LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 05.MAR.2001 (04) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 6 00:22:08 UTC 2001
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.MAR.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: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance"
Criostoir wrote:
> Not at all. I don't believe "good economics"
> (economics can be anything less than exploitative of
> someone somewhere along the line...? News to me) is
> important. It seems to me that Sandy reveals not a
> little of the indoctrination of the state (of which I
> am also guilty, far more than most). The economic
> argument has been used to deride and disempower mother
> tongues and their communities since the advent of the
> nation-state in the 19th Century. Before that it was
> (and remains) the excuse for outright genocide ("the
> Indians are in the way of progress", "Irish social
> systems are a liability" "The Caribbeans receive us
> like gods and make excellent slaves"). I feel it is
> impossible to isolate history from the present,
> particularly when the same arguments are trotted out
> to justify continued degradation of "minority"
> communities (they may actually be numerical majorities
> but as they do not run the state they are political
> "minorities").
>
A lot of what you mention above has more to do with europeans attitudes to
'race' in the past and basically nothing to do with current economic
thinking.
> Similarly, Low Saxon represented a commercial
> interest, not a human one. It was the tool of economic
> hegemony and I find it difficult to recognise the
> validity of such things.
Commercial interests ARE human interests. Or is creating wealth some how
'unhuman'?
Economic hegemony or free trade?
> An immediate issue I would like to raise in
> clarification of my arguments is the usage of the term
> "dialect". As I alluded to previously, I consider this
> term to represent a symptom of the inferiorisation of
> the local speaker with regards to the statist centre.
> To refer to one's speech as "dialect" internalises a
> relative inferiority and an inference of divergence
> that locks the user into the belief that they speak a
> peripheral variant of the "standard" central
> government language rather than their own equally
> powerful language. To this end I will use "mother
> tongue" in all instances as that best represents my
> thinking on the issue: whether we call a mother tongue
> a "dialect", a distinct language, a "variant" or
> whatever we cannot ignore or neglect the fact that it
> is the primary means of communication for the user in
> question.
Linguist often use the term 'variety' instead of dialect - its more
'neutral'
> I do find it somewhat absurd, however, that Scots
> shares its orthography with English even though the
> pronunciation rarely converges. Is this English
> colonisation of Scots? A more faithful orthography
> might aid linguistic self-determination.
Scots also shares its history with English, is it then, really surprising
that the orthographies are similar?
Orthographies that are more removed from English have been proposed (and
used) for Scots. Unfortunately, without making the effort to learn them,
they are difficult to read and seem foreign to most Scots speakers. I
prefer
a pragmatic approach when it comes to encouraging the use of (written)
Scots. Start with what people already know (and what's already there) and
work up. I assume the written Scots you are referring to is what you have
read on this list. Most use a 'faithful' orthography which is essentially
polyphonemic. We write similarly but individally may pronounce it
differently depending where we come from.
The following is a comment in general and not neccessarily directed at
Criostoir. By standardisation, I think most us of us mean a set of
polymorpemic cross-dialect orthographic conventions to aid comprehension. I
don't think anyone is proposing to impose a standard grammar or
pronunciation.
Andy Eagle
----------
From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 03.MAR.2001 (02) [E]
At 17:18 03/03/01 -0800, Criostoir O Ciardha wrote:
>To delegitimise swearwords as vehicles everyday speech
>and description in the same way as non-taboo
>superlatives clearly disadvantages and disenfranchises
>the self-esteem of groups such as the working class
>(or "dialect speakers") who use them as an integral of
>their tongues. It is akin to suddenly making illegal a
>whole swathe of lexicon simply as one group within a
>state dislike it. Is that not linguistic oppression?
>It is also ludicrous that one group is expected to
>inhibit its native tongue because the ruling class
>deems it uncouth.
I can assure Criostoir O C that I'm not offended by this, but neither
am I convinced by it. I might be, if it could be shown that swearing
really was an integral part of some people's dialect: but I'm not
convinced that this is the case. By "swearing" I mean specifically
"vocabulary related to swiving, the privy, and the body parts related
thereto, not in a literal sense but metaphorically for emotive effect".
In my experience, swearing is more strongly associated with the male sex
than the female, and with youth rather than age. I'm sure that
Criostoir O C will correct me if I'm mistaken, but for the life of me
I can't imagine "it were fuckin ace" being said by a woman in her
eighties, no matter how little she felt bound by the norms of so-called
"standard" English.
