LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 21.FEB.2001 (07) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 22 00:36:53 UTC 2001
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 21.FEB.2001 (07) * 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, 21.FEB.2001 (03) [E]
At 09:23 21/02/01 -0800, Andy Eagle wrote:
>Is not any form of language standardisation 'synthetic'?
Not necessarily: see below.
>I regularly write 'synthetic English' AKA standard English. I know very few
>people who actually speak like that.
So-called "standard" English isn't synthetic, in that it isn't
a synthesis - something that someone has put together, combining
different components from different sources. "Standard" English is
really just a formalised version of the dialect spoken by the
English ruling class.
The term "synthetic Scots" was coined (possibly even by the poet
himself) to describe the work of Hugh MacDiarmid, who wrote poetry
in a form of Scots composed from words drawn from different regional
dialects, as well as a small proportion of obsolete vocabulary
found in dictionaries.
At the time, it was an apt description, but around the time of the
Second World War the word "synthetic" came to be (mis-)applied to
ersatz products so that, for example, "synthetic coffee" was
something that tasted similar to coffee but wasn't coffee. The
connotations of the word "synthetic" are fairly derogatory nowadays,
and are only slightly short of describing something as "fake".
When I sent an early draft of the manuscript for "Stertin Oot in
Scots" to Hodder & Stoughton to be considered for publication, they
(for reasons best known to themselves) gave it to a Gaelic-language
activist to review. I don't know who it was, except that it was
either Boyd Robertson or Iain Taylor, but he gave it a nervous,
anxious review, hostile not just to what I'd written but even to the
very idea of teaching Scots. One of his comments was "the language
in this book appears to be a form of "synthetic Scots".
Although it was no such thing, the reviewer was quite content
to exploit, disingenuously, the now derogatory connotations of the
word "synthetic" to an editor who probably knew nothing of the
significance of the term "synthetic Scots". Needless to say, the
manuscript was rejected for publication.
As a description for a form of Scots derived in this way, I'd
much prefer the term "composite Scots". I'm not convinced of the
need for such a thing, although I do believe that there's a need
for some basic standards, and I also believe there's a great need
for an accepted generic Scots orthography.
*********************************************************************
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: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language survival"
> From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language survival"
>
> Ian James Parsley wrote:
>
> >Fabra was clearly a truly remarkable man and
> > remains held in very high esteem among modern Catalan
> > language activists - they assure me that Scots is
> > highly unlikely to produce such a great man to
> > standardize it!!!
>
> Scots could produce such a person. The problem is not enough people would
> agree with them. No matter how pragmatic, logical or well researched the
> proposals.
I think you have to be careful what you say (or keep on saying)
about the nature of Scots and its users/proponents.
Although Scots enthusiasts do disagree a lot, this is a lot to
do with the ignorance that derives from the fact that no-one
has a formal education in the language, coupled with the fact
that some bring political motives into the arena.
I think we need to stop touting the idea that proponents of
Scots never agree about the language, before the sheer
impossibility of educating anyone in the proper use of the
language turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Why should us Scots hold a special position on contumaciousness?
The only difference between us and the Catalans is that we
tolerate and even propagate these myths about ourselves.
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: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival"
Marco Evenhuis wrote:
>
> Colin Wilson wrote:
>
> > or its equivalent in Scotland, would be beaten mercilessly with the
> > (misleading) term "synthetic Scots" until he recanted of his heresy.
>
> and Andy Eagle replied:
>
> > Is not any form of language standardisation 'synthetic'?
>
> Of course it is! But I think a major problem, or let's say challenge, with
> relatively small regional languages without (or no longer with) an
accepted
> standard form is local pride. On the one hand, local pride could be seen
as
> a condition for survival of a language. But on the other, when it comes to
> standardization or acceptance of texts in a standardized spelling or even
a
> standardized form of the language, strong local pride and 'awakened'
> speakers could be a huge disadvantage.
The same is true with Scots especially vis-ayis Central and northern
Dialects.
Any good standard written form should be read and pronounced as it locally
would be. The spellings then represent under lying phonemes an not a
particular pronunciation. No variety is seen as more 'proper' than any
other.
> In the case of Catalan, Fabra was lucky to be one of the few people that
> were really concerned with the language. Plus that only a very small
number
> of speakers had an opinion on the subject or even cared about it.
> Times changed. People have opinions about everything, simply because of
the
> huge amount of information that they get by the paper, tv, radio,
internet,
> etc. People are more aware and involved now then ever before.
It's hopefully through the use of such media that people can be persuaded
that a 'pan-dialect' written form makes sense for communicating to a wider
audience that your own village etc.
> When we constructed a spelling for internal (!) use in our Noe-magazine,
all
> regional media jumped on the subject: 'Zeeuws does not exist; there are
only
> Zeelandic dialects, so constructing a standard spelling is useless'. They
> refused to see that we only made a spelling in which all different
dialects
> of Zeeuws could be written without these dialects having to give up their
> own identity (all dialects were still recognisable as such). Most speakers
> agreed with the media and sent in letters to us and the newspapers. 'I
don't
> speak Zeeuws, I speak the dialect of the village of Westkapelle'... (I
don't
> speak Scots, I speak Doric/Glaswegian ('the Patter', wasn't it?)/etc.)
I take it all the so called 'power languages' mention during theis thread
have dialect as well but no one seems to argue "there are only 'insert power
language name here' dialects, so constructing a standard spelling is
useless". Such attitudes are based on the assumtion that leser used language
have no merit.
> Our standardized way of spelling all dialects of Zeeuws has become more or
> less excepted over the years and our magazine florishes. But working
towards
> a standardized Zeelandic writing language is still very much not-done.
Even
> blending in words from other dialects than your own in peotry and prose is
> not done! Allthough some begin to 'blend' now and the results are
promising.
> There is no Zeelandic Hugh McDiairmid yet, but we'll get there some day...
> I believe we would have had less problems when our little language
> renaissance of the past ten years would have taken place much earlier.
Words from various English dialects spread through TV. Scots is as good as
never heard on TV so any spreading of words through the use of written media
is decried as artificial. These critics seem to be using two different sets
of rules when they make such comments.
In English, if people here a word or phrase they like - for what ever
reason- on TV or read it in a well known best-seller they may adopt it. No
one seems to object. How many cockney phrases or Americanisms etc. are used
up and down the british Isles because of (London based) TV? Do this with
Scots and the critics are down on you like a ton o bricks.
Andy Eagle
==================================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