LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 18.FEB.2001 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 18.FEB.2001 (02) * 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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
 =======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language survival"

> From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 17.FEB.2001 (01) [E]

> As far as Scots in Scotland is concerned, we see the same tendency
> here as in Ireland: "screive" used as if it meant "write", "leet"
> used as if it meant "list", "norie" used as if it meant "idea",
> "gar" used as if it meant "make", "rax" used as if it meant "reach",
> and more. Alasdair Allan, who wrote a Ph.D thesis in Scots a few
> years ago, invented the word "hyperlallanism" as a convenient
> derogatory term for this tendency. Ian James Parsley might care to
> adopt it in the form "hyperullanism".

I haven't had anything to add to the "Language survival"
debate, since everything I might be able to say is already
being so well said.

However, to start a new thread on the above definition from
Colin, isn't "hyperlallanism" just a language-specific version
of "hypercorrection"? Admittedly the hypercorrection is going
in the opposite direction from usual (English to bad Scots
rather than Scots to bad English), but this should make no
difference if we can assume equal status for the languages.
I suppose the reason why Alisdair Allan puts forward a new
term is that we can't assume equal status - Scots in most
real-life or even literary situations doesn't have as high
a status as English, so it's difficult to equate overdone
Scots with an attempt at correction.

I once came across a very useful (and longstanding) definition
in a dictionary of literary terms. It was "inkhorn term",
meaning a word or phrase which could only have come from a
writer's inkhorn rather than anybody's mouth. I think this is
the perfect term for another common class of ill-advised
"Lallanisms" - words such as "mucklegate", "faurspaeker",
"atomstour" &c.

This would be distinguished from a "neologism" which is a word
which although it may be new, has a meaning so obvious and
natural that it could easily have arisen in conversation
between native speakers - the main point being that the writer
isn't attempting language architecture but just found a
temporary use for an unusual lexical construction which he
wouldn't expect to enter the language unless a lot of people
happen to find it memorable.

I would distinguish this again from a "coinage", which would
be a word which someone writing on a technical subject might
invent to make a necessary distinction in his own area of
expertise. Here there's no pretention of using "real words"
and the meaning intended is explained by the writer. It only
enters the language if enough people find it useful.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

----------

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

Dear Lowlanders,

Críostóir wrote:

> I would like to know how far the dominant language in
> a Lowland situation affects the languages we discuss
> here: for example, has there ever been a specifically
> Frisian colour spectrum that has now been imbalanced
> toward Dutch? Or are the two languages too close
> genetically to engender different colour schemes?

I doubt there are many such perceptual differences where the dominant and
dominated languages belong to the same language subbranches and are
relatively closely related, which seems to be the majority in our Lowlandic
circle: English vs Scots, Dutch vs Frisian, Dutch vs Zeelandic (incl.
Western Flemish), Dutch vs Low Saxon, German vs Low Saxon (Low German),
German vs Frisian, English vs Afrikaans, American Standard English vs
Appalachian, Black English, Hawai'ian Creole, etc.  (Did I forget any?)
Things like color spectrum tend not to vary a great deal within the same
branch or subbranch, and what may have varied in the past has most probably
been unified long ago under continual cultural contacts, bilingualism and
dominant-language education.

This is not to say that pressures and influences from the dominant
languages are any weaker in these instances.  On the contrary, I assume
they are stronger on the whole, because the close genealogical
relationships tend to blur the dividing line between the dominant and
dominated languages in the mind of the average speaker.  The absence of
standards for the dominated language helps to blur the dividing line even
further.

