LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 29.JUL.2000 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 29.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: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 23.JUL.2000 (02) [E]

Criostoir wrote:

> >I recall vaguely reading something on the
> >establishment of a literary standard for West Frisian,
> >where elements were chosen on the basis of difference
> >from Dutch. Is this correct? If so, it sounds a good
> > idea.

To which John replied:

> Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. In my opinion, much damage has
been
> done to written Scots by emphasising aspects which are perceived as
'not
> English' - in other words, defining Scots in terms of English. One
very
> influential Scots enthusiasts has even recently written that, in a
sense,
> Scots only exists insofar as it is different from English. The
practical
> result of this is that non-English elements are preferred and English
> cognate ones eliminated, giving rise to a type of Scots with which
natural
> Scots speakers cannot identify.

In the case of Scots, John, you are quite right. The point is that you
have
to emphasise the language the way it is actually spoken, rather than
artificially using grammar, idiom and vocab which is not in daily use.
On
the other hand, Criostoir has a point in that your average non-linguist
judges a language (vs. a dialect) by whether or not he/she can
understand
it. So when discussing the grammar of a language it is often worth
making a
point of noting the differences, whereas when using it, it is important
to
go with the way it is really used day in, day out, even if this means
it
will look very similar to the other "majority language" (be it English,
Dutch or whatever).

John continued:

> Lexically, it is one thing to use Scots forms like 'lassie' or
'quine' and
> 'ken' rather than 'girl' and 'know', because these represent natural
Scots
> usage. It is another to deliberately avoid using 'English' words like
> 'write' just because a 'Scots' equivalent like 'scrieve' happens to
exist,
> ignoring the fact that Scots speakers do not use it in this way. This
leads
> to an artificial type of Scots which not only no one speaks (this is
to
> some extent inevitable of any written language), but no one can
speak.

This is an extremely important point, but not necessarily because it is
wrong to use a term which appears different from English. It is simply
wrong
to use a term which is "wrong" - which means, in the case of a
non-standardised language such as Scots, that it goes against common
usage.

For example, no Scots-speaker says 'A'm screivean in Inglis' (for 'I'm
writing in English') - all speakers would use 'wryte' here ('A'm
wrytean in
Inglis'), because 'screive' requires an object. The point is that there
is a
difference between the verbs 'screive' and 'wryte', and to mix them up
is to
use Scots wrongly, i.e. in a way no native speaker would recognise. The
most
common such mistake in Ulster is between 'speir' (meaning 'ask' in the
sense
of 'consult') and 'ask' (meaning 'ask' in the sense of 'request').
There is
a tendency to look in a small dictionary, see there is a choice between
the
two, and immediately opt for the one which differs from English.

Best wishes,
-----------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 28.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

Criostoir et al.,

Well, I don't think there's much advantage to be gained from going
through
your message point by point - I'm not a socialist, therefore have
rather
differing interpretations of history, and if we must engage in
e-fisticuffs
I'm sure other Lowlanders would prefer us to do it off-list!

You do bring up two interesting topics in relation to Lowlands
linguistics
though. Firstly, the issue of "extremism", quite aside from what we
think of
it, is quite important in minority language development. I think it is
useful to have a number of activists who most people would view as
"extremist" and a number who appear, to most people, "reasonable". If a
minority language movement has only people who seem "extremist", then
it is
destined to remain just that, a "minority" movement led by a handful of
apparent "nutters" (it would have appeared "extreme" 40 years ago, for
example, to suggest Welsh should appear on signposts in every Welsh
council,
including Monmouthshire!) You do need a few to appear "reasonable",
therefore, who can enter mainstream social, cultural, linguistic and
even
political discussion and nudge things gradually towards a final goal.
This
is merely an idea, incidentally, not something I've given a lot of
thought
to yet.

Whatever you have, of course, the main thing you need is a final goal.
This
is something we don't have for Ulster-Scots (or even Scots in Scotland,
as
far as I'm aware). I personally view the status of Swiss-German to be a
valid and achievable goal.

The other thing you bring up is the use of language by groups in
divided
societies such as the one in which I live. It is interesting, in fact,
that
there are no major differences in accent or dialect between Protestants
and
Catholics in Northern Ireland. Certainly among the working class (where
regional accent/dialect distinction is strongest) there is no tendency
among
Protestants towards London or Edinburgh standards, nor is there any
tendency
among Catholics towards Dublin. Even the idea that the letter 'H' is
pronounced differently (a product, allegedly, of the divided education
system) is a bit of a myth - really it is a regional West/East
difference.
Therefore the way of telling whether a speaker in Protestant or
Catholic
depends on cultural references (flute vs. fiddle) and, occasionally, on
placenames.

