LL-L "Language survival" 2004.03.20 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 20.MAR.2004 (05) * 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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language survival" 2004.03.18 (08) [E]

Mike Wintzer wrote:
"I suspect that this is wishful thinking. In the best of cases what you can
reconstruct is the skeleton of a language because that is what you can
record, but the gist, the flavor, the perfume of a language will be gone
forever with its last speaker. What you resurrect is something else. It
shares vocabulary and grammar with its ancestor, but not the soul."

It all rather depends on how one goes about reviving a language. My
background is Cornish and Irish - two languages that have seen strong and
successful revival movements over the last fifty years and the last twenty
years especially. There are now more people with capabilities in Cornish and
Irish, and more native speakers (all brought to pass through the revival
movement) than a hundred years ago. I would rather language revival was
attempted - no matter how imperfect - than denigrated. All language planning
is, to some extent, "wishful thinking". Wishes are what provide the
motivation to speak ancestral languages once again.

Mike implies that revived languages are necessarily inauthentic, lacking the
"the gist, the flavour, the perfume". This is unfair and untrue: it depends
on how you set about reviving a language. Cornish is a good example of the
two extremes in doing this. There are, in fact (as I suspect is well known
here) three (actually, four) variants of Cornish.

One (which I consider is the best), Modern Cornish, tries to pick up where
the last native speakers left off - simple as that. It places a strong
emphasis of the phonological descent of the modern accents of West Cornwall
in describing the sound system of the last speakers. Unfortunately, it uses
an English-based orthography, so that the common Celtic word for 'land' (W.
tir, Ir. tir) comes out as 'teere'. The word 'head' is 'pedn'; the word for
'country' is 'gollaz'. The word for the language itself is variously
'Curnoack', 'Cornoack' or 'Kernuack'. Internationalisms (telephone,
television) are used. This is the Paternoster in Modern Cornish:

Agon Taze nye, eze en Neve,
Benegas bo tha Hanow.
Tha Gwlaskath gwrenz doaz;
Tha Voth bo gwreze,
En Noer pecarra en Neve.
Ro tha nye an journama gon bara pub death,
Ha gave tha nye gon pehasow
Pecarra tel era nye gava angye
Neb eze peha war agon bidn.
Ha na raze gon lewa en antall,
Buz gweeth nye thurt droeg.
Rag an Gwlaskath Che a beaw,
Han Nearth, han Worrians,
Rag nevra venitha.

The second variant underpinned the language revival movement almost from its
inception in the nineteenth century: Unified Cornish. As its named
suggested, Unified took a syncretic approach, synthesising a Cornish
language from the miracle play manuscripts of the late Middle Ages and Tudor
times. It borrowed heavily from Breton and Welsh to find Celtic cognates
that had not been recorded in the manuscripts. It is still the most popular
variant, but ironically produced a further variant, Unified Cornish Revised,
when a noted Cornish scholar sought to update it. The word for 'head' in
this variant is 'pen', the word for 'land' is 'tyr', the word for 'country'
is 'gwlas' (cf: W. gwlad). Neologisms replace 'television' (pellwollek) and
telephone (pellgowser). The word for the language itself is 'Kernewek' or
'Kernowek'. The Paternoster in Unified:

AGAN Tas ny ues y'n nef,
benegys re bo dha hanow;
re dheffa dha wlascor;
re bo gwres dha volunjeth,
y'n nor kepar hag y'n nef.
Ro dhyn hedhyw agan bara pub dedh oll;
ha gaf dhyn agan camweyth
kepar del eson nyny ow cava dhe¹n re na usy ow camwul war agan pyn ny.
Ha na wra agan ledya yn antel
mes delyrf ny dheworth drog.
Rag dhyso jy yw an wlascor ha'n power
ha'n gordhyans, bys vyken ha benary.

The last, and by far most controversial, variant enjoyed a short period of
ascendancy in the 1980s and 1990s. Called 'Kernewek Kemmyn' (Common
Cornish), it was the the project of one Dr Ken George, who spent a summer at
the University of Rennes devising a computer programme that would 'predict'
the sounds of Cornish as it had been spoken in the tenth century when the
language covered the whole of the country and had not been, as Dr George saw
it, 'corrupted' by English. He was, to use Mike's terms, determined to
capture "the gist, the flavour, the perfume" of the language in the halycon
days before its retreat. Unfortunately, what he came out with was appeared
to most language enthusiasts to be a bastardised, computer-aided Breton, not
Cornish. By delving so far back into an imaginary phonology, Dr George had
constructed a language which he called 'Cornish' but which most Cornish
speakers and enthusiasts felt decidedly uncomfortable toward. Afte! r a
brief flurry over excitement, Kemmyn's flaws were well documented and the
variant is now in decline. The rifts it produced in the revival movement
were the last thing the movement needed.

Thus, Mike, one should be careful how far one wants to take a unnecessary
dogmatic attachment to "the gist, the flavour, the perfume" of a language.
Languages change, develop, progress. Looking backward should not be a
substitute for looking forward - particularly when to do so blots out the
very ideal of reviving a language in the first place.

Criostóir.

----------

From: Thomas byro <thbyro at earthlink.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language survival" 2004.03.18 (08) [E]

Ron
I wasn't aware of the influence of European languages on Modern Hebrew.
Rather, I had thought that the major influence was the pronounciation
favored by the Sephardim, who are mostly from the Arabic speaking countries.
Most of the Orthodox in New York favor the Askenazic pronounciation.
Outside of New York  Modern Hebrew seems to be preferred and hearing Shabbat
rather thab Shabbes sounds bizzarre to me.

