LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.10.29 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.OCT.2003 (10) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you 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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Language varieties


Beste Ron (en Sam),

I think you managed to give us a clear description of what the difference
could be between High and Low German. "Reality" is of course much fuzzier
than this classification. What should be done with the Franconian dialects
(I hesitate to use the word because the word dialect itself reflects
dialectical thinking...standard versus non-standard) for example?
Differences between Amsterdam and Frankfurt speech are enormous in my
opinion, even though they are both Franconian. Personally, I prefer to think
in shades not in black and white.

It's precisely this dialectical reasoning (thesis >< anti-thesis) that made
it possible to create terms like "upper" and "lower" varieties of a
language. "Divide and rule" has always been around. Sure I know that in the
beginning the words "hoch" and "nieder" were nothing but geographical terms,
but as you know, it's a small step from "nieder" to "niedrig" *s*.
Coincidence?

"Political" coinage if you're asking me. Local people seldom refer to their
own language in these terms. For the Bavarian-Austrian powerhouse this was
grist to their mill because linguistic variation was far less pronounced in
the northern plains than in the southern hills I believe. This makes me
wonder why the Prussians have never tried to promote Saxon at the time? Or
am I wrong?

Greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

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

Thanks, Luc.  Interesting points well put.

> Sure I know that in the beginning the words "hoch" and "nieder" were
nothing but
> geographical terms, but as you know, it's a small step from "nieder" to
"niedrig" *s*.
> Coincidence?

Nope, if you ask me.  Note that in terms of languages you now mean
"standard" when you stay _Hoch-_ ('high ...'), as in _Hochchinesisch_
'Standard Chinese' (which sounded utterly ridiculous to me when I heard it
for the first time).  So this implies hierarchical thinking.  _Platt-_
("flat ..." = "low ...") is also used with reference to other languages.
For instance, you commonly hear _Plattdänisch_ ("flat Danish"), besides it's
somewhat derogatory equivalent _Kartoffeldänisch_ ("potato Danish"), in
reference to non-standard Danish, particularly to Jutish dialects,
especially to South Jutish ones.  I wouldn't be one bit surprised to come
across *_Plattholländisch_ for (any) non-standard varieties of the
Netherlands and Belgium versus *_Hochholländisch_ or *_Hochniederländisch_
for standard Dutch.  Internationally more experienced German linguists use
_Standard-_ though.

> This makes me wonder why the Prussians have never tried to promote Saxon
at the time?

What?!  I think they were quite intent on uniting the new hotchpotch called
Germany.  Promoting a language of the north that southerners wouldn't
understand much better than they would Dutch or English would have been
counterproductive and would have made Bavarian opposition even more fierce
than it already was.  Standard German, having been influenced by dialects
from all over (including Saxon ones), was and is seen as an umbrella
language for the entire country, much like Standard Dutch is seen in the
Netherlands.  Besides, LS was already in the dumps at that time, and I don't
think that even more ambitious Prussian politicians seriously hoped to
"regain" the "Dutch"-speaking areas.  Most importantly, the Prussian
leadership itself used German, primarily dialects of the Greater Berlin
area.  They weren't exactly known for their support of minority languages,
Sorbian having had seriously losses during their reign.

I wonder what others think.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================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.
=======================================================================