LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 19.FEB.2001 (04) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 19 23:37:15 UTC 2001
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 19.FEB.2001 (04) * 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: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 18.FEB.2001 (01) [E/Z]
At 13:32 18/02/01 -0800, Criostoir O Ciardha wrote:
>Ian describes "Learner's Irish" and it seems to me he
>is in fact describing the Irish of the SRG (a minority
>variety of Irish of Belfast with a few hundred
>speakers), which is massively contaminated by a heavy
>English/Ulster-Scots substrate, to the point that the
>syntax of the language is severely affected and
>divergent from other varieties of Irish.
Would it perhaps be more accurate to classify this language
as an Irish-based creole, rather than as a variety of Irish?
*********************************************************************
Colin Wilson the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
the barra wadna row its lane
writin fae Aiberdein, an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
the ile capital o Europe lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
*********************************************************************
----------
From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 18.FEB.2001 (02) [E]
At 16:18 18/02/01 -0800, Sandy Fleming wrote:
>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 think the reason is more likely to be for the sake of greater
precision. "Hypercorrection" could mean many things, but
"hyperlallanism" means something very specific.
>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.
I don't necessarily agree that these terms are ill-advised, but
I do believe (now) that the decision as to whether this is the
right way for Scots to develop, is one that can only be taken by
the Scots-speaking community at large rather than by a
relatively small number of activists. In my view, the main aim for
activists at present ought to be to promote the status of Scots at
its current stage of development.
R.F. Hahn 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 have no objection to this either, but with Scots there is a tendency
on the part of some to use a less similar lexical item even when there
isn't a real choice, because the less similar item is actually wrong.
For example "norie", which people use to mean "idea", actually means
a false or fanciful idea, and anyone who cares to look at the dictionary
can check this. "Screive", which people use to mean "write", actually
means (more or less) "scribble". I could give a good number of others.
*********************************************************************
Colin Wilson the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
the barra wadna row its lane
writin fae Aiberdein, an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
the ile capital o Europe lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
*********************************************************************
----------
From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 16.FEB.2001 (02) [D/E]
Ron wrote:
<snip>
> I hope this will help shed some more light on the possibility of language
> revival.
The case with Hebrew, I assume, is perhaps sigular by its nature.
There must have been /is a great desire in the population to do this. I A'm
surprised that is has been so successful. I assume there are social
networks
of the various immigrant groups where the use of Hebrew could easily be
avoided for everyday purposes, much as it is in some ethnic communities in
the UK.
Does any one know about the situation it Catalonie vis a vis the revival of
Catalonian. I have often seen this used an an example of what could be
possible in Scotland in view of Scots. How similar/disimilar are Castillian
and Catalans?
Andy Eagle
----------
From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival"
Sandy Fleming wrote:
> Subject: "Language survival"
> 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.
Is 'hyperlallanism' hypercorrection or a deliberate attemp to artificially
try and increase the diference between Scots and English? I make a
difference here between 'creative writing' an what are supposed to be
'official' publications.
Creative writers can do what they want. That is their prerogative. I would
assume the intention of 'official publications' is to inform the public. If
the public these writings are aimed at can't understand what's written then
they must be considered dismal failures. Wether this is a result of an
idiosyncratic orthography or a preponderance of indeciperable neologisms.
The only Scots neologisms I use regularly are to do with the medium we are
using now. wabsteid (website), wittinscurn (newsgroup), straivaig (surf)
airtin or cleik (link) and sneck (click) most of these should be
recognisable in a web context. Any thoughts?
Ron wrote:
> 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.
It's not neccessarily the absence of 'a' standard but lack of knowledge of
which linguistic features are those of the dominant and dominated language.
My experiance at school was, when I used Scots grammar forms I was simply
told it was wrong. No explanation of 'interference'. The implication being
my family/community were also wrong etc. etc.
> 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. .... (This lexical
> decline is particularly noticeable in the areas of the zoological and
> botanical inventories.)
The same in Scots. The assumption being for many is that these terms are
not
encountered everyday any anybody needing to learn such terminology resorts
to books in the dominant langage (for want of any in the dominated
language)
> Those of us who have been around for a few decades also notice rapidly
> increasing German phonological influences
Equally true in Scotland.(English of course)
> 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.
>
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.
In creative writing that's OK. But would it work well in 'official'
publication aimed at encouraging use of a dominated language?
To me what makes something Scots is the Scots grammar features and certain
vocabulary. Not a slavish one to one translation, often full of words out
of
context or alien looking neologisms. I 've read stuff more or less written
with a standard English orthography but it was blatantly obvious it was
Scots and not bad English.
Andy Eagle
----------
From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language survival"
> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Language survival
>
> 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.
