similarities when seen from the vantage point of non-Indo-European written
with a non-alphabetic system.  Everything is relative.  I usually pay little
or no attention to pronouncements of that sort (thinking "Yeah,
whatever...").  Considering Breton, German and Basque dialects of France
"French dialects" seems so preposterous and ridiculous to me that it gets no
more from me than a smirk, a upward roll of the eyes and a "Yeah, sure ..."

However, you start treading on toes if you say things like "Kashubian is like
weird Polish", "Galician is just some type of Spanish-influenced Portuguese or
Spanish with a Portuguese influence", "Occitan is like French with a
Mediterranean accent", "Ladin is some sort of Alpine Italian", "Scots is just
an extreme form of Scottish English", "Low Saxon is some out-there sort of
Dutch", and "Low German seems like some kind of German", especially when you
say it to speakers and activists of the respective "powerless" languages, and
especially if you are a speaker of and might be seen as a defender and
promoter of the respective power language.  Remember that these languages are
"powerless" and have lower prestige than the "power" languages they are
compared to and under whose domination they exist.  Those that are rather
closely related to the power languages (i.e., national or regional languages)
that dominate them usually had and still have a real hard time gaining
separate status, recognition and support.  It is thus not socially sensitive
to come up with comparisons that lump these languages together with those from
which they wish to be considered separate.

For centuries, Low Saxon (Low German) speakers of Germany were told that
theirs are dialects of German, are thus under the umbrella of "High" German,
need no standard variety and standard orthography of their own, may not be
used in formal education, and are not entitled to any sort of special support
or protection.  Simply substitute "Dutch" for "German" to describe the
situation of the Low Saxon dialects of the Netherlands.  Policies may have
changed (mostly under pressure from the European level), but the old attitudes
continue, as can be seen in sabotage-like action and inaction, basically
non-compliance, on the part of public officials in Germany.  The last thing
speakers and supporters want to hear (especially from supposed friends) is
that Low Saxon is a weird kind of German or Dutch (which seems to be partly
based on orthographic appearance).  Bear in mind also that the effort to tear
our language apart at the border continues as we speak, that even some
supposedly supportive organizations prefer to make a convenient division at
the border, probably mostly in order to maintain the "German" myth on the
German side and to avoid complicating matters with cross-border efforts.  Some
works published in Germany even now describe the language without any
reference to the dialects on the Netherlands side.  Comparing the dialects
west of the border to Dutch and those east of the border to German may thus be
perceived as adding insult to injury.

As far as I can tell, the struggle of Scots vis-à-vis English in Scotland is
very similar, except for the aspect of border division.

Even though Afrikaans is used outside Europe, until relatively recently it
used to be under the domination of Dutch as a "high" language and used to be
compared to it, usually seen as an inferior and "bastardized" form of colonial
Dutch.  Yes, Dutch and Afrikaans are mutually intelligible to a high degree.
However, as far as I can tell, the majority of Afrikaans speakers do *not*
wish to see their language regarded as a type of Dutch anymore, certainly not
as "faulty" Dutch, and many of them make strong points and symbolic gestures
to this effect.  Afrikaans has developed its own structure.  Describing it as
"faulty" in relation to a related language once touted as "superior" certainly
does not win you friends among Afrikaans speakers, especially if the erstwhile
"superior" language is your own.  No one in their right mind would say you
have no right to *think* of Afrikaans as "faulty Dutch."  However, it would be
a different matter if you were going around telling people that Afrikaans is
"faulty Dutch," especially people who have no way of knowing any better, not
to mention speakers of Afrikaans to whom this would seem offensive and
chauvinistic, if not outright demeaning and hostile.

Sure, *you* know what you mean when you say things, and you may not mean to
pass any value judgment.  However, what you say may be perceived as something
quite different by other people, and people come with buttons ready for the
pushing.

Friendly regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 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>.
 =======================================================================
 * 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
 =======================================================================