LL-L "In the media" 2004.08.12 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.AUG.2004 (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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: Ben J. Bloomgren <godsquad at cox.net>
Subject: LL-L "In the media" 2004.08.12 (05) [E]

"Nazis spoke fluently English"...

It infuriates me when I hear Hollywood movies with Native Americans in them
and they assume some type of warped Chinese grammar or something. "I go to
white man village talk to chief. Squaw go with me." In my limited study of
Amerindian languages, and pardon my straying from the Lowlands, but I have
not yet found a language that exhibits grammar like that. Our continent's
languages stun me with their variety of unknown tenses and aspects (unknown
to the Indo-Europeans).


----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: In the media

Hello, Ben!  It's always nice to hear from you.

I agree with all you said (including what you said about American language
type diversity and what can be learned from it).

However, this Hollywood Injun talk ... Isn't that a thing of the past now?
At least I should hope so.  Doesn't it go back to before the 1970s when
Italian and Hispanic actors were used to play Native Americans, as though
Native American actors could not be found or at least trained ... or did not
fit the stereotype more likely.

Similarly, generic Hollywood "Orientals" with ridiculous accents and makeup
used to be played by people of non-Asian decent, such as Ricardo Montoban as
a most embarrassing devious Japanese.

African Americans started to be portrayed as real human beings and started
speaking "normal" English only when brave filmmakers dared to cast Sidney
Poitier in anti-racist movies, followed by a large entourage of African
American actors, some of them excellent.  Also "Black talk" is now only used
in movies in appropriate contexts and no longer in demeaning ways.

Similarly, "Hispanic" actors (whatever that means), mostly Cubans and
Mexicans, used to be portrayed in ridiculous and demeaning fashions (the
"fruit-on-the-head-and-bongo-banging" routine or the greasy Mexican draped
in shell cases).  We have come a long way there too, though I still hear
actors use English with Spanish chunks thrown in for ethnic flavor, and I
don't hear many Hispanic Americans talk that way.

I am pleased to see First Nation actors, mostly Canadians, playing
appropriate roles these days and even using American languages and fairly
accurate varieties of English (distinguished mostly phonologically).  Yet
again, you find only a handful of them playing virtually all "Indian" roles.
We have come a long way but have a bit to go yet, it seems.

I feel that Canada is leading the way here, showing First Nation people in
TV and movies in all sorts of roles, and their "Indian-ness" is not always
relevant.  Hollywood obviously uses this resource, and so far I have not
seen many Native American actors that are US citizens.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Steven Hanson <hanayatori at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: In The Media


"Most importantly, linguistic authenticity is hampered by the fact that most
people, foremost those in the States, hate subtitles, and subtitled movies
are far less marketable (i.e., make far less money) than those that are not
or have only the occasional subtitle.  People in "small" countries speaking
"small" languages are used to following foreign movies with subtitles (or
even without), and to them that is not impediment.  This is not the case in
"big" countries with "big" languages, where it is extremely hard to get the
average person accustomed to reading while watching.  Remember that most of
us here on the List can hardly be considered average in this regard.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron"

Exactly!  I honestly get the impression that we Americans are the linguistic
dunces of the world.  I love subtitles, and often watch movies in English
with subtitles just to better understand the movie.  It doesn't bother me at
all to read while watching.

P.S.  I like this list quite a bit.  :-)

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