However, I have to say you are quite wrong in your analysis of terms of
the
six northeastern counties of Ireland. It is simply false to assert that
"Nationalists" (here I infer "most Nationalists") prefer terms such as
"the
Six Counties" or "the North of Ireland". A comfortable majority have no
difficulty in referring to the area as "Northern Ireland" - an entity
which
was, after all, created by a stroke of a Republic pen, not a Unionist
one,
and an entity referred to as such throughout the Belfast Agreement of
1998
(which drew much more Nationalist support than Unionist). Members and
representatives of the SDLP, which has the majority of Nationalist
support,
have no problem referring to Northern Ireland, nor has the Dublin
Government. Furthermore, younger Catholics are often quite insistent
that
they are from "Northern Ireland" rather than merely "Ireland" (whereas
older
Protestants as well as Catholics will usually refer to home as merely
"Ireland"). Terms such as "the Six Counties" (also "the 26 counties" to
refer to the Republic of Ireland) and "the North of Ireland" are used
by
hardliners only. Use of "The North" alone is by no means exclusive to
Catholics, in fact, and is used in much the same way as "north of the
border" can be applied to Scotland or Canada or a variety of other
places.

The term "Ulster" bears some explanation. You are correct in saying
that it
is often deliberately used by hard-line Unionists to refer to Northern
Ireland only, and in this sense it is the equivalent, more or less, of
a Nationalist referring to "the North of Ireland". However, it is also
often
used simply as a shorter term for Northern Ireland, in a similar way
that
the equally "incorrect" "America" is often used to refer to "the United
States (of America)", "Europe" is often used to mean merely "the
European
Union" (or even "the European Union excluding the United Kingdom"!!),
"Ireland" (I daresay!) is used to mean "the Republic of Ireland", or
even
"Germany" used to be broadly used in the West to mean "West/the Federal
Republic of Germany". This is a linguistic phenomenon, of course, and
can
work the other way (such as "Britain" or, yes, "England" to mean "the
United
Kingdom" when, strictly speaking, Britain is a smaller entity; or
"Holland"
to mean "the Netherlands".

Furthermore, I often wonder why those of a Nationalist persuasion
insist on
referring to "the ancient nine-county province". Since both the borders
of
this province and the boundaries of the counties within it were
established
by the English (who many Nationalists would see as the "colonial
occupier")
in 1613, it is hardly "ancient" and it certainly should be no more
valid to
Nationalists than the six-county entity. This brings up the interesting
question of where is Ulster?, which I actually like to answer
linguistically. Basically, Ulster is the area where people speak with
Ulster
accents (loosely, north of a line from Bundoran, Co Donegal to Dundalk,
Co
Louth) - this applies both to accents in English and Irish. This
linguistic
line is the result of multiple movements throughout history of the
border
between Ulster and the rest of Ireland, but it is interesting that on
this
occasion I choose to use linguistics to suggest a
political/geographical
boundary, rather than the rather more common occurrence of using
politics or
geography to suggest a linguistic boundary.

I should add that in the term "Ulster-Scots", Ulster must at least
include Donegal, (London)derry, Antrim and Down, because those are the
counties
where Gregg (1963) suggested a Scots-speaking population (though it is
a minority in all but Antrim).

Best,
------------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language conflicts

Ron:

Your recent posting about Low Saxon referred to issues being raised at
Federal level. As I understand it the Grundgesetz (~ German Constitution)
explicitly (for good historical reasons) made education a matter for the
Länder, and I had perhaps naively assumed that regional language issues
would also be excluded from the locus of the Federal government. Is there a

contradiction here?

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

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

John,

The meat of that message was an update about refusal by the federal patent
office in Munich to grant permission to include Low Saxon (Low German).
The P.S. was unrelated and was an update about the story that the Low
German program at the University of Bremen be discontinued.  There was no
federal angle to the latter, only to the former.

Sorry if I did not make this clear enough.  I hope this clarified it.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 27.JUL.2000 (03) [E]

Ian wrote:

Unfortunately many activists seem engaged in a revivalist
>movement
>when what is needed is a preservation movement.