Tom Byro

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Etymology
>
> Hi, Críostóir, Mike, Lowlanders!
>
> I'll chime in here, if you don't mind, perhaps in a moderating or
mitigating
> capicity (or so I'd like to think).
>
> Perhaps neither of you is totally right or wrong, if there *is* a right
and
> a wrong here.  Or, better to say, both of you make valid points.
>
> Críostóir, you wisely added the phrases "particularly if there is an
> unbroken line of second language speakers (e.g., Hebrew, Cornish, Manx)"
and
> "providing has been recorded sufficiently."  Unfortunately, both of these
> things are easier said than done, given that even second-language
> proficiency has been discouraged traditionally (at least by way of
> withholding support), and given also that most of the recording
activities,
> or at least those that are of use to the average person, relied mostly on
> private initiatives and private funding, many a project fizzling out on a
> publisher's desk.  However, this is a different matter, not to distract
from
> your point.
>
> Mike, in my opinion, you too made a valid point in saying that resurrected
> languages are not the same as the originals on which they are supposed to
be
> based.  Even though you did not say so with so many words, I add to this
> that a resurrected language may be a fairly far cry from the original even
> if there *is* a lot of recording.  Let me play the devil's advocate and
ask,
> "So what?"
>
> Assuming that, for whatever reason, a given population embraces the idea
of
> resurrecting and reviving its ancestral language, should it really be so
> important that the exact "flavor" of the "original" is there?  Would the
> absence of this "flavor" or the presence of a new "flavor" make this
revived
> language worthless or less worthy?   Probably only if reviving the very
same
> "flavor" were the main purpose of the exercise.  I can envisage no
scenario
> in the real world in which this would be the case.  Usually the main
purpose
> of reviving languages is to create links with one's ancestral heritage,
both
> symbolically and practically (e.g., to preserve and continue a literary
> tradition and to assure easier access to ancestral literature).
>
> I would like to go even one step farther by saying that putting enormous
> effort into reviving what some people consider to be the ancestral
"flavor"
> would be likely to lead to overly artificial creations.  Surely the
purpose
> of the exercise should not be to go back in time but to reclaim a part of
> one's heritage and make it fit today's and tomorrow's needs.  Inevitably,
> the history of suppression, oppression, decline and demise will have left
> their traces in this supposedly resuscitated "construct."  And well they
> should, as far as I am concerned.  Why *would* you want to try to pretend
> that nothing happened between then and now?  Suppression, oppression,
> decline and demise are parts of that history, as are "foreign" domination
> and influences.  German and Dutch domination on Lowlands Saxon (Low
German)
> are a fact and can and should not be magically washed away, nor should
> French and Standard Dutch influences on Flemish and Zeelandic, English
> influences on Scots, etc.  They are parts of those histories.
>
> Take the case of Hebrew, which Críostóir mentioned.  In many ways, Modern
> Hebrew is a far cry from biblical and liturgical Hebrew, even from
> scholar-specific conversational Hebrew used occasionally in international
> settings in pre-modern times.  So what?  Does it make it worthless and
> useless?  I don't think so, and I dare say neither do millions of speakers
> (including many native speakers) in Israel and around the world.  Modern
> Hebrew is perfectly well adapted to and suited for all spheres of life
here
> and now.  At the same time there is a strong, albeit it not perfect, link
> between it and the ancestral versions.  What more would you want?  Today's
> Israelis and other Hebrew speakers are aware and justly proud of their
> ancient heritage.  But I hardly think that it worries a lot among them
that
> their version does not have the same "flavor" as biblical and liturgical
> Hebrew.  Centuries of diaspora all over the world have left their marks on
> Modern Hebrew, or, better to say, are imported flavors, which should come
as
> a surprise to no one.  After all, the act of resurrection was relatively
> brief.  The processes of reviving and reinvigorating that followed
> resurrection were left in large part to the actual users of the language
and
> thus took place in a fairly "organic" sort of way, planned neologisms
often
> being abandoned in favor of "organically grown" ones.  Hence, there is a
> multitude of influences from the languages of the world.  That's the
reality
> and the history of its speakers and their ancestors.  Why should it *not*
be
> there to add new flavors and perfumes?  (Sure, for various reasons I
> personally would have liked Modern Hebrew to have been influenced more by
> Arabic, its Semitic sister language, than by North European languages.
> However, predominance of Eurocentrist and "anti-Orientalist" sentiments
and
> powers are a reality, besides the fact that millions of European
immigrants
> simply would have had a very hard time acquiring the true Semitic
> pronunciation that Ancient Hebrew had.  However, this is my personal
> feelings and should not be seen as subtracting from my argument.)
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

----------

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

Tom,

Here just briefly, since it's non-Lowlandic.

Initially, Modern Hebrew was based on Sephardic Hebrew pronunciation.  This
means that for instance old <th> was pronounced as /t/ (rather than as
Ashkenazic /s/), long /o/ was pronounced as /o/ (rather than as Ashkenazic
/oi/), and long /a/ was pronounced as /a/ (rather than as Ashkenazic /o/).
This has to do with planning or intentions.  What happened in addition is
that, as immigrants acquired Hebrew, the language acquired a blend of
European "accents," since most immigrants were European, spoke Hebrew as a
new language, and dominated in various ways.  Not all Sephardim came from
North Africa, but many of them came from France, Italy, the Balkans, Turkey,
the Americas, etc., and they did not pronounce Hebrew with Arabic accents.
When I lived in Israel I knew many immigrants from North African countries
whose Hebrew, if they knew it before immigration, sounded "beautiful" to me,
much like I imagine Ancient Hebrew to have sounded.  They were the only ones
who distinguished all the old phonemes that are still represented in
writing.  However, at least the young ones among them quickly adopted the
"European accent," having gotten the message that "Oriental" accents and
culture were not to their advantage.

I hope I answered your question.

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