LL-L "Language policies" 2002.09.04 (02) [E/S]

Wed Sep 4 18:48:37 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 04.SEP.2002 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 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>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because have 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>.
=======================================================================
 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: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language policies" 2002.08.31 (02) [E]

Gabriele wrote (quoting me)

>>In short,
>>it is not a case of 'reconquistadors' (is there such a word?) not being
>>tolerated by 'us', it is a case of 'us' not being tolerated by a group
>>of largely non-speakers of Scots, based mainly in Edinburgh where
>>perhaps less Scots is spoken than anywhere else in the country excepting
>>the Highlands, who dominate the so called 'Scots Movement.'
>
>Would that be the case because, in the Highlands, they are more
>concerned
>with preserving and reviving Scottish Gaelic?

Partly, but more fundamentally because - with some exceptions, such as
in the far North - Gaelic in the Highlands was replaced directly by
English, not by Scots, and there is therefore no tradition of Scots
there.

Andy an Sandy wrate:

>> Now for some 'accessible modern German':
>>
>> I vas taking my daughter to ze kindergarten. As ve crossed the road I
>> shouted achtung! jumping out ov ze vay as ze black audi sped past. Now
>> zat
>> vas a vorsprung durch technik!
>>
>> Of course it's German! Lexis: kindergarten, achtung, vorsprung durch
>> technik. Pronunciation: vas, ze, ve, ov, vay, zat.
>>
>> I rest my case.
>
>But surely what we could fair do with's "accessible modern
>English" for children speaks Scotch to can better read the
>language of the Sassenacks? I fine knows nobody speaks such
>and a language, but that's a matter by the way Scotch
>children in the beyond would be better educate in the
>English, with how they'll be bred up with English the like
>of what I'm scribing now?

Brilliant, you anes! Keep it up! Can I quote you?

Ian wrate:

>Here in Ireland we suffer from the 'first stage' still, although not so
>much
>'reconstructed' as simply 'constructed'.

Good point.

Just yesterday I was in a
>meeting
>where the prime lobbyists for Ulster-Scots culture used the terms
>'Ulster
>Scots movement' and 'Ulster Scots community' interchangeably, where it
>is
>quite wrong to do so. The 'movement' is but a small part of the
>'community'
>(which itself however defined does not cover the whole '*speaking*
>community' here, which is larger again), yet of course it gets all the
>coverage and then immediately denounces anyone who disagrees as a
>'detractor' or 'anti-Ulster-Scots' (the equivalent, perhaps, of
>'purist').
>
>It was noticeable also that the meeting sought to distinguish between
>those
>who *care* about Ulster Scots, those who *know* about Ulster Scots, and
>those who *can* do things about Ulster Scots (ie those in authority).
>Members of the 'movement' automatically assumed they covered the first
>two
>and their only barrier was the *can* bit, when in reality the *know* was
>somewhat lacking in their case too. In the example you give for
>Scotland,
>it
>seems whoever was giving out the grant confused those who *care* with
>those
>who *know*.
>
>In the case of Scotland I speak as an outsider, but it never ceases to
>amaze
>me how people write complaining about the Scottish authorities' attitude
>to
>Scots in *Scottified English* rather than *Scots*. They then claim that
>whatever they write is Scots, because they speak Scots. They fail to
>realize
>that what they actually speak is *English with Scots influence*

Of course, you also get Scots with English influence. In fact, even the
broadest Scots has some English influence (I don't know if anyone now
says 'anely' rather than 'only'), and Scottish Standard English is of
course influenced by Scots.

>that
>should not be confused with the real 100% 'pure' thing.

I don't know if there's such a thing as 100% pure Scots, but on the
other hand, if you have a philosophical position where _anything_ can be
Scots, and there is absolutely no 'bad' or 'good' distinction, then what
are you doing promoting it? Obviously what people already speak is as
good as anything else, even - perhaps especially - if it's standard
English.

It would in fact
>be
>far better for these people to make their written complaints in Standard
>English, and for them to justify doing so by making the point they would
>write in Scots if only the educational structures and resources were in
>place for them to learn!

In fact, the major characteristics of Scots - such as the verb rule
Sandy was talking about - are well documented. The article on Scots in
The Oxford Companion to the English Language discusses most of the
important ones. You obviously can't expect people in general to swot up
this kind of thing, but you would think that anyone writing a book for
school use would. Lorimer wasn't a Scots speaker, and he learned how to
write Scots before he translated the New Testament, with considerable
success. However, he was well versed in European minority language
precedents (I think he first gained an interest in translating Scots by
translating documents from minor European languages during the war)
unlike the current laissez-faire camp whose philosophical 'scunner'
against 'purism' means that if they were to actually learn something
about Scots they would be betraying the faith! It's a bit like the
Flanders and Swan parody of foreigners (ie, people who aren't English!)
playing cricket - 'and they practice beforehand, which ruins the fun.'

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

----------

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language policies" 2002.08.30 (12) [E]

Andy wrate:
>
>I can only agree with John's comments. Scots seems to becoming used more
>an more an 'ersatz' language for 'anarchist dyslexics'.

Schizolexics? Weel, I'v areddie inventit 'schizographic...'

I like yer conspiracy theory. The affcomes o't - ti bowster up standard
English - is true eneuch whither thay ken that's whit thay'r daein or
no. Iver thocht on writin a airticle?

John.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

==================================END===================================
 * 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
=======================================================================