In the case of Low Saxon/Low German in Northern Germany, there are massive
German influences that have accumulated over time and are increasing with
declining levels of language proficiency.  This has been the case
especially with lexicon and syntax.  For instance, most dialects now have
(German _Geist_ =) _Geist_ [gaIst] instead of native _Geest_ [gEIst]
'spirit', (German _Krieg_ =) _Krieg_ [kri:C] instead of native _Oorloog_
['?oU3loUx] 'war', (German _Jude_ =) _Juud_ [ju:.d] instead of native
_Jööd'_ [j9.I(d)] 'Jew', (German _Zigeuner_ =) _Zigeuner_ [(t)si'go.In3]
instead of native _Tater_ ['tQ:t3] 'Gypsy', and (German _Kirsche_ =)
_Kirsch_ vs native _Kars(beer)_ ['k`a(:)s(be:3)] 'cherry'.  (This lexical
decline is particularly noticeable in the areas of the zoological and
botanical inventories.)  In some instances, a German cognate is assigned
semantic specialization; e.g., (German _fein_ >) _fein_ [fa.In] 'fine' =
'refined', 'nice', vs native _fien_ [fi:n] 'fine' = 'thin', 'delicate'.
Native words that have German cognates have stronger survival chances than
and will eventually replace native words that have no (apparent) German
cognates; e.g., (German _raten_ =) _raden_ ['rQ:d=n] vs _gissen_ ['gIs=n]
'to guess', and (German _Schote_ =) _Schoot_ [So:t] vs _Paal_ ~ _Pahl_
[p`Q:l] 'pod'.  Loaning from German is particularly strong in cases of
abstract nouns; e.g., many of those nouns that have the suffixes _-heit_ or
_-keit_ in German, e.g., (German _Krankheit_ =) _Krankheit_ ['krã.nkhaIt]
vs native _Süük_ [zy:k] or _Süükdoom_ ['zy:kdo.Um] 'illness', 'disease',
and (German _Kleinigkeit_ =) _Klenigkeit_ ['klEInICkaIt] vs _Kleikraam_
['kla.IkrQ:m] ~ _Klacks_ [klaks] ~ _Pittjepattje_ ['p`Itje,patje] ~
_Spier(ken)_ [spi:3(k=N)] ~ _Scheet_ [Se:t] 'trifle'.  Many, if not most,
German loans are disguised in that they are "calques," i.e., translated
loanwords.  Naturally, this is particularly noticeable in the naming of
more recent innovations and German institutions; e.g., (German
_Wartezimmer_ =) _Tööfruum_ ['t`9Ifru:m] 'waiting room', (German _Kaufhaus_
=) _Koophuus_ ['k`oUphu:s] 'department store', or as semi-calques; e.g.,
(German _Genossenschaft_ =) _Genossenschupp_ [ge'nOs=nSUp] '(socialist)
cooperative' vs native-based _Maatschupp(ie)_ ['mQ:tSUp] (~ [mQ:tSu'pi:]) ~
_Maatschapp(ie)_ ['mQ:tSap] (~ [mQ:tSa'pi:]) '(capitalist) cooperative'
(cf. Dutch _maatschappij_).

Those of us who have been around for a few decades also notice rapidly
increasing German phonological influences, typically uvular [R] instead of
native apical [r] for /r/; [St...], [Sp...], [Sm...] and [Sn...] in
dialects in which native pronunciation is [st...], [sp...], [sm...] and
[sn...] respectively; monophthongization of diphthongs (no doubt enhanced
by unsuitable German-based orthographic devices), lack of _Schleifton_
("dragging tone," i.e., vocalic superlength and non-application of final
devoicing), e.g., _mööd(')_ [mø:t] instead of native [m9.I(d)] 'sleepy',
'tired'; and denasalization and shortening of vowels before nasals (e.g.,
[mOIn] < [mÕ.I~n] _Moin!_ 'Hi!', [?an=n StRant fUn=n 'blaNkhans] < [?ã.n:
strã.nt fU~.n: 'blã.Nkhã.ns] _an'n Strand vun'n Blankhans_ 'at the North
Sea beach/shore' ("at the beach of the White John").

Colin wrote:

> As far as Scots in Scotland is concerned, we see the same tendency
> here as in Ireland: "screive" used as if it meant "write", "leet"
> used as if it meant "list", "norie" used as if it meant "idea",
> "gar" used as if it meant "make", "rax" used as if it meant "reach",
> and more.

I do not necessarily condone such artificial lexical separatism, but I
wonder if it is not to be expected, especially where the dominant and the
dominated languages are so closely related and planners and writers
therefore have the need (consciously or subconsciously) for making the
dominated language different, at least to choose a less similar lexical
item where there is a choice.  I see the same happening in Low Saxon (Low
German) of Germany, especially in non-traditional literature, predominantly
in modern poetry.  Some writers, including myself, occasionally mix
dialects by choosing now rare words or expressions from other dialects
because they sound better in some contexts.  In other words, there are such
lexical choices as artistic devices, but some measure of "activism"
(separatism and purism) may play a role at least subconsciously.  For
instance, I usually say _Krieg_ for 'war', but in one piece I used the word
_oorloogsmööd'_ instead of _kriegsmööd'_ for 'war-weary', simply because I
like the sound of the former better in that instance.  Similarly, Waltrud
Bruhn from Schleswig-Holstein, probably the champion of modern Low Saxon
poetry in Germany, freely alternates between equivalent words from
different dialects.  She, too, usually uses the word _Krieg_ for 'war', but
then she uses only _Oorloog_ in an entire poem ("Vun'n Oorloog" (About
War), which is specifically about war), and I think this, too, is for
predominantly artistic style.

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