LL-L "Lexicon" 2007.11.23 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  22 November 2007 - Volume 03
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2007.11.23 (04) [E]

Beste Ron, Marcus e.a.;

Ron, you tried to explain the difference between *Lüttjensee* or *Lüttensee,
* depending of its use either in Low Saxon or German.
You wrote:

In other words, "Lüttjensee," even though of older Low Saxon origin, is in
fact a ("High") German name, while the Low Saxon name changed and nowadays
is "Lüttensee." In yet other words, the fact that the German name is of Low
Saxon origin does not change the fact that it is a German name, and the
respective names in the respective languages are free to take on lives of
their own (which happened in the case of Low Saxon). Furthermore, I argued
that people preferring "Lüttjensee" does not make it Low Saxon *now*.

I have to admitt that I'm a little confused at the moment.

If my son is coming from fishing and tells me: "Ich habe 10 Aale gefangen,
sieben davon habe ich behalten. Drei waren zu lütt, die habe ich wieder
zurückgesetzt (I caught 10 eels, seven of them I brought with me. Three of
them were too small, so I put them back into the river)". As you might see-
he uses *'lütt' *in a Standard German context. So it's a Standard German
word here?! ***

Next time I meet my neighbour, a fanatic fisherman too. We use to speak LS
to each other. He might tell me "Ick hebb vandoog 10 Ool'n fungen, söben
doorvan hebb ick behoul'n. Drey weyr'n tou *lütt*, de hebb 'ck weller
trüchsett' (see above!)". So this time *'lütt'* is Low Saxon because of its
use in a Low Saxon context?!

If I talk to the same neighbour about *'Lütjensee'/'Lüttensee'* we might use
both versions in *our* local dialect, but never would be aware of the fact
that one of them (I forgot which one ;-)) is Standard German and the other
one could be more LS.
( ** *BTW: _lütt_ even is enlisted in the DUDEN as a Standard German word)

Another example: some of you might know the word "Kinder mit 'nem Will'n,
kriegen was auf die Bill'n (Children with a will will get somewhat on their
back side)". Is it a Standard German proverb or is it Low Saxon, because the
*'Bill'n'*-component is LS and the rest is German!? Be honest- who of you
knew that *'Bill'* means G:'Pobacke' E: 'buttcheek'? Though I grew up with
these words I had never known it up to any half year ago, and I guess so
didn't the people who liked to use it in my childhood.
So *'Bill'* must be a Standard German word on behalf of its frequently use
in a German context! But you won't find many German speakers, neither in the
North nor certainly in the South who know its meaning.

'Der Hullen' (official location name in the neighbourhood) had been 'Hullen'
since some hundred years, and we still use the word in LS as well as in
German to denote an island. So we should stop it using when we want to talk
correct, unwatered LS?

I could list up another hundred cases of this sort but I fear it wouldn't
help to make your kind of hair-splitting argumentation clearer to the rest
of the world ;-)....

Allerbest!

Jonny Meibohm

----------

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

I'm pleased you are eager to know more about this, Jonny. I will try to keep
my response as concise as possible. And please bear in mind that I am
talking about well-established principles here, not about my own
concoctions.

There is a difference between a loanword that is used occasionally and one
that is used regularly (i.e., is "nativized").

An occasionally used loanword is just that that. For instance, if I say, "My
favorite Chinese snack food is *shuijiao*, a type of steamed dumpling," then
*shuijiao* is an occasionally used foreign item (i.e., loanword). If for
some reason this food becomes so common in my specific speaker community
that everyone uses the name, then it has been nativized, i.e., adopted into
the "main compartment" of the lexicon of our common language variety. A
language variety may be a local dialect, a sociolect (for instance in the
jargon of "foodies") or in fact adopted in a country's regular standard
language. As long as a group of people uses the word regularly it belongs to
this common lexical set. Its origin, though correctly assumed in this case,
becomes irrelevant to all but foodies and etymologists.

*Lütt* 'little', 'small', is regularly used in most Missingsch varieties and
Missingsch-derived German varieties of Northern Germany. It thus is a
lexical item in those language varieties, and its origin as a loanword is
probably not relevant in most contexts. Being often heard, it is also
understood by people that use different German varieties, but they would not
normally use it; so it is foreign but recognizable (i.e., in the passive
lexicon, not in the active one). It is similar to Scots *wee* 'little',
'small', being used only in informal Scottish English, but widely understood
in the English-speaking world. Some people may use it "for effect" once in a
blue moon, which makes it an occasionally used loanword, one that you
retrieve from your passive lexicon for one-time use. You may occasionally
use *lütt* in a casual speech or writing mode that you consider Standard
German, but you would not use it in formal, "serious" speaking and writing
modes. This shows you that its use is restricted to a certain register. If
you happen to live in an area in which the Low Saxon dialect has
*l**üttje*instead, you are likely to use it rather than
*l**ütt* in the local German variety, either occasionally or, in casual
modes, regularly. Those are language *varieties* and registers, of which
there are many in any given language. This does not make it "standard."
"Standard" is a codified variety that people of various regions have in
common.

Not everything that is German, i.e., not Low Saxon and not "outright"
Missingsch, is "Standard German," not even if you personally believe it is.
Yes, Standard German is a fairly lose construct that allows some regional
choices, but there are limits as to *Common* Standard German. *Lütt* is
listed in the Duden because it occurs in a lot of varieties and is thus
widely understood, though certainly not used in non-northern varieties. This
alone does not necessarily make it a regular part of *Common* Standard
German, though it may be common Northern German. Similarly, *wee* is not a
part of the *Common* Standard English lexicon, though it seems to be a part
of the Scottish and Northumbrian English lexicon. *Muckle* for 'big' or
'large' is less widely understood in English, is thus regionally more
restricted with regard to passive lexicon.

If *l**ütt* is a regular lexical item in your local casual German variety
and it is also a regular lexical item in your local Low Saxon variety, then
you are still dealing with two separate words in two separate languages,
strange though this may sound at first. No, you are *not* dealing with "the
same word," and the fact that they came from the same place, sounds alike
and are written alike does not make them one word. The two now have lives of
their own and, at least theoretically, may develop differently.

I hope this clarified it for you.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071123/2e3df92e/attachment.htm>