LL-L "Language varieties" 2006.02.06 (04) [E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Mon Feb 6 21:15:51 UTC 2006
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 06 February 2006 * Volume 04
=======================================================================
From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2006.02.06 (07) [E]
I wouldn't call that spying either, Gabriele, in fact I have the
experience that most people are really delighted when they get some
attention for their language our dialect, especially if you show a little
knowledge and sincere interest. For me personnaly this has often been a
good way to open contact. As the Dutch say "it can break the ice between
people".
Of course there are speech communities, also in some Low Saxon areas in
the Netherlands, where people feel a bit ashamed or embarrased when
outsiders hear their language, because they are often told in the past
that their dialect is inferior and they speak a broken kind of Dutch.
So they may feel reluctant to share it with strangers.
But as you say, Gabi, these are 'your own people', so they would bear some
spying from you, don't you think. And if they don't, you could hide a few
microphones in their stables and Weckkellers, ne?
Groentes
Ingmar
>From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Language varieties
>
>But, Gabriele, who was talking about spying? Is *this* how you look at
>language research and recording: as spying? If so, this may somehow
explain
>our different views and approaches, for I have never entertained the
thought
>of language being a private, secrete commodity, although I can see some of
>Sandy's points about ownership.
>
>I have never in my life thought of linguistic, ethnic, cultural
or "racial"
>communities as closed societies, though I know some people do. In other
>words, I do not perceive my or other people's languages and cultures as
>having fences around them, as being inaccessible to non-members. Much
>rather, I view all of them as being parts of humanity's common treasure
>trove. Whilst individual pieces may have been created by and belong to
>certain groups, others may at least admire them, may even be permitted to
>touch them.
>
>This may very well not be a matter of right and wrong but of different
>_Weltanschauungen_.
>
>What about disciplines like biology, especially zoology? Doesn't that
>constitute spying on our fellow creatures then? Or is this different
>because humans have supposedly been given dominion over animals?
>
>I'm not attacking or judging you or your views. I am merely trying to
>figure this one out so as to better understand where you are coming from
in
>case this sort of issue comes up again (and this is more likely than not).
>
>Best wishes,
>Reinhard/Ron
>From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
>Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2006.02.05 (06) [E]
>
>Ron wrote:
>>I know you have more than your fair share to worry about right now. But
>>when things are better for you we might have you be our emissary and work
>>your charm (and I know you have it in you somewhere ;-) ) to shmooze up
at
>>least a local big-shot that can get us a recording or something of the
>>sort.
>
>What?? Spy on my own people???
>
>Gabriele Kahn
----------
From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2006.02.06 (07) [E]
Ron wrote:
"But, Gabriele, who was talking about spying? Is *this* how you look at
language research and recording: as spying? If so, this may somehow explain
our different views and approaches, for I have never entertained the thought
of language being a private, secrete commodity, although I can see some of
Sandy's points about ownership.
I have never in my life thought of linguistic, ethnic, cultural or "racial"
communities as closed societies, though I know some people do. In other
words, I do not perceive my or other people's languages and cultures as
having fences around them, as being inaccessible to non-members. Much
rather, I view all of them as being parts of humanity's common treasure
trove. Whilst individual pieces may have been created by and belong to
certain groups, others may at least admire them, may even be permitted to
touch them.
This may very well not be a matter of right and wrong but of different
_Weltanschauungen_.
What about disciplines like biology, especially zoology? Doesn't that
constitute spying on our fellow creatures then? Or is this different
because humans have supposedly been given dominion over animals?
I'm not attacking or judging you or your views. I am merely trying to
figure this one out so as to better understand where you are coming from in
case this sort of issue comes up again (and this is more likely than not)."
I think you took me a little too seriously here. My remark was
tongue-in-cheek, but not entirely. I would no sooner ask may older
neighbours to allow me to drag their very own language out into the open
than I would ask them to appear on the Big Brother show in a G-string. It is
simply not done. I would rather see a language like that die out in dignity
and peace, than having it dragged out into the open by avid linguists. I
have similar views about anthropology, by the way.
Similarly, I however, object to any kind of "research" that will kill, hurt
or impair living organisms for "scientific" reasons. And, frankly: I became
a biologist because I wanted to understand, for myself, what it feels like
to be a camel, a tick or a willow - not publish to millions of curious and
often reckless people who might then cause damage with what I have
"betrayed". I am the rare sort of scientist who observes and enjoys, but
doesn't like to tell - I have never much enjoyed sharing my findings and
insights in discussion, because it felt all wrong. That is one of the
reasons why I work in a different profession today. If I found out that dogs
could actually speak, I would keep it to myself, because they very obviously
do not want that fact widely known, even if they trust me enough to tell me.
