LL-L 'Language & genetics' 2006.09.26 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
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 * 26 September 2006 * Volume 03
======================================================================

From: clarkedavid8 at aol.com
Subject: LL-L 'Language politics' 2006.09.25 (02) [E]

 "You wrote:
> Hmm. Perhaps I'm an outsider speaking out of turn (though as an Englishman
> I
> might lay claim to being as "Lowlands" as anybody else). But I find talk
> of
> "blood in their veins" when it comes to language issues, a trifle
> disturbing....

Sorry- I can't follow at this point!
What's wrong with this remark?
Please pardon me if I used any expression with a doubtful meaning. Just put it
into the file for my own language insufficiency.
The term (in German)'ein Tropfen Blut in den Adern' just and only means for one
individuum to stand in any genetic relationship to another individuum.

Why should'nt it be mentioned in a discussion about more than thousand years old
linguistical and historical relations?

I'd be grateful if you'd give me some further explanations so I perhaps can
avoid a faux-pas in future.

Sincerely

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm"
 
With regard to genetic and linguistic identity, one inconsistency in Nazi policy
has occurred to me. Many of the people in the Ruhr had Polish surnames and were
the descendants of people who had come from Poland a couple of generations
previously, and had tended to marry other Polish immigrants, not Germans, even
though they were German citizens and spoke German as a first language. I have
never heard of any Nazi progrom against them, even though genetically, they must
have been virtually identical to the Poles in Poland. Why were the Poles in
Poland to be slaughtered or deported to Asia, while the people of Polish origin
in the Ruhr were perfectly acceptable as "Germans"?
 
David Clarke

----------

From: clarkedavid8 at aol.com
Subject: LL-L 'Language politics' 2006.09.25 (02) [E]

 You wrote:
> Hmm. Perhaps I'm an outsider speaking out of turn (though as an Englishman
> I
> might lay claim to being as "Lowlands" as anybody else). But I find talk
> of
> "blood in their veins" when it comes to language issues, a trifle
> disturbing....

Sorry- I can't follow at this point!
What's wrong with this remark?
Please pardon me if I used any expression with a doubtful meaning. Just put it
into the file for my own language insufficiency.
The term (in German)'ein Tropfen Blut in den Adern' just and only means for one
individuum to stand in any genetic relationship to another individuum.

Why should'nt it be mentioned in a discussion about more than thousand years old
linguistical and historical relations?

I'd be grateful if you'd give me some further explanations so I perhaps can
avoid
a faux-pas in future.

Sincerely

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm"
 
The link between genetic ("blood") and linguistic identity is not straightforward
and naive assumptions about it have been exploited by extreme right-wing
politicians in the past. Is anyone doing any research into this area, or is it
too politically sensitive? For example, are the Hungarians more closely related
genetically to the Finns and Estonians or to the Germans and Romanians?
 
I once infuriated a Greek teacher by suggesting that the modern Greeks were not
the descendants of the ancient Greeks, but might be more closely related to the
Turks or even be the descendants of a Slavic tribe that had stolen the ancient
Greeks' language and culture and then murdered them. She launched into a tirade
against the Turks, who she said were Asian and weren't a bit like the Greeks, as
they had slitty eyes (not true, as far as I have seen). She also said that the
Greeks had been proven to have "Indo-European DNA". I tried to explain that this
was logically impossible, because there is no  such thing, but she wasn't
listening. She gave me 36% for my final assignment.
 
David Clarke

----------

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L 'Language politics' 2006.09.25 (02) [E]

    From: 'jonny' [jonny.meibohm at arcor.de]
    Subject: LL-L 'Language politics' 2006.09.24 (03) [E]

    Dear Paul,

    thank you for paying attention to my posting.

    You wrote:
    > Hmm. Perhaps I'm an outsider speaking out of turn (though as an Englishman
    > I
    > might lay claim to being as "Lowlands" as anybody else). But I find talk
    > of
    > "blood in their veins" when it comes to language issues, a trifle
    > disturbing....

    Sorry- I can't follow at this point!
    What's wrong with this remark?
    .......
    Why should'nt it be mentioned in a discussion about more than thousand years old
    linguistical and historical relations?

    I'd be grateful if you'd give me some further explanations so I perhaps can avoid
    a faux-pas in future.

    Sincerely

    Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

Hi Jonny,
 
My reaction might have come across a bit stronger than I intended - I did only
say "a trifle disturbing" after all!
 
It wasn't a serious worry, just that issues of language and "race", especially an
appeal to common ground on the basis of "blood" can be misconstrued, especially
when the language and genetics of those involved are German in any sense of the
word. There are a surprising number of lurkers just looking for evidence of
resurgent neo-fascism, and they'll find it whether it's there or not. An Old
English/Anglo Saxon group I belong to has turned up on a list of "hate" sites!
 
And I certainly have no criticism of your English mate! If my German, Dutch or
anything else were half as good I'd be delighted!
 
Paul Finlow-Bates

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language and genetics

Paul,

> There are a surprising number of lurkers just looking for evidence 
> of resurgent neo-fascism, and they'll find it whether it's there or 
> not. An Old English/Anglo Saxon group I belong to has turned up on 
> a list of "hate" sites!

This happened to this list, too, at least in the early days. Worse even, it
wasn't due so much to lurkers but to a couple of German academics that didn't
even bother to find out what we were really about, i.e., apparently didn't even
read the mission statement, or they read it through the glasses tinted by their
preconceived ideas. It was enough for them that (1) the word "Germanic" popped up
here and there and (2) we had the audacity to deal with Low Saxon outside the
German language scope and reach out across political borders to what we
considered the closer relatives. So they implied that we had designs that were
both fascistic and secessionistic.

As for registered lurkers and flame-baiters, in the early days one of them
accused me of being a closet Nazi and the other accused me of being a "flaming
commy." Well, at least this way there was some balance.

The word "Germanic" is still a touchy thing in Germany, in many circles even
within inoccuous contexts like "Germanic languages." In other words, the baby was
thrown out with the bath water, and Adolf and his gang are still dictating
people's choice of words, have been allowed to taint the vocabulary.
Paradoxically, though, the idiotic label _Indogermanisch_ is still being used
instead of _Indoeuropäisch_ ... (unfortunately in the Dutch-speaking world as
well). "Go figure," as Americans say. It don't have to make sense now, right?

Cheers!
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.
======================================================================