There are a few colour-spectrum differences between Scots
and English. A perfect example of how the scheme of the
dominant language can be imposed on the minority language
can be seen in the Scots "blae". To me, this is a dull
greyish-blue, as in the colour of bilberries (Scots
"blaeberries", of course) or bruises and suchlike. Many
modern Scots speakers simply don't use the word, whereas
many Scots or "Scots" writers use it for "blue". Either
way the spectrum ends up matching that of English and the
problem is that, as Ian says, the expression of the
language is lost.
Another colour-word distinction made in Scots, though not
related to the actual colour spectrum, is that between
"black" and "bleck". My interpretation of this is that
"black" is the adjectival form, "bleck" is used in other
cases. For example, "bleck" will be used as a verb, as in
"bleckenin" (blackening for shoes &c) from the verb form
"tae bleck" meaning "to blacken". "Bleck" is also
invariably used in Scots to mean a black person. These
distinctions are still so firmly entrenched in
contemporary Scots that I'd be surprised to find anybody
confusing them.
There are also some figurative uses of colour in Scots
that don't occur in English as far as I know (idiomatic
rather than semantic):
Scots English
black extreme
grey sombre, sad
blae dark
eg:
Scots "black affrontit", English "extremely embarrassed".
Scots "blae glower", English "black looks"
Scots, from "Wee Willie Winkie": "The cat's singin grey thrums tae the
sleepin hen".
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,
Colin wrote:
> I have no objection to this either, but with Scots there is a tendency
> on the part of some to use a less similar lexical item even when there
> isn't a real choice, because the less similar item is actually wrong.
> For example "norie", which people use to mean "idea", actually means
> a false or fanciful idea, and anyone who cares to look at the dictionary
> can check this. "Screive", which people use to mean "write", actually
> means (more or less) "scribble". I could give a good number of others.
I occasionally encounter this sort of thing in Low Saxon (Low German) of
Germany also. One example is the expression of the idea 'opinion'. Most
people say _Menen_ [mEIn:] in every context, which I suspect to have been
reinforced by German _Meinung_. I have come across a couple of writers who
say _Verscheel_ [f3'Se:l] in every context, a word that does not seem to
have a German cognate (at least not a generally apparent one). I consider
either case to be symptomatic of a proficiency decline: a tendency toward
translating German and having only one choice like in German, in the second
case choosing a less similar word. _Verscheel_ originally had (and
hopefully still has in most inventories) the specific meaning
'contrary/diverging opinion', whereas _Menen_ is more general and neutral.
Thus, if someone expresses their opinion and you concur it seems wrong to
say something like _Dat is ook mien Verscheel_ 'That's my opinion too',
unless you want to stress that you, like the other person, has an opinion
that differs from the generally held opinion. It seems to me that knowing
when to say _Menen_ and when to use _Verscheel_ distinguishes speakers that
can use the language without a side glance at German.
Andy wrote:
> The case with Hebrew, I assume, is perhaps sigular by its nature.
> There must have been /is a great desire in the population to do this. I
A'm
> surprised that is has been so successful.
You are not alone there. I have a feeling that its success lies in great
part in a strong nationalistic (Zionist) base.
> I assume there are social networks
> of the various immigrant groups where the use of Hebrew could easily be
> avoided for everyday purposes, much as it is in some ethnic communities
in
> the UK.
Of course. You will find numerous immigrant language communities and
networks, and there are printed and electronic media in the main immigrant
languages (Yiddish, Polish, Russian, German, French, English, Spanish,
etc.). However, with few exceptions (e.g., the closed, ultra-orthodox
Naturei Charta community that clings to Yiddish only, and some
language-specific kibbutzim) people cannot avoid rubbing shoulders with
people of different linguistic backgrounds in everyday life, and in most
instances Hebrew is the lingua franca; thus, there is an absolute
requirement to have at least some Hebrew proficiency. The three official
languages of Israel are Hebrew, English and Arabic, but Hebrew
predominates. Pressure from Hebrew is great, and some endangered languages
that initially found a refuge in Israel (e.g., Judeo-Aramaic [Semitic],
Judeo-Bukharan [Iranic], and Karaim [Turkic]) are therefore doomed. The
success story of Hebrew from a book language to a power language is indeed
remarkable and may even surpass the expectations of Theodor Herzl.
Whatever the key to its success may be, this case does show that a language
*can* be revived.
Sandy wrote:
> Another colour-word distinction made in Scots, though not
> related to the actual colour spectrum, is that between
> "black" and "bleck".
Some of you may be interested to know that in many Low Saxon dialects
_Black_ means 'ink'. (Old High German had _blah_. I can't think of a
Modern German descendant other than the adjective _blakig_ 'sooty'.) A Low
Saxon alternative for 'ink' is _Dint_ (cf., German _Tinte_).
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
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list