LL-L "Language maintenance" 2007.03.21 (01) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L - 21 March 2007 - Volume 01

=========================================================================

From: Jonny Meibohm <altkehdinger at freenet.de>
Subject: LL-L "Pronomina" 2007.03.20 (01) [E/LS]

Beste Marcus,

(English summary below)

Du schreyvst:

Un Jonny, wenn du vun de Aboriginals schriffst, de noch archaic
originality and the special natural syntax harrn, dat kummt dorvun, dat
disse Lüüd keen Verständnis harrn för Regelwut un sprachliche
Wohlgeformtheit. De hebbt ruug un struppig reedt, so as de Gedanken gaht
un sik keen Kopp maakt för Regelns oder dat wat grammatikaalsch
inkorrekt ween kann. De moderne Minsch hett so'n rationale Mentalität,
de in korrekt un inkorrekt indeelt, de en Ünnerscheed maakt twischen
hübsch un missgestaltet, de de Welt sorteert un kategoriseert. Dat weer
för den Homo Buur op't platte Land eenfach kene Saak, de 'n Sinn möök,
dor över natodinken. De Lüüd hüdigendaags versöcht so to snacken, dat't
allens dalschrieven kanns. De Aboriginal weer nich so kopplastig, em
weer't egal, wat de Wöör för'n Reeg harrn, wenn man de Sinn so eben in
Reeg weer, dat dat passeer, wat he verlangen weer. Oder so...

Un' dat is bannig wiisen Kroom, dücht mii! Door hebb 'ck all fooken öber
nodocht, wat disse 'eynfachen' Lüü' öber 'eynfache' Sooken 'eynfach' snakkt.
Un' opp disse Oort hebb ick miin 'Platt' leyhrt, mit eyn Vokabular, mit dat
Du al'ns seggen kannst, wat för dat Leben mang Weyten un' Woter, Ossen
un Obsthannel wichtig is'. Un jüst sou waard dat hier jo vandoog noch
bruukt- al de 'gestelzte' un öberklouke Geel-Snakkerey mookt wii leyber opp
Hough-Düütsch.
Disse Oulen weyrn obers amend ne döösig, harr'n man net eyn lüttere Welt mit
'n minner viigeliinschet Regelwaarks. Dey bruuken nix opp tou schriiben, dey
harr'n al'ns in jemmer Köpp, und dat wuur' van eyn Generatschioon an de
anner wiider geeven.

Reineke un anner Lüü' meynt fooken, wat Neddersassisch door tou schood föör
weyr, un door is ouk 'wiss wat Wohrheyt an. Jüst Reinhard kann allerbesten
Kroom opp Platt schriiven, mit eyn groud' un riik' Vokabular. Hey helpt opp
disse Oort, wat oule Woyr ne vergeeten waard, un dat schall ouk geyrn sou
bliiben!
Man- ick koom door jümmer weller mit inne Bredullie, dat ouk as Deyl van
*miin* Sprook tou akzepteyr'n; dat is opp jichenseyn Oort jümmer noch
'fremd' föör mii. Miin Prooten un miin Schriiben, dat sünd jümmers noch
verscheyden' Welten; dat eyrste koomt van 'n Hatten, dat tweyde uut dennen
oul'n döösigen Kopp... Naja- bii lütten warr 'ck door joo schiints ouk wat
sachtmödiger mit, man ick kann jümmer noch reell fuchtig waar'n, wenn
eynkelde Lüü anfangt, de Lautverschiebung in 't Houghdüütsche t'rüch tou
dreyh'n un denn tou seggen, dat weyr nu Neddersassisch. Dat schall 'ck woll
amaleev ne lous waar'n!

(Mit Diin Verlööv...) *English summary Marcus:*

Jonny, when you write about the aboriginal LS-speakers, who still have
an archaical originality and special syntax then this is a result of the
fact that these people hadn't much sense for any 'furor grammaticalis' and
linguistical finesse. Their language was rough and rifty, just like the
thoughts came into their tongue- no matter for grammatical correctness.
Modern people have a more rational mentality, weighing everything for being
correct or uncorrect. They always distinguish between nice or uggly, and
they sort and categorize the whole world. This wasn't important for the
'homo agriculus'; he didn't make many thoughts about this. The aboriginals
weren't so 'top-heavy', so much ruled by their heads: they didn't mind for
the sequence of the words as long as they made a recognizable sense. Or
so...

