LL-L 'Lexicon' 2006.06.21 (02] [D/E]

Wed Jun 21 18:51:32 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 * 21 June 2006 * Volume 02
======================================================================

From: 'Stellingwerfs Eigen' info at stellingwerfs-eigen.nl>
Subject: LL-L 'Sports'

Helge wrote:
> I had no intention to trigger off a discussion about football here

Okay, no football or soccer then, but it brought me up a question if there
are (more) very typicial LS sports like f.i. we do have in FryslÃƒÂ¢n it
'fierljeppen' (polsstok-ver-springen), 'keatsen' (some kind of 'jeu de
pelote') and 'ljip-aaisykje' (kiviets-eierenzoeken). Are there...?
Groetnis uut 'n smoek FryslÃƒÂ¢n,
Piet Bult

----------

From: 'Stellingwerfs Eigen' info at stellingwerfs-eigen.nl>
Subject: LL-L 'Lexicon'

Marcel wrote:
> Interesting. I always thought it was 'Ghanese', as we would say in Dutch.
Like
> 'Chinese', for example. I wonder if most people know this.

Beste Marcel,
Volgens de nieuwste versie van het Groene Boekje is er het zelfstandig
naamwoord Ghanees, mv. Ghanezen en een bijvoeglijk naamwoord Ghanees, mv.
(stellende trap) Ghanese. Je Dutch lijkt dan ook niets mis mee.

Wellicht vergelijkbaar heb ik vaak ruzie met het zelfstandig naamwoord
Stellingwerver, mv. Stellingwervers en het bijv.nw. Stellingwerver, mv.
(stellende trap) Stellingwerfse. Heel vaak gebruik ik bijvoorbeeld per
ongeluk bijvoorbeeld: de Stellingwerver krant, in plaats van het correcte:
de Stellingwerfse krant. Van een Stellingwerfse taalspecialist heb ik wel
eens gehoord dat het foute gebruik van het bijv.nw. niet zo erg is als het
een 'uniek ding' beschrijft, bijvoorbeeld onze Stellingwerfse
bijbelvertaling. In dat geval mocht ik het best wel 'de Stellingwarver
Biebel' noemen waar die eigenlijk 'de Stellingwarfse Biebel' genoemd zou
moeten worden.
Met een vriendelijke groet uit Stellingwerf,
Piet Bult

----------

From: 'Kevin Caldwell' kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
Subject: LL-L 'Lexicon' 2006.06.21 (01] [E]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lowlands Languages & Cultures [mailto:LOWLANDS-
> L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Lowlands-L
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:53 AM
>
> From: Helge Tietz helgetietz at yahoo.com>
> Subject: LL-L 'Sports' 2006.06.20 (02) [E]
>
> About the language use ("The Brazilians" instead of polite "The Brazilian
> team") you are absolutely right, but in my case it is also due to laziness

> using those shorter terms, however, what often puzzles me is when people
> even go a step further and talk about the team they support as "we" though

> they are, of course, not participating actively in the game. Do you
> actually have that in the US as well?

Yes, we do. Don't forget that in the US, youth and amateur sports programs
are usually connected with schools, so it is only natural for students and
alumni of a particular school to refer to the school's teams as "we".
Interscholastic sports rivalries are very strong in the US.

As for referring to a team as "the Brazilians" or whatever, I don't have any
problem with it. Perhaps it seems aggressive or warlike to some, but it
seems harmless to me. Better to have it out on the sports field and shake
hands when all is done than to take to the battlefield.

> From: R. F. Hahn sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Lexicon
>
> As for examples like "the Brazilians" instead of "the Brazilian team," I
> noticed
> our current president leading by bad example in the summit press
> conference in
> Vienna today. On the one hand he was going on about people being governed
> by
> "dictatorial and non-transparent regimes," but then he referred to
> governments as
> "the Iranians" and "the North Koreans." Which way will it be, Dubya?

Again, I think this is a perfectly natural figure of speech (synecdoche or
metonymy, or something like that). I mean, when the press reports that "the
White House issued a statement" or "Washington announced...", you don't take
those literally, do you? Of course not, because you understand that they are
figures of speech meaning "the administration" and "the US government"
respectively. In the same way, "the Iranians" in such a context means "the
Iranian government."

Kevin Caldwell

----------

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

Thanks, Kevin.

Call me naively idealistic and/or politically over-correct, but I have in mind
the symbiotic relationship between language and thinking, in other words the
circular energy that causes thoughts and views to be expressed in language and
language to influence or even determine thoughts and views. It's hard to
determine which came first.

When I hear "ordinary" people talk about "the Vietnamese," for instance, it is
very clear that they mean the Vietnamese people in general and all the
non-Vietnamese/-Annamese people of Viertnam thrown in with them (or not even
being aware of their existence). This bears out when you hear them generalize
about culture, behavior, "character," etc. So we have a clear case of
generalization, of stereotyping, something that has not done mankind any good,
something that tends to be liberally exploited in conflict situations (hence the
old tactic of stereotypically dehumanizing the enemy to determine public opinion,
a.k.a. hatred, and pro-war enthusiasm).

You and I and most people here might be able to understand and handle the part
about "figure of speech." But I doubt everyone can tell the difference between
figures of speech and mental pictures. OK, so this may be my personal Pacifist
leanings showing through (more than usual). I just think that this "figure of
speech" is unfortunate in the case of a president, especially one who otherwise
emphasizes that certain "regimes" don't represent the people they rule.

I don't think that the analogy of "the White House" is germane here, because it
is a body or institution consisting of elected and appointed individuals which
everyone (except the presidential pets) joins willingly and will eventually
leave. White House statements are made on behalf of the entire staff, which acts
as a team. A country, a nation, on the other hand, is a different thing.
Despite elections, no government truly and entirely represents all the people of
a given country, most of whom do not live there of their own free will.

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