LL-L "Language varieties" 2001.11.03 (03) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 03.NOV.2001 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Dl7bk at aol.com
Subject: Language Varieties

Dear Lowlanders,

thank you for your reactions to my table (comparison of Dutch and
different
Low Saxon dialects), Ron and Holger. The lack of a standard orthography
is
indeed the biggest problem that we Low Saxon speakers have. Since there
are
several spellings (some of which are rather scientific and in my opinion
too
far away from the needs of "ordinary people") I tried to do it the way
most
writers of Low Saxon, especially in Eastern Frisia and Emsland do. This
means
that I normally use aa for the vowel in "maaken" which is something
between a
and o in most Low Saxon dialects. Only in my posting about different
dialects
in Emsland Low Saxon (a few weeks ago) I also used ao to show the
difference
between different pronunciations. In my table Dutch - Low Saxon I quoted
the
word "proten" which is pronounced with an "o" like in the English word
"open"
("closed o"). That is why I did not spell "praaten".

Holger, your orthographic system surely is a spelling that meets the
needs of
the language. But I think, language should meet the needs of the people
if we
want people to keep using the language. So if we want people to read and
write our Low Saxon language let's not make it too difficult for them.
You
and I and all subscribers to this list would be ready and able to adapt
to a
spelling which is totally different from what they have learned at
school,
but the average newspaper reader would not. He would rather resort to
Standard ("High") German where he thinks himself to be on safe
territory.
East Frisian LS is a good example: a speaker from Rheiderland says:
"schkiaul", people in Aurich say "schkaul" and in the Fehn area the word
is
pronounced like"schköil" but everybody knows that the word "school" is
meant,
the spelling and meaning of which is exactly the same as in English, by
pure
coincidence. But this is what East Frisian readers are meanwhile
accustomed
to and what they are, reluctantly, willing to accept.

About the proten/snacken border: I know about this, but since the aim of
my
list was a brief overview from Standard Dutch to Hamburg Low Saxon
(roughly
500 km from West to East) I omitted local language phenomenons in
Eastern
Frisia (Wittmund area) which find their continuation in Oldenburg Low
Saxon
anyway.

About a different subject:
Edwin Deady wrote:
>Apart from sentiment and intellectual exercise: what is the benefit of
having a >minority language as a first language? The language reverenced
is
one that >has been selected from a discrete moment in time. If it is
spoken
easily and >naturally as a real language then it will develop and become
stadardised >throughout its geographical area which could be a whole
country,
such as >happened with English.

Well Edwin, you're right. A language that is naturally spoken in its
geographical area may well enough develop and adopt a standardized form
and
flourish and spread over the world etc. etc. Or it may not...

But this is due to circumstances which are often beyond the control of
the
speakers of the language in question. If a language "is lucky" it is the
formal and official language of one or more nations. In these countries
this
language is used at all occasions and it is the language the citizens of
this
country normally  use in speech, writing and thinking.

Now imagine, there are two or more different languages in a certain area
and
somebody has the spontaneous idea of founding a nation, a republic, a
kingdom
or whatever administrative pattern it may be. The founder of this nation
decides language A to be the national language. Its use is obligatory at
school, court and other official occasions. Language B is suddenly
considered
inferior and the speakers of this language are (in the best case!)
encouraged
to use language A. Would you give up your mother tongue if it were
language
B? I would not!

You say: communication is the primary function of language. Right! But
in
this communication I want to express my way of life, my feelings and my
culture. And for this purpose I use my language which happens to be not
the
national language but a minority language and my mother tongue.

This does not mean, that I'm reluctant to communicate with other
language
communities. It just means that in my own (language and culture related)
community I make use of the human right to use the language in which I
was
brought up to think, to speak and to describe my world. And it's a
natural
thing that I want this language to survive, to flourish, to be
expressive and
that I appreciate it if it is used by as much people as possible.

And that's what this discussion list is about: languages of
North-Western
Europe (or the origins) which are closely related to each other, some of
which are even mutually intelligible. Most subscribers are native
speakers of
one of these languages and they want them to survive and to be known and
appreciated by others. And they want to cross borders by using them.