*(my answer:)*

And I guess your thoughts to be wise! I myself often made thoughts about
these 'plain' people using a 'plain' language for 'plain' matters. And this
was the way how I learned LS, with a vocabulary enabling to express
everything which is necessary for a live between wheat and water, cattle and
fruit trading. And exactly this way it is still used today; if we come to
any overblown, intellectual themes we prefer to use Standard German.
But- these oldies weren't stupid at all; they just lived in a smaller
universe with less difficile rules. They weren't forced to write down
anything, they had everything in their minds and that could be handed down
to the next generation.

Ron and others often say that it's a waste to use LS just this way, and I
think they're quite right at this point. In special Reinhard is very capable
in describing matters and relations in LS with a good and rich vocabulary.
This way he helps to keep old, nearly forgotten words, and so he should go
on!
But I for myself again and again come in trouble to accept this as part of
*my* language; in a certain way it's still strange for me. My talking and
writing still are different worlds. The first one comes out of my heart and
the second one from the 'old, stupid' head... Ok- I think I'm on the best
way to become gentler and gentler here, but I still get upset when special
people just turn back the wheel of the 'Lautverschiebung' in Standard German
and then sell it as 'original' LS. I'm sure I won't get rid of this for all
my life!

 Allerbest

Jonny Meibohm

----------

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

Moin, guys, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

As far as I am concerned, there is little "right" and "wrong" here; it's a
matter of changes, contexts and choices.  In the long run, I believe we and
the language will be the richer.

Personally I am not really in favor of either extreme: guarding "purity" as
one extreme, and starting a orgy of free-for-all innovation as the other
extreme. Like Jonny, I'm definitely am not in favor of routinely
transforming German words according to what one thinks the sound shifts are,
because we are dealing with more than just sound shifts.  (And, for the
record, some of my participation in suggesting neologisms were
tongue-in-cheek.)  Nevertheless, I see no basic problem with neologisms.
All languages have them, and all languages adapt to changes in various ways;
so why not this one?  Exempting it would be tantamount to preserving it as a
museum exhibit.  In that case why should neither touch nor use it.

I find the Low Saxon language to be full of tools that can add great power
to expressions, especially in written compositions, with a plethora of
uniquely evocative words and colorful idiomatic constructs.  It is only that
most people are not familiar with many of those because their acquaintance
with the language is very shallow and from a German vantage point.  I love
studding my wordcraft with those gems and think it would be a shame if they
fell by the wayside.  Wider use of the language and greater freedom of
literary experimentation as well genre and style expansion would go a long
way in bringing out this littled-tapped resource.  However, this
necessitates in large part more daring on the part of publishers.

I am tired of the argument that the language should stay in the village.
There have always been many townsfolk and city dwellers that use it, though
it is true that since urban supression of the language started in earnest it
has been mostly in rural corners that it has been used routinely.

As for pronouns, obviously Marcus has a point in saying that familiar du and
ji are the default second person pronouns among speakers of the language.
This is definitely so in most villages, because, as Marcus noted, there is
not much of a social scale, if any.  However, I have heard villagers
addressing "dignitaries" such as teachers, clerics and politicians with
polite Se.  It is true, though, that even in cities the use of the language
facilitates the path to being on first name basis and using familiar du and
ji, among the oldtimers at least if the speakers are roughly on the same
social level.  My point is that it is an oversimplification to say that
familiar du and ji are the only second person pronouns used in the language,
though it seems fair to me to say that they predominate and are preferred.

Polite forms used to be routinely used in Low Saxon in earlier times, namely
when people of various social backgrounds still used the language with each
other.  In my opinion, the pronominal "shrinkage" is due to social
"shrinkage."  As the language retreated from the public arena and developed
into a small-community language, and in the cities into a home, club or
closet language, its use came to be more or less confined to circles of
people that were close to each other and therefore addressed each other in
familiar modes.  This is further proven by jocular "abuse," namely by the
more ready use of epithet-like "titles" for each other (in other words,
calling each other names in jest the way Jonny and I often do).  The use of
Low Saxon allows speakers to get to this more intimate relationship more
quickly than when using German, for instance.  There is a sort of instant
sense of familiarity, which does not mean that there is a complete absence
of boundaries and respect.  (It's more like men teasingly calling each other
"old chap" or "you dirty old rascal" in somewhat  old-fashioned English, or
Australians calling someone they like "cheeky bugger" or such.)

Anyway, this was today's 75 cents worth from the windbag.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070321/49d07a21/attachment.htm>