There is so much potential richness in language, and so many different
things that we can allude to in metaphor, that there really is no need
for anyone to confine themselves to sex and the toilet.
Swearing is something that young(ish) men do, as an expression of machismo
and/or rebelliousness. If some people didn't have an aversion to it, there
wouldn't be much point in it. By "some people", I'm not talking about the
ruling class, but also people who are well outside that social bracket
and whose language reflects that fact. As the grandson of a tram driver,
a domestic servant, a cooper, and a hospital ancilliary worker, I know
that it is untrue to suggest that working-class people cannot communicate
without swearing.
>Further, as terms such as (if I may be forgiven)
>"cock", "arse" et al have non-partisan and
>non-offensive "scientific" counterparts - in the cases
>cited, "penis" and "anus/sphincter" - what is one
>trying to achieve? If swearwords *were* extirpated, it
>seems to me that these "safe" terms might simply
>become "new swearwords" - and so on, in circles.
I'm not sure that it's exactly what Criostoir O C is saying here,
but I hope he'll agree when I say that the aversion to
these words, *used in their anatomical sense*, is irrational. I
personally can see no reason why terms such as "arse" or "ballocks"
should not be used in e.g anatomy lessons in schools.
Calling somone an "arse" is different, of course. That's swearing.
*********************************************************************
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 maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 05.MAR.2001 (02) [E]
At 10:46 05/03/01 -0800, Criostoir O Ciardha wrote:
>I raised elsewhere on this list. What is really
>stopping you from producing a bilingual document if
>you wish your mother tongue to have equal standing?
I can't speak for Sandy, of course, but I know what would happen if I
did that at my own work. My manager would tell me that the part in Scots
was (at best) superfluous, and tell me to remove it.
>As I said, people make or break
>a tongue and co-operation in building a "lingua
>franca" or a compressed "book language" (recalling
>Colin's contribution on stigmatised Finnish "book
>language" which I wholeheartedly endorse) is vital.
>Further, there should be the fundamental
>understanding, as demonstrated with Finnish, that the
>"book language" is not real but rather a compromise
>between diverse realities of equal standing.
Since this seems to be of interest, I'll say a little more about
it. Although people speak of "kirjakieli" (book language"), on the one
hand, and "arkikieli" ("everyday language") or "puhekieli" ("spoken
language"), on the other, the split isn't really between writing
and speech.
Kirjakieli is used, in speech as well as in writing, as the language
of government, business, education, religious worship, the press
and in broadcasting - at least by the professional broadcasters, if
not necessarily by everyone they happen to interview. (It's also
the basis of what's usually taught to foreigners.)
However, it isn't at all unusual for people to *write* in their own
arkikieli, for instance in personal correspondence. It wouldn't
be at all unusual for someone from Helsinki to write "when are you
coming to visit us?" as "milloin sä tuut käymää meil?" which would be
expressed in kirjakieli as "milloin (sinä) tulet käymään meillä?".
Another context in which it isn't at all unusual to see people writing
in their own arkikieli, is in the Finnish-language newsgroups.
To a large degree, that would be unthinkable in the UK, and anyone
who tried it would almost certainly be ridiculed for it. There's one
obvious major difference between Finland and the UK, namely that
Finland is a much, much less class-based society than the UK. As a
result, the language too is much less class-based.
As I see it, class in British society isn't just a matter of
economic role or status, which is how people usually think of it.
The British "class" system is really a remaining vestige of an early
form of apartheid, i.e. a racially-based social order, which existed as
a consequence of the Norman Conquest of England. At that time, the main
distinction between the two races was language: nowadays, the difference
is perceived as one of class rather than race, but the main
distinguishing factor is still language. The self-imposed segragation
is (or has been) such that the two groups can live side-by-side in the
same place, e.g in London, and still speak with different accents. Only
now are the two coming together in the form of Estuary English.
There isn't really anything like that in Finland. Their Swedish-
speaking minority is the remains of a Swedish ruling class, from
over seven hundred years of Swedish rule, but their power was
largely broken under Russian rule between 1809 and 1917. Swedish is
still compulsory at school, even in areas where no-one speaks it,
but it carries no special kudos and nowadays many young people
would rather spend more time on... wait for it.............. English.
*********************************************************************
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
*********************************************************************
==================================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