I agree with most of Ian's points here. However, I would suggest that
'maintenance' is possible a better term than 'preservation' - only dead
things need to be preserved!

There are two lists
>of
>proposed (Ulster-)Scots equivalents for our present common British
>signs -
>is there such a list in Scotland?

This is a sair pynt wi me - an no unrelate ti whit ye wis sayin abuin aboot
the problems wi activism. We'r aye telt aboot hou important it is ti
fleitch for Scots signage i the Scottish Pairliment, but naebodie seems ti
can tell me juist exactly whit thay mean bi Scots signs.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 27.JUL.2000 (05) [E]

Colin wrote:

>Very interesting. I wonder whether John found that he could overcome this
>assumption, by making sure that nothing he said could ever be taken as
>indicative of having been dragged down to the level of a rough element?

No I couldn't, but at that time I wasn't very confident in North East Scots
- in fact, I was hoping that the pupils would help me learn it! Although
this approach may be officially (ostensibly) approved of now, I could
almost guarantee that the majority of teachers wouldn't see it in this way.
I do know of teachers who speak Scots, but they tend to be mavericks
otherwise confident of their ability and authority, and this feature
regarded as an eccentricity.

Even within the context of learning English, I could see where lack of
bilingual education was detrimental to the education of less academic
classes. For example, one class found the Spelling of 'gh' in English words
very much easier when I pointed out that it usually occurred where they
said [x] in Scots. I got the impression that this was the first time they'd
heard of this.

Perhaps there is a vicious circle here. Insofar as the 'drag down'
impression may be true, it is probably maintained by most teachers'
disapproval of Scots, which in turn is reinforced by the attitude that
Scots is a form of rebellion against authority. The currently fashionable
literary view of Scots as the vehicle of rebellion and anarchy is part of
the same process - appearing to be liberal, it simply reinforces the old
prejudices.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 28.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

Criostoir wrote:

>Ian points out that "It is equally important not to
>appear extreme when it is unnecessary" and I find this
>a ludicrous assertion: the idea that one should slip,
>fox-like, between being "extreme" and "moderate" to
>appease what to me is a despised officialdom is
>frankly galling, unfair and vaguely reminiscient of a
>defeatists stance towards one's own people and one's
>own struggle as a minority.

I don't know about this. When I was asked to join a working party involving
Gaels, I turned up in my usual charity-shop cords and woolly jumper, only
to discover that the Gaelic activists all wore suits. I think there's a
lesson to be learnt here. The Gaels have managed to gain considerable
success in arguing for language rights while still appearing to be members
of the establishment. I don't know whether the Scots activists who have had
121 (not in this case the address of the Church of Scotland HQ!) dealings
with MSPs turned up in their usual motley attire (I'm thinking of my cords
and Andy's leathers; I don't know what Colin wears because I haven't met
him yet, though I hope to on the 12th) but it would be easy to give
credence to Scots as the language of anarchy, as it is perceived by the
literary establishment. Of course, it may be that the Gaels in question
naturally wore suits!

I agree that the definition of 'extreme' is subjective, but what must be
remembered here is that the vast majority of the population understand the
popular meaning of the term. In Shetland, about the greatest compliment you
can give to someone is to call them a 'moaderate body'. There is no point
in what might conventionally be called extremist activity if it succeeds in
your efforts being dismissed out of hand by the very people who speak the
languages you're trying to support.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language conflicts

Criostoir wrote:

>Ian points out that "It is equally important not to appear extreme when it

is unnecessary" and I find this a ludicrous assertion: the idea that one
should slip,
fox-like, between being "extreme" and "moderate" to appease what to me is a

despised officialdom ...<

Perhaps I mistook Ian's point, but it seems to me that politics - which is
the way things are made to change - is very often about being crafty. I
didn't read the idea of appeasement into what Ian said. If you are in a
small minority it can be quite a good idea not to antagonise the majority
unnecessarily.

A "non sequitur" is something which does not logically follow (hence the
term) what went before - like this sentence.

Criostoir also wrote:

>the policy of the Blair government has long been - whether covertly or
overtly - to redirect potential developments away from these "troublesome"
areas to
East Anglia or the Home Counties. It is no coincidence that Cambridge is
now
a leading producer of computer software and e-commerce opportunities whilst

Liverpool, Derby et al are left with collapsed industrial bases.<

If I understand a previous posting by Criostoir, the present government has

been in power the whole of his adult life, so it must seem a long time, but

for the rest of us it has just been 3 years. There is absolutely no doubt
that the "Cambridge phenomenon" has been underway much longer than that.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the present government or its

predecessor has any interest in encouraging economic development in the
south and east rather than the Midlands and North. The government has
policies intended to encourage growth in what are now called "the regions".

