LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 19.FEB.2001 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 19.FEB.2001 (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>
  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: Marco Evenhuis [evenhuis at zeelandnet.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 18.FEB.2001 (01) [E/Z]

Criostoir asked:

> 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?

As Ron already mentioned, just like for the other Lowland languages, the
Zeelandic colour spectrum is basically the same as the Standard
Dutch/German/English one. They way colours of cattle and horses are
described, are very different though. This might be a relic of an older
colour scheme which was used more generally than just for cattle/horses
once.

Marco Evenhuis

----------

From: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 18.FEB.2001 (02) [E]

Ron,

You wrote:

> 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.

Well, I think again this depends. There is undoubtedly
the tendency, probably even a conscious one, to want
to make the 'dominated language' *seem* different from
the dominant one. However, you are doing so as a
linguist, fully aware of what you are doing, what you
are trying to achieve, and how you can best achieve
it. Ultimately I am sure you will agree that the aim
of the game is *communication* in the lesser-used
language, and 'maximally differentiating' from the
dominant tongue comes secondary to that.

It really depends on the individual case. My point is
(as McClure inter alia points out) that words that
appear English are as much a part of Scots as those
that aren't. On average you would expect over 90% of
words in a Scots text to have an immediately
recognizable English cognate - if that is *not* the
case, then the chances are the text isn't genuine
Scots. 'Gar' has an utterly different meaning from
'make' (as in 'machen')

Colin gives some very useful examples. 'Norie', for
example, simply doesn't mean 'idea' - it means more
'whim', which is a different thing. There is a
difference between 'speir' and 'ask' in Scots, and
between 'write' and 'screive/scrieve' - to ignore that
difference is to assign to 'screive' a direct English
equivalent ('write'), and this goes back to what I was
saying earlier, where you actually lose the essence of
the language. 'Gar' has an utterly different meaning
from 'make' (as in 'create' or 'do'), and some people
use 'rax' to mean 'reach' as in 'reach a place' -
which is worrying because Scots already has a
perfectly good alternative (along the lines of 'win
tae'), and would be lost if the previous false usage
is maintained.

Of course, some of these new meanings do become
generally accepted, probably most notably 'leet'. That
doesn't make it right necessarily, but languages do
develop (I mean, what idiot inserted the <b> in 'debt'
or assigned the meaning of 'not pay attention to' to
'ignore'?!!)

In Ireland the case is far more serious still. Texts
produced not only contain inaccuracies, but are often
utterly incomprehensible (remember: 'language is about
communication'). There are often blatantly wrong
translations - 'Ministrie' (Ministry) for
'Department', 'fowkgates' (customs) for 'culture',
worst of all perhaps 'Ulster' (Ulster; i.e. the
province based on the ancient kingdom) for 'Northern
Ireland'. These are compounded by a pile of made-up
words, as opposed to actual proper neologisms (or
attempts at them). In this regard I am very grateful
to Sandy for explaining the clear-cut distinction. The
result in Ulster has been the alienation of native
speakers, who simply do not recognize their own speech
in texts which are supposed to represent it!

Regards,

=====
------------------
Ian James Parsley
www.geocities.com/parsleyij
+44 (0)77 2095 1736
JOY - "Jesus, Others, You"

----------

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

Ian,

I generally agree with you.

However, I would like to add that I feel that people ought not be chided
for using what they feel is the native choice wherever there is a choice,
as long as they are still understood, and as long as we do not speak about
outright, organized engineering attempts.  This applies particularly to
relatively older speakers -- and they need not be linguists, need only have
conscious -- who have witnessed a clear proficiency decline within their
own lifetimes.  For instance, this would apply in the case of the Celtic
color spectrum.  Why should someone who grew up with the original spectrum
adopt the English based spectrum if he/she knows "better" and considers the
new spectrum a symptom of declining proficiency?  Another example is names
of certain ethnicities and countries in Low Saxon (Low German) of Germany.
The fact that many speakers use the German names is due to proficiency
decline combined with seeing the outside world through national German
eyes, yet the original names tend to be understood if heard/read, and they
are preserved in some dialects.  I had already given _Jööd'_ > _Juud_ 'Jew'
and _Tater_ > _Zigeuner_ 'Rom', 'Gypsy'.  I might add _Greek_ [gre:k] >
_Griech(e)_ ['gri:C(e)] 'Greek (person)', _Grekenland_ ['gre:k=Nla.nt] >
_Griechenland_ ['gri:C=nla.nt] 'Greece', _Törk_ [t`9.3k] > _Türk(e)_
[tY3k(e)] 'Turk', _Törkie_ ['t`9.3'ki:] > _Türkei_ [t`9.3'ka.I] 'Turkey'.

We are talking about choices, most of them acceptable and understandable to
most speakers.  While I do not agree with concerted efforts to engineer a
standard language without a predominance of genuine speakers' input, I also
do not agree with condemning people's choices, especially where they
themselves perceive alternative choices as being incorrect, foreign and a
sign of insufficient proficiency.  The "truth" must lie somewhere in
between.  Why should I say _Türk(e)_ when _Törk_ feels right and original
to me?  Just because more and more people say _Türk(e)_?  People usually
use German words because they do not know the Low Saxon equivalents.  They
would probably use the native words if they knew them.  They look to
proficient speakers and writers for the education schools are not offering
them.  So should these "models" use the native words, or should they bow to
declining proficiency in others and use the German equivalents?  Would the
latter choice not amount to speeding up language proficiency decline and
language death?

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