LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.18 (09) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 18.SEP.2002 (09) * 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 B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Holger Weigelt <platt at HOLGER-WEIGELT.DE>
Subject: LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.14 (06) [E]

>From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Language change
>
>Luc,
>
>I'm sure you'll get some more informed and informative feedback to the
above
>(especially from our "native Americans"), but here's mine for the time
>being.
>
>> Now this is where I'd like to ponder a minute or two on : "native
>> Americans".
>
>That would be spelled "Native Americans" (as a name).  In  my opinion, your
>spelling would refer to anyone born in the Americas, although in reality it
>is not or rarely used.  Of course the two are pronounced identically, which
>is probably why "native American" is not really used.
>
>> 1) Who are they ? Can some South Americans or Canadians also be native
>> Americans ?
>
>Any ("pre-Columbian") aboriginals of the Americas, all countries included.
>
>I believe that the term "Native American" has trickled "down" from the
>worlds of anthropology, demography, administration, etc.  I also understand
>that it is meant to be a catch-all term for all aboriginal Americans,
>including the categories (each consisting of numerous nations)
traditionally
>referred to as "Indians," "Eskimos," "Aleutians" and, more recently,
>"Hawai'ians."  In US administration, for example, the category of "Native
>American" has literally hundreds of subgroups.
>
>> 2) Is the term acknowledged by the native American population
>
>By some it is, and by others it is not.  It tends to be accepted within
>unity-types of contexts, including all of the above-mentioned categories.
>Some groups or individuals of the "Indian" category prefer to be referred
to
>as "Indian," if not specifically by their actual ethnic names.  Sherman
>Alexie, a Spokane writer and film-maker and quite a comic, pokes fun at the
>name "Native American," calling himself "Indian," probably for shock value
>among "educated" "non-Indian" audiences ad interviewers eager to come
across
>as politically correct.  This name can not be used in reference to the
other
>above-mentioned categories.  As far as I know, "Red Indian" is no longer to
>be used.
>
>> "nen eskimo"...even if today other words have been proposed to denote
>people
>> iving in arctic regions...
>
>"Eskimo" is *definitely* out.  You need to refer to the various ethnicities
>(e.g., Inuit, Inupiak, Yupik), and collectively you may want to call them
>something like "Arctic nations/aboriginals" (which, however, is also
>problematic because it could include "Indians" of the Arctic regions).
Some
>people argue that these broad categories are for the bird anyway, hailing
>from eras of racial categorization.
>
>> 3) Aren't most (or all ?) of the American presidents native Americans
>> because they were born (~ native !) in the USA ?
>
>That would be "U.S. natives," "native-born Americans," as far as I know.
>
>> 4) How do I translate this in other languages ? In Dutch for example ?
>
>"Amerikaanse inboorlingen"?  German "amerikanische Ureinwohner"?
>
>> "ne neger"...
>>
>> despite the "political uncorrectness".
>
>Whatever fun one might want to poke at "political correctness" (oftentimes
>as an excuse), I strongly caution against using this name, most definitely
>in English, and most definitely in the presence of Africans or people of
>(part) African descent.  I have discussed this with a number of Americans
of
>African descent.  All of them felt extremely uncomfortable with the
>equivalents in other European languages as well, and they would not accept
>the argument that in those languages it does not inherently carry the same
>negative connotation.  No matter if they hear or read the Danish, Dutch or
>German equivalent, the association and connotations are simply too hurtful
>to most.  I am not sure how British people of African descent feel about
it.
>
>Perhaps it's simply time to drop all of these broad labels.  Isn't it
>sufficient to refer to specific ethnicities and nationalities?  Once you
>start going down the road of physical ("racial")characteristics, it sure
>becomes a bumby and very uncomfortable ride.
>
>Kumpelmenten,
>Reinhard/Ron
>
>----------

Hello Ron and all others who wrote about the above topic !
In German we have the problem of correct referring to people in former
times being called "Zigeuner" (EFLS "tóters") = gypsies. There are
different groups carrying different names and mostly it is not known to
which of them a person belongs. To solve this problem it has come into use
to talk about "Sinti und Roma". Despite my understanding that it should
be "Sinte und Roma" this might be OK but how to refer to a single person ?
We try to find out to which group this individual belongs and say he or she
is a Sinti or a Roma. Who knows that it must be Sinto / Rom if he is a man
or Sinti(t)za / Romni if she is a woman ? And to confuse it more a Sinto /
Sintiza might refer to himself / herself as Rom / Romni because this beside
it's denotion of descendance has the meaning of "man" / "woman", especially
a gypsy-man/woman in contrary to a Gadjo / Gadji, a non-gypsy-man/woman
also in the Sinte-language.
Give an advice how to manage political and linguistical correctness at one
time ?
Kumpelment / Greetings
Holger

----------

From: R. F. Hahn sassisch at yahoo.com
Subject: Language change

Holger,

I am by no means an authority in this area, can only give you my personal
opinion.  I think it is the Rom(a) and Sinte/Sinti communities that ought to
be consulted.  They have major (European/world) representation in Hamburg,
so it ought to be easy to get in touch with them.  I do have some such
contacts (though they are English and Italian speakers) and could ask at
some opportune time.

For English, I would simply suggest "Rom" or "Roma"* and "Sinti" as
collectives (singular, plural, male and female).  It gets complicated once
you get into gender in languages with relatively little inherent gender
distinction.  For instance, it is perfectly fine to refer to both males and
females as "Filipino," though some people (some would call them "show-offs,"
unless they are in the in-group) will refer to females as "Filipina" in
English.  You don't make the distinction elsewhere, so I would suggest
consistent non-distinction.

(* By the way, the native spelling is _rrom_, the _rr_ referring to a
uvular, "French," /r/, and the _r_ standing for a trill.  _Ghom_ might have
been a better spelling.)

In German and other gender-distinguishing languages this is more
complicated.  Using the native male vs. female forms would mean learning
special forms, and then there are different language varieties ...  However,
since both of these minorities are pretty much omnipresent and
well-represented especially in Germany, Austria and Northern Italy (besides
Slovenia, Croatia, parts of France, etc.), I think we, who have disregarded
or maligned them for centuries, perhaps now owe them the courtesy of
learning such special forms, e.g. _Rom_ vs. _Romni_ and _Sinto_ vs.
_Sinti(t)za_, *if* this is preferable to *them*.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.:

> >becomes a bumby and very uncomfortable ride.

Obviously I misspelled one word: it should have been "bumpy."  Sorry.

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