The concentration of development in the South causes problems for both
local
and central government because of pressure on land and housing. The Thames
Valley/M4 Corridor west of London has these problems to a greater extent
than Cambridge. The fact that similar firms and industries tend to clump
together is a fact of life, as is the fact that people tend to seek work in

areas which they perceive (however wrongly) to be "desirable". Years of
planning since WWII have shown, I believe, that governments can do very
little about industrial growth and location. I can't in any case see _why_
the present government should think in the way Criostoir suggests. I won't
examine his text any further, if only because this may have little interest

for non-UK Lowlanders (who are the majority, after all). I think it
important, however, that they are not left with the idea that Criostoir's
views have any firm basis in reality.

Criostoir also wrote:

>I am sick ... depression when the old tired arguement about Scottish and
Welsh over-representation is raised as some kind of dubious justification
for a further reduction in the United Kingdom's responsibilities in those
areas. A colonial government that quite gleefully strips the assets of its
colonies - in Scotland and Wales' case oil and coal respectively - should
not thcweam and thcweam until it is sick when the tables are turned and it
is required to fulfil its obligations in areas it persistently declares to
be integral to it. There are a number of people in England and ... the
British government who would dearly love Scotland and Wales (and Cornwall
and the north of England) to suffer greatly for their continued existence,
and they forever dredge up the argument that it is unfair that Scottish MPs

are allowed to vote on peculiarly English matters. Well, I'm sorry, but
this
is the result of the English Parliament being passed off as the United
Kingdom one, and if they complain because they are now reaping the
whirlwind, they really should have thought about that when they quite
happily sowed their seed.<

This seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to feel ill about, and to be
quite so imprecise about - what "reduction of responsibilities"? who are
these "number of people" and are they the same ones who went around
seed-sowing?  "suffer greatly for their continued existence"? - so I won't
comment, except to explain to the majority that "I'll scweam and I'll
scweam
till I'm sick" was a threat made by Violet Elizabeth Bott (in the "Just
William" books by Richmal Crompton) to get her own way. It's possible that
Violet Elizabeth could have got her views across with less trouble to all
by
a little tact and diplomacy.

Criostoir later asks:

>Or perhaps I'm being pedantic?<

I think "irrelevant" would be better in the context (qv).

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language conflicts

Regarding Faroese culture I found the following in an article by Jóhan
Hendrik W Poulsen (1980):

" .. I wish to point out the influence on Faroese language and cultural
life
exerted by Faroese students and intellectuals in Copenhagen. There they
first came in contact with Icelanders, from whom they learned the means and

methods of language cultivation. Much of our best poetry and prose
literature has been written in Copenhagen."

The propagation of cultures is obviously a very complex thing.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language conflicts

I took the opportunity to have a chat with my garagiste Mr Mistry to get a
"non-academic" view of the minority language situation. To him it's all
obvious. You have to know English well to make a good living - in East
Africa, similarly, you had to know Swahili - and your children need to do
so
to become pharmacists and IT specialists: no "linguistic oppression" from
his point of view. You need to keep up your Gujerati because your parents
don't speak English and you encourage your children (especially your
daughter) to do so too but eventually they make their own decisions. He
couldn't relate to the idea that people would simply abandon their native
language and encourage their children to do so. (This was, of course, very
much the older pattern in the USA. A lack of linguistic skills was one of
the things which emerged at the time of the Sputnik crisis in the late
1950s. Despite the fact that "everybody" was an immigrant, language skills
were judged to be very poor. Could the absence of monolingual grandparents
have contributed to this?)

Interestingly, he told me that a lot of children and young people he knows
are learning Hindi by watching ZTV on cable, which suggests to me that they

are adopting a generalised Indian culture rather than the one corresponding

to their linguistic background.

An e-mail just in from Bangladesh confirms my view that Bengali speakers
(who form a large proportion of British nationals and immigrants whose
ethnic origin lies in the Indian sub-continent) are not generally
multilingual. They tend to have just Bengali (or a "dialect" such as
Sylheti) plus a passive knowledge of Koranic Arabic.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

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