LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.30 (10) [E]

Fri Oct 1 00:07:02 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 30.SEP.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: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.29 (14) [E]

Ian wrote:

> To be a little controversial, it is in fact usually dangerous for minority
> language activists - certainly those representing languages all but
> extinct - to seek a place for that language within the structures of
formal
> government at the expense of its genuine day-to-day social use. Swiss
German
> is the ultimate example of doing the latter but not the former.

I feel that for lesser used languages starting from the top with 'official
translations' probably does more harm that good especially when the versions
presented come accross as contrived and are often unintelligible to native
speakers - although wide-spread 'illiteracy' in the lesser used language may
play a part here cf. the use of Scots in Ulster.

Swiss german is an interesting case. My experiance is that there is no
stigma attached to speaking Zwiss German in all contexts. Even if the
written language is 'standard German'. What really impresses me is the use
of Swiss german on the TV Station 3Sat. This is a public service station
with contributions from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Pollitical
disucussion by Swiss Polititicians etc. are usually always in Swiss German
and German subtitles are provided. One Presenter switches between standard
German and Swiss if it was the most natural thing in the world - so it
should be.

>Catalan and
> Welsh are perhaps successful examples of doing both (although both always
> remained in strong social use in large areas even before their respective
> revivals).

Recently Eilidh Bateman Presented the results of her 'on site' investigation
of the Catalan Situation and what scots my learn from it to the Scots
Language Society. Unfortunately I arrived near the end of her presentation
and can't say much about it. Though this is due to be published in the
future.

>However, is it really a good idea for Low Saxon, or Scots, or
> Limburgish, to seek a position in formal (often government) translations
or
> as part of parliamentary proceedings before they have regained sufficient
> ground in general social use? Such calls run the risk of turning an
> otherwise disinterested general public *against* a language movement -
never
> a good idea in a democracy, no matter what the value of that movement's
> cause.

Exactly. Bottom up. Build up use and ranges of uses and respect for such.

> Indeed, the reason Esperanto succeeded more than other ALs was nothing to
do
> with its structure or ease of us, but rather precisely that its supporters
> realized the need for a critical mass of social users. They didn't quite
> make it, of course, but that's a subject for another list.
>
> For us, my point is that the battle between moves towards a single
> administrative international language (i.e. English) and towards support
for
> the development of the use of regional languages need not be mutually
> exclusive.

Emphasis on Bilingualism or bidialectialism should be to the fore. Breaking
down the traditional assumption that humans can somehow only cope with one
language. The spread of English as a lingua franca clearly shows what a
nonsense such attitudes are.

Andy Eagle

----------

From: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.30 (06) [E/V]

Ron wrote:

> So, it seems to me that speakers' awareness and confidence are essential
> ingredients.  If languages play second and third fiddle, are excluded from
> official business, then that is not a huge step away from the closet
> existence they used to lead, and it does little to boost their speakers'
> confidence.

> In my opinion, boosting speakers' and writers' confidence is of great
> importance.  One way of doing this is demanding that the languages be used
> in certain official functions at least (e.g., at weddings upon request).
> Another one is to publish more than the homegrown literature, namely also
> "modern" literature, drama, etc., and use the languages in the electronic
> media in all sorts of contexts.  This would go a long way in removing the
> unnecessary assumption that these languages are inferior and limited,
> assumption held even by many native speakers.

I think most would agree with that. The question is perhaps, what is the
best way of going about achieving this. Approaches will of course vary
depending on the exact situation each language (community) finds itself in.

Andy Eagle

----------

From: Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais <goidel.glas at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.30 (06) [E/V]

Latha math, Lowlanders:

Roger (?) wrote:
> but "Esperanto" is neutral and could be universally
> accepted.

I can't but disagree here: Esperanto is Eurocentric, and even as a
Eurocentric language it is mainly derived from Germanic, Romance and
Slavic. Esperanto is a *European* language first and foremost when it
comes to how it was derived. Any language can be a lingua franca;
Esperanto would be a fine one, in my opinion. But it is by no means
neutral.

Beannachdan,
Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais

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