LL-L "Anniversary" 2005.03.17 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 17.MAR.2005 (08) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.03.17 (03) [E]

Arthur,I really enjoyed "so wraínda", and the Gothic script transcription!
As many who are interested in Germanic linguistics I read some about
Gothic too, and know it's the most difficult language of the group.
Nice to compare with the -relatively much younger- Old Saxon and Old
English versions. An Old Norse version would finish it off, together maybe
with an Old High German one?

Lowlands Saxon never existed as a single language, in one way. But what
does that mean? That it wasn't spoken - not to mention written - exactly
the same from place to place, region to region, or country to country?
That isn't the case with hardly any language, if not none at all...
Orthography habits in the old days didn't say much, when so little people
knew how to write at all. But we can also try consider the different
varieties of Low Saxon as a part of that language, both nowadays and long
ago. E.g. the areas in the Eastern Netherlands that are seen as Low Saxon
speaking these days, historically were Chamavian, i.e. Low Franconian.
But the present dialects share a sufficient amount of features with Low
Saxon in the Northern Netherlands and in Germany, and are quite different
from neighboring Low Franconian dialects, so we call them Low Saxon.
And, very important as well, we recognize ourselves in the related Saxon,
and feel a kinship based on a common language. At least many Dutch LS do.

And a common spelling for a common language helps to confirm that feeling
The misunderstanding - it took me some time to understand myself - often
is that striving after a common orthography is striving for a new, uniform
standard language, and that an idea many dislike. But that is not the
purpose at all, it's just meant for trying to make it easier to understand
each other's LS varieties, without being confused by the quite disturbing
differences between German and Dutch-based spellings, because that gives
us the idea there are two totally different languages, in stead of one
written in two different ways. And, very important as well, as a seperate
language Low Saxon deserves its own orthography, based on the phonetics of
itself, not on those of its more or less related neighbours.

Ingmar Roerdinkholder

>From:  Arthur Jones <arthurobin2002 at yahoo.com>
>I have been following the recent contributions of Peter Snepvangers,
>Ingmar Roerdinkholder and your goodself regarding the politics of
Lowlands (Saxon >and others) language survival. All of your insights and
arguments are both
>inspiring and well formulated. Further, all show a keen awareness of the
>twin perils of governmental alloofness and community apathy.
>
>Did Lowlands Saxon ever exist as a single language? I doubt it. I doubt
>any "language" ever did. Languages are purely organic: the most intangible
>part of our existence, apart from music, a closely related development.
>They change, shift and grow constantly. There probably never was a single
>Proto-Indo-European language. I visualize languages more like a spiral
>nebula, throwing out new and separating languages from a whirling core.
>
>But then, of course, I'm just weird.
>
>Together with my submission of a Gothic version of The Wren, I wrote a
>postscript about the extinction of the Gothic language that contained some
>impressions about language survival. They might be applicable to this
>discussion, and I would like to ask Ron to place it, in whole or in part,
>into this list discussion.

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