LL-L "Language competency" 2005.07.05 (02) [E/LS]

Wed Jul 6 03:31:06 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.JUL.2005 (02) * 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: "Holger Weigelt" <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
Subject: "Language competency"

> From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
> Subject: Language Use
>
> Dag, al Lowlanners, Reynhard,
>
> (English below)
>
> mennigmool dücht mi, wat wii tou unkrit'sch sünt, bii uns eegen
> LS-Moddersprook un', allmeend, in uns Minnerheeden-Tick.
> Een Deel dörft wii bi al uns Engaschemang ne vergeeten: de Tiiden, as, in
> vergoon Joor'n, uns dytschet 'Platt' as 'n Sprook föör de 'Hölpschölers'
> güll'n dee, hett woll wat Spoor'n mookt.
>
> Biispeel:
>
> LS: _dat mookt 'n jo ne_
> Normool schull jedereyn anneem'n, dat heyt G: 'das macht man ja nicht', E:
> 'anyone shouldn't do that'.
>
> Man- dat ward bruukt in de Meen': G: 'das macht doch nichts', E: 'it
doesn't
> matter at all'.
> Mi dücht, dat is een heel eygenwillig' Snack, un' mennigmool koomt mi dat
> recht verkrellt vöör.
> Liekers- door bün ick mit oppwussen, un' bün seeker: sou un anners ne
waard
> dat hier bruukt.
>
> Is dat 'leeg' Nedderdütsch, wat ick ne bruuken schull? Ick mach 't ne
doun;
> ick höör tou jem, tou de Lüüd, de opp disse Oort snacken dout.
>
> ***
>
> Hi, all Lowlanders and Ron,
>
> sometimes I make some thoughts about our uncritical admiration for our (in
> my case: LS) minority-languages. Could it be a kind of 'common' tic, being
> within all of us, perhaps?
>
> One thing we should never forget in our engagement: those times, when all
> regional languages had been suppressed, have had their consequences. Our
> languages were aspected to be 'just for uneducated people', and (for my
> region I am sure) that opened some possibilities for bad abuse.
>
> For exampel:
>
> LS: _dat mookt 'n jo ne_
> Everyone should translate it to G: 'das macht man ja nicht', E: 'anyone
> shouldn't do that'.
>
> But- it is used in an absolute different sense: G: 'das macht doch
nichts',
> E: 'it doesn't matter at all'.
>
> I for myself feel it to be a very outside term, and sometimes I find it-
> well, not being in accordance to all LS-rules.
>
> But- I grew up with it, and so I'm sure: it's used this way and not
> different.
>
> Is it kind of bad LS, at the end, I should keep off? I'd feel like a
> traitor, then.
>
> Greutens/Regards
>
> Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm
>
Hello Johnny !
Of course the times when Low Saxon was supressed and regarded to be a
dialect of uneducated people had a long lasting effect on language
competence of  actual speakers being one of the reasons for decrease of
speaking competence.
An other main reason is the dominance of German in the people's minds. In
times when German was mere a second language for most Low Saxon speakers
their thoughts were based on the structures and rules of Low Saxon but today
they think German and speaking Low Saxon for many of them is a kind of
re-translation.
I don't know what the "true" translation of Your example in the use of Your
area is but I know that many examples could be listed under the topic "false
friends" (we had that once on the list).
Let me give an example from Eastern Friesland Low Saxon:
- häi het 'n sğilt ofnōmen -
Most actual LS speakers would translate this as: "He has taken away a
(traffic) sign." (German: Er hat ein Schild abgenommen)  the true meaning
however is: "he has made a (portrait) photograph".
Or: Some time ago I read in a local newspaper's LS story:
- wi betrukken 'n hotel -
The writer wanted to tell: "we checked in in an hotel" (German: Wir bezogen
ein Hotel) but the real meaning of his sentence (he wasn't aware of) is:
"we attacked an hotel".
What I wanted to say with these examples is: What sounds to be the most
probable German translation might not be the correct one.

----------

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

Moyen, Holger!

Thanks for sharing your take of the matter, with which I wholeheartedly
agree.  Thanks also for illustrating this with a couple of examples from
Eastern Friesland Low Saxon (which, incidentally, is different enought
that I am more and more convinced it needs to occupy its own dialect group
with other Frisian-substrates North Saxon dialects, such as those of
Groningen).

As I said, I think your explanation is very much to the point.  I come
across such examples all the time, though not all of them may be as
"dramatic" as your examples.

German thinking frequently leads to the invention of Low Saxon words or
phrases on the basis of German patterns, "impromptu calques" or
"idiolectical calques," so to speak, inventions that fall into the
category of _Patentplatt_ (though with a chance of actually entering the
language).

I also frequently come across examples like yours, which fall into the
general category "false friends."  Your example of "to attack" reminds me
of the use of _an-grypen_ (<angriepen>) for 'to attack', on the basis of
German _angreifen_ 'to attack' (literally "to grip at").  However, if you
say for instance _Sey hebt em an-grepen_ (<Se hebbt em angrepen>) for
'They (have) attacked him' on the basis of German _Sie griffen ihn an_ or
_Sie haben ihn angegriffen_, I would out of context understand it to mean
'They touched him (roughly)'.  This may be all right in some dialects
(possibly in the wake of advanced Germanization).  However, 'They (have)
attacked him' would seem to me to be more authentically translated as _Sey
sünd/hebt em an-gaan_ (<Se sünd/hebbt em angahn>, lit. "They have gone at
him," not unlike British English "They had a go at him" in the sense of a
verbal attack).

And therein lies the predicament.  On the one hand you are happy if people
make the effort to use the language at all, and you don't really want to
discourage them by nit-picking, but on the other hand you are concerned
about grossly distorted, non-authentic lexicon and grammar being spread
(and thus the language losing much of the "charm" that lies in its
idiomatic wealth).  It seems to me that the best possible solution may be
more publication of literature in authentic idiom as well as good
reference material, and at the same time dissemination of the knowledge
that Low Saxon is not like German and cannot be translated literally from
German, that it is necessary to look up or ask about a word or expression
rather than make it up on the basis of German.

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