LL-L: "Statistics" LOWLANDS-L, 12.AUG.2001 (02) [E]

Sun Aug 12 22:41:25 UTC 2001

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 12.AUG.2001 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachian, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Roger Thijs" <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L: "Statistics" LOWLANDS-L, 09.AUG.2001 (03) [E]

Some comments on the subject, that has been delt with the past weeks.

1. In the lists of French speaking people of the world, one generally
includes Belgium with 10 million French speakers. Actually French is a
national language in Belgium indeed, but the territory is split up
(except for Brussels) in mono-lingual regions, giving about:
- 6.000.000 people having Dutch as administrative language (including
10-15% of Brussels inhabitants)
- 3.500.000 people having French as administrative language (including
85-90% of Brussels inhabitants)
- 50.000 people having German as administrative language.
Nevertheless it is impossible to get the international French language
statistics corrected.

2. Belgium has had an evolution of parliamentary law regarding the usage
of languages in the administration:
- 19 th c.: constitutional freedom of use of languages, no regulation;
this practically meant judges and administrative staff were free to use
French whenever they preferred.
- 1th half of the 20th century: administrative language locally
consistent with the majority of the language censi every 10 years
- since 1963: split up of the country in linguistically homogeneous
regions (with a bilingual, or better "mixed", Brussels)

The censi of the 1th half of the 20th c. only allowed choices between
Dutch (or "Flemish" as synonym for standard "Dutch"), French or German.
They do not give any information about dialect speakers (while some
dialects may nowadays be considered to form a separate language group as
e.g. "Limburgish", "Walloon", "Letzebuergesch",...)

This may have been a good thing at the time. Since virtually nobody
spoke standard Dutch in the North, registration of 3000 municipal
dialect varieties of whatever kind, combined with a strong position of
French, would have left standard French the only language with a
significant presence in the country. (One has to be fair though: while
in the North the municipal dialect variety was the spoken language,
Dutch never lost it's position as standard written language, be it
contaminated with some Belgicisms)

The 1947 census was the last one. It was not really a census anymore but
a language preference referendum showing strong anti-germanic linguistic
feelings. Flemish politicians changed their strategy and obtained frozen
linguistic borders (for administrative purposes) in 1962-1963.

3. How should one be classified, to what group does one belong.

- I'm actually doing a project in Brussels. the languages Over there I
use roughly:
-- Dutch 65 %
-- French 30 %
-- English 4 %
-- German 1 % (just with suppliers from Germany)

- I live in Mortsel, a suburb of Antwerp. The language I use over here:
-- Dutch 100 %
(I never learned to speak the Antwerp Brabantish dialect.)
Except for some contamination in spoken Dutch, the dialect is virtually
dead in Mortsel.

- When incidentally in my home village (Vliermaal) I speak:
-- Limburgish from Vliermaal 98% (also with young people who speak
"Dutch only" nowadays)
-- Dutch 2% with non native inhabitants, as e.g. the parish priest.

So how should I be counted for by a statistician?

The Belgian language censi were also subject of changes in formulation
of the questions:
"languages on can speak", "languages one usually spreaks" etc.
Changes in formulation of the questionary make 19th century censi hard
to compare with censi of the first half of the 20th century.

4. The answers one gives are, to my best feeling, strongly biased by the
political views one has.
I was in Sankt Vith this Sunday afternoon.

Sankt Vith is the capital of the Southern district of the German
speaking area in Belgium.
Where the Northeren district (of Eupen) gives a trilingual impression
with German, French and Dutch (and Limburgish-Ripuarien transition
dialects) in the streets, the South presents itself as purely German.
Road indicators have Trèves, Amblève, Hautes-Fagnes etc. overcladded
with black paint in Trier-Trèves, Amel-Amblève,
Hohes-Venn--Hautes-Fagnes.

For linguists in Luxemburg the Sankt Vith area is usually included in
the "Letzebuergesch language" area.

The perception in Sankt Vith is different though: the detailled dialect
map in "Zwischen Venn und Schneifel", 36. Jahrgang, Nr. 12, Dezember
2000 gives 6 differently colored area's with 6 variations of
"Moselle-Franconian Platt".

These people do not feel Luxemburgish, (only weekly Belgian I think,)
but rather German.

While in the German speaking North (Eupen) "activities during the war"
are only hardly touched in publicatons, in the South (Sankt Vith) the
township has no problems with supporting publications as:
Eric Wiesemes, Die Organisation "Hitlerjugend" im Gebiet von
Malmedy-St.Vith 1940-1944, Band Nr. 16 der ZVS-Schriftenreihe, 2000. It
has an introduction "Nicht verurteilen, sondern aufklären", but it's
alltogether a collection of photographs and souvenirs. People are
identified on the pictures (which would kill them socially elsewhere in
this country).
E;g. p. 116 on top: "Kurt Fagnoul, Flakhelfer auf Kurzurlaub (1944)".
Kurt is in uniform on the picture. Flakhelfer stands for
Luftwaffenhelfer.
Kurt writes books in Platt. I could still get a copy of his "Dän Mond
voll Platt, van dett on datt" from 1975 in the city museum in Sankt Vith
this very afternoon.

So no doubt, they would classify themselves as German speakers
(including Mosell-Franconian varieties) while Luxemburgish linguists
classify them as speakers of Letzebuergesch.

What should a statistician do?

Regards,
Roger

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