Hyazinth (Zintus) Sievering
Wippingen/Emsland/Germany

----------

From: Andy.Eagle at t-online.de (Andy Eagle)
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" [E/S]

Sandy Fleming wrate:

>> Robert Thiel quoted Dr. William Allbright:
>>
>> "mutual intelligibility" is of course not a black/white matter (no pun
>> intended re ebonics); it's a multidimensional continuum. no two people in
>> the world speak exactly the same variety; no single person in the world
>> speaks a single uniform variety all the time; every person in the world
is
>> to some variable degree multidialectal/multilingual. notions like "the
>> english language" or "the qubec dialect of french" are IDEOLOGICAL and
>> POLITICAL constructs, not linguistic realities."
>
>However, the practical application of such ideas as Dr. Allbright
>is putting forward is just as destructive of minority languages
>as the ideas that leave him flabbergasted.
>
>This is a particular problem when those who teach Scots as a
>subject at the universities (usually not Scots speakers
>themselves) are brought together with native speakers. In a
>recent incident at the University of the Highlands and Islands
>for example, when a well-known lecturer in Scots at Edinburgh
>University was brought in to "help" with a project involving
>the advancement of standardisation in Scots alongside Gaelic,
>the whole project (which had been running for something like
>two years, I think) was brought to a halt because she refused
>to accept that Scots should be taught as anything but a
>disorganised mass of idiolects - so that while the Gaelic
>speakers forge ahead with studies on signage, government
>use of Gaelic and so on, Scots speakers are resigning in
>frustration.

Nae better wey tae mairginalize Scots than uphaudin the myth that its a
"disorganised mass of idiolects".
Mak oot that fowk fae ae airt canna communicate wi fowk fae ither airts
acause o want o mutual intelligibility.
See that fowk, gin thay dae write Scots writes it uisin pseudo-phonetic
orthographies foondit on the perceived soond tae letter correspondencies
o
(staundart) English. Gie a deifie tae tradeetional leeteratur an lear,
dinna
lat on that leeteracy in Scots wis no sae lang syne an ordinar pairt o
life.
Pruif? Aw thae beuks an newspaper airticles etc. fae the bygane. A canna
believe aw thon maiter wis furthset gin naebodie could a) write it, an
b)
read it.

>Similarly in the field of Scottish writing, more and more
>writers, instead of learning Scots as a language (say, from
>the reading of the large body of literature available and the
>study of dictionaries and grammars) simply write how they
>_think_ they speak, resulting in small, strained pieces of
>writing not really accessible outside of their own dialect area.

Loads o thon leeteratur can gie us mensefu insichts intae hou 'general'
Scots can be written in a wey that Scots speakin fowk can unnerstaund.
Burns
an ithers managed nae bother in the bygane - an wis weel read athort the
kintra. E'en gin siclike leeteracy wisna teached in the schuil it maun
hae
been passed on in the hame.

>The truth is that for the survival of minority languages like
>Scots, a balance between Dr Allbrights ideas and those of his
>"flabbergastors" needs to be achieved: it needs to be standardised
>(hopefully in a flexible way) as far as its dialects will allow in
>order to make writing and teaching in it as widely accessible as
>possible, but the standardisation shouldn't be taken to a national
>level just for the sake of having a national language, as has
>happened with English.

A try an evite the wird 'staundartised' acause some fowk is feart this
means
tellin fowk that thair naitral speech is 'wrang'. Tho aiblins some
bodies
disna like the concept acause it micht lead tae thair pseudo-Scots bein
quaistent. Whaur thare's nae 'rules' ye canna dae ocht wrang.
Onie gremmar shoud be descreeptive - shawin whit's Scots an whit isna
(an o
coorse whit's shared wi English). The gremmar differs atween Scots
dialects
isna eneuch tae scomfish unnerstaundin atween fowk sae the gremmar o
onie
airt wad be richt sae lang's it wis richt Scots.
Monie 'tradeetional' spellin conventions is polyphonemic i.e.
pan-dialectical. Whaur pronunciation in ae dialect or anither canna be
predictit fae the spellin a 'local' variant shoud be alloud. Thae wirds
wadna be mair nor a haundfu in ordinar circumstances. Fowk wad see thae
wirds aften eneuch an suin ken whit's meant.
Whit's nott is 'raiglarisation' for tae forder cross dialect writin. Ye
shoud can read an pronounce it in yer ain dialect. Athoot siclike thae
hail
concept o haein "studies on signage, government use..." wad become a
hatter
o localised spellins etc. Then again monie o the 'academics' isna likely
gaun tae be uisin Scots for mair nor recitin couthie poetry sae onie
form o
'raiglarisation' isna neccessar. English will be uised for sairious
maiter.
Only a heidbanger wad write things lik this in Scots!