So, if, by any chance, I came across a community of, let's say, a hundred
people who were the only ones left in the world to speak a certain archaic
language - I would not tell you. Never. Because it would belong to them, and
be more private than their "privates", and it would be their choice entirely
whether they want to make it public, or not. Remember, in many cultures it
is a very bad idea to say your "true" name, because it would give people
power over you. It may be a treasure trove, but it is not yours for the
taking, unless it is freely given, shared and broadcast, and thrown to the
linguists who can then write important papers and feel very smug (unless
they promised to do nothing but "admire and touch", and then broke their
promise the way anthropologists and archaeologists have done for centuries).
I certainly think there are enough languages in the "public domain" for
linguists to have fun with. Let's not be greedy. Like Sandy said, there is
such a thing as ownership.
Gabriele Kahn
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties
Thanks for clarifying that, Gabriele.
I knew it was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but I also heard Dr. Freud call in
the background "Aha! Now vee ah gettink too ze trueß off ze mettuh!" And I
think that's great, because it gives me a much better sense of where you are
coming from, and that is likely to avoid "discussing" in circles in the
future and getting all wound up in the process.
As I said, I have no intention (or right) to judge your views, just want to
be aware of them.
The only challenging remark I cannot help making is that it would seem
logical to me to extend this to all areas of human culture and to include
music, that your views should therefore also limit performance of folk and
period music and song to the people to whom they supposedly belong, that you
would therefore have no business performing other folks' music, especially
where these are lesser known. But that's *my* thinking, and in my thinking
human expression -- both instrument and creation -- belong to the world, at
least to humans collectively, that there is nothing secret or private about
it.
The only possibly evaluating-sounding comment I have to make about it is
that it makes me sad that you seem to stereotype in a fairly cynical fashion
science and scientists as a bunch of heartless, exploiting fame-seekers.
While I grant you that quite a few scientists do fall into that category,
not all of them are as cold-hearted and ruthless as all that. Many of them
fall in the same category as do serious "amateurs" (and I don't see any
great distinctions between them other than economic ones). They are driven
by a sincere desire to understand human language (and cultural
anthropologists human culture) at its base. To do so you need to have a
comparative approach, need to know the possibilities and limits of variation
and permutation. Yes, many scientists in any discipline have acted
unethically, in part because of what I consider corruption in the academic
apparatus, not only because of ego-trips but also because of national and
international economic systems. But that in itself does not prove inherent
lack of ethics of the disciplines themselves.
I, too, have some serious reservations about the way some researchers and
museologists go about doing business. I have such great reservations
regarding certain museum displays that I have been known to lodge formal
complaints, particularly with regard to displaying human remains and
describing in the past tense "native" peoples whose descendants are still
around and continue modern varieties of the described cultures -- especially
where this offends the people involved. (This is a real issue for instance
here in the Pacific Northwest and in Australia.)
However, I consider all human languages as being parts of the "public
domain." As Ingmar mentioned above, most speakers of "obscure" languages
are very happy if you are interested in them and want to share them with the
rest of the world. So far, the only contrary cases I know of and/or have
experienced are the following:
(1) Sociolects within closed societies (e.g., specific men's and women's
languages in the Pacific region)
(2) Languages of secretive ethnic groups or sub-groups, including those
that due to inherent apartheid (such as caste systems) fear pollution
by way of contacts with outsiders (e.g., certain Roma groups, also
Irish Travelers)
(3) People with linguistic inferiority complexes and/or with experiences
of their languages being disparaged (as mentioned by Ingmar).
However, apparently you aren't altogether alone. I have heard of a couple
of casesof aged people, especially among indigenous Americans, being
ostracized by their peers because they shared their dying languages with the
world. I can't argue with that, for the most part because I don't quite
understand their thinking and try to respect it.
Beyond that, there appears to be no point in debating such views. As most
of you know, I personally think in terms of humanity, not only
"scientifically" but also privately and spiritually. I came into the world
wired that way, and the basis of my spirituality is that all creation is a
single organism, all perceived differences and boundaries merely ephemeral
illusions conjured up by fear and thereby perpetuating fear.
If this were the 1960s, I'd end with ...
Peace, sis! Peace, bro!
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.
======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list