LL-L "History" 2005.09.21 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 21.SEP.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
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: Karl-Heinz Lorenz <Karl-Heinz.Lorenz at gmx.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.09.20 (14) [E]

> From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.09.20 (08) [E]
>
> Fascinating Karl-Heinz, I never knew that.  But the point I was making
> about
> English/Scots involvement was being an actual part of the Greater
> Lowlands,
> rather than of Britain sticking its political oar in! (England hasn't had
> a
> government since 1705).
>
> Paul

Hi Paul!

Maybe it's also interesting for you to know, that the creation of Low Saxony
HG "Niedersachsen" as a german federal-country (in HG "Bundesland") was an
idea of the english occupants after the war, or at least promoted by them.

When Churchill thought of a north-south separation of Germany he was
certainly motivated by the fact, that nazi-Germany was nothing else than a
fatal result of the combination of a barbarous concept from Southern Germany
with Prussian militarism.

The circumstances after the decline of the nazi-"Reich" brought the
west-east division into BRD and GDR, which was the political end of Prussia,
although some historian say, that the GDR was nothing else than a communist
Little-Prussia.

Karl-Heinz

----------

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

Thanks for all that, Karl-Heinz.  This is little-known stuff and very 
interesting.

Of course, a north-south separation had been achieved already by making the 
north the British occupation sector and the south the US one, with the 
French zone being negligible in the great scheme of things.  And, if you 
will, making the east a separate zone (under Soviet occupation) also in a 
way reflected earlier history, but that turned out to be a mistake in many 
people's opinion.

It really is interesting to imagine what would have happened had the north 
and the south been separated.  As you said, this might have made a bit more 
sense, historically, culturally, linguistically and also with regard to 
religious affiliation (the north being predominantly Lutheran and the south 
being predominantly Roman Catholic, a difference that has been playing a 
pretty important role.

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