LL-L "Language varieties" (was "Resources") 2002.04.19 (08) [E]

Fri Apr 19 22:19:57 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 19.APR.2002 (08) * 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: erek gass <egass at caribline.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.04.19 (04) [D/E]

Sometimes our own ethnocentrism sneaks in upon us, and we tend to follow
popular usages and definitions.  Because we're interested and intrigued
by the differences we perceive, Limburgish and Zeelandic, e.g., are
sometimes called "languages" and sometimes "dialects".

On the other hand, there are no such languages as "Spanish" (it's a
nationality -- the language commonly taught as Spanish is more correctly
"Castilian" (as opposed to Asturian, Leonese, asf, -- there are many
languages and dialects on the Iberian Peninsula) or "Chinese" (which is
a subgrouping of languages).

Just part of the fascination of the differences that somehow all contain
some common threads.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Erek, I don't completely understand what that has to do with
ethnocentrism, though I do agree that people waver between "language"
and "dialect," and the question as to which is what will *never* be
answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Sometimes names are just that ... *names*, and names that scientifically
and politically speaking are unfortunate gradually come to lose the
nationalistic or chauvinistic flavor by way of general acceptance, like
"Spanish" for what is really Castilian, or _Nederlands_ for what is
really (at least basically) standardized _Hollands_.  Most people no
longer care, because they know what the names denote.  Tagalog-speaking
Filipinos around here tell me that their language is called _Pilipino_,
thus is *the* language of the Philippines.  Why?  Because it's the
language of the Island of Luzon from which the country is governed.  I
have given up asking, "You mean Tagalog, don't you?" because I already
know that the answer will be "Yes, Pilipino," and even speakers of
Ilocano, Cebuano or Bikol refer to "Pilipino" as a "language" and to
their own languages (clearly independent ones) as "dialects."  Sometimes
it's just no use fighting the language nerd's battle.  Turks of Turkey
will often insist that the other Turkic languages of the Near East,
Central Asia and Northern Asia are all "Turkish," i.e., part of one
"Turkish" language, and most linguists and speakers of the other
languages have a problem with that.

What about "English"!  The language of the Angles?  What about Saxon,
Frisian and the others that contributed to the genesis of this language?

When someone says "Chinese," this in itself is no commitment as to
whether it is a language or a language group.  Yes, any linguist who is
politically free to do so will say it is a language group (of the
Sino-Tibetan family), while all Chinese authorities categorize it as one
language for primarily political (unifying) purposes, based in part on
the argument that it has one written language (which is really a
separate language of symbols with its own dialects).  Similarly, you can
make a case saying that Frisian is a language subgroup containing six
(some say eight) languages: Westerlauwer Frisian, Sater Frisian,
Continental North Frisian (including Tideflats varieties), Heligoland
Frisian, Amrum and Föhr Frisian, and Sylt Frisian.  (Traditionally at
least speakers of Sater Frisian and Insular North Frisian saw their own
varieties as separate languages and used "Frisian" only in reference to
Westerlauwer Frisian and Continental North Frisian respectively.)  But I
don't know how such divisions would go down with the Frisian language
movements.

I think it's all mostly a question of perspective and slant/bias.
Differences may seem great when seen on the inside, and they may seem
insignificant when seen from the outside.  And then there is the
question of emotional association/dissociation.  For example, in Eastern
Europe most Yiddish speakers used to refer to their language as _daytsh_
("German"), Yiddish-speaking men addressing each other anonymously as
_reb daytsh_ (Mr. German), and _(y)idish_ was really only a
sub-distinction ("Jewish German").  All that changed radically with the
Holocaust.

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