Andy Eagle

----------

From: Andy.Eagle at t-online.de (Andy Eagle)
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" [E]

Edwin AEDUIN at aol.com wrote:

>Dear Colin and
<snip>

>Does one need a secret language to bond? Schoolboys might but grown-ups
>shouldn't need it.

I'm not right sure whether you wish to imply that Scots is a 'secret
language'. If
it is, its not an awful well keeped secret because a number of us that's
never
met personally uses Scots on this list and I know for certain they
didn't
let me in on the 'secret'. Its our mother tongue. Yes we had the great
benefit of being teached English at the school. Many of us was also
teached
that our mother tongue was 'corrupt English', 'slang', 'just plain
wrong'
and of 'no value' and to me, by implication the same was thought about
my
community. If such conceits was putten forward on the basis of skin
colour
it would be considered 'out of order'. Is language discrimaination the
last
bastion of the 'nairae nebbit'?

Being bilingual - or in my case polylingual isn't a problem. Though I
don't
see how I should abandon my mother tongue for some perceived but
intangible
benefit. Where the use of a language other nor Scots is beneficial to
communication with folk that doesn't have the Scots I will use it in so
far
as I can speak (or write it).

<snip>

><"Real language"? Perhaps some explanation of this idea would be in order.>
>
>One that is spoken easily and naturally (follow me so far?)
<snip>

Do you mean like Scots and Low Saxon as spoke by native speakers?

<snip>
>So the benefits of printing and the written word mean what? Or are they
>detriments?

Was anybody implying such like?

<snip>
>...Where instant
>communication is required, such as when flying, this does seem the best
>system.

Lingua Franca in international communication. Seems to be English at the
minute, has been other languages in the past. Is foreign pilots expected
to
stop using their native language in the home?

<snip>
>Would it benefit anyone except an antiquarian if the once isolated dwellers
of
>the English Fens still spoke a version of brythonic
>unintelligible even to Welsh speakers?

What would  the benefits for me be if I stopped speaking Scots and
demanded
that other Scots speakers spoke to me in a more beneficial language like
English?

>"a man's a man for a'that" which should apply to language.

Ay! But a man athoot his langage is a man athoot a saul for aw that.
Pertendin tae be whit he isna an aw that (O coorse - for awbodies
benefit an aw that.)

Applies to women and all.

Andy Eagle

----------

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

> From: AEDUIN at aol.com
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2001.11.02 (05) [E]

Edwin quoting myself:

>    I don't think it is true that a language that's "spoken
>    easily and naturally as a real language" will become
>    standardised throughout its geographical area.
>    Standardisation only began to take place with the
>    invention of the printing press and the desire to
>    disseminate the resulting printed material throughout
>    a large area. _This_ is what happened with English.
>
> So the benefits of printing and the written word mean what? Or are they
> detriments?

As I explained before, I'm not talking about the benefits of
one language or medium versus another. So far, that discussion
has been entirely between you and Colin. And note that I
_still_ haven't said anything about the benefits of one
language or medium versus another!

The only point I'm making is that extremes of standardisation
and of non-standardisation are both detrimental to minority
languages.

> Previous mail went too soon and should have included both an
> acknowledgement
> of Sandy and, perhaps, a quote from Burns that "a
> man's a man for a'that" which should apply to language.

Why should the song apply to languages, then? As far as
I'm aware, languages have no intrinsic sense of self-worth.

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'

==================================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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================