LL-L "Language politics" 2008.02.04 (04) [E]

Lowlands-L List lowlands.list at GMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 4 17:06:40 UTC 2008 

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

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 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.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com


 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  -  04 February 2008 - Volume 04
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page.
 ========================================================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.01.31 (02) [E]

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

Dear Lowlanders,

It's time for another "naive" question, I'm afraid ...

I realize that this is likely to be a sensitive matter, since it deals with
Northumbrian loyalty to England, the country in which they live, and many
may not want to be seen as Scots, and the name "Scots" evokes association
with Scotland after all. But if I can't ask this here, where can I?

So lets assume this unity thing were taken seriously and "Scots" would be
unacceptable on the part of Northumbrians ("Lallans" probably too because of
its association with Scottish culture), how would Scots speakers react to a
proposal to call the united language "Northumbrian" -- for that's what both
of them really are, "Modern Northumbrian": a Northumbrian of Scotland and a
Northumbrian of England (a bit like Low Saxon of German and the Netherlands
which many of the players in Germany still refuse to accept). I suppose that
language activists of (today's) Northumbria (on the English side of the
border) would have to be assure that they would always play a part in
decision making, that possible standardization not be solely Scottish-based
or Scottish-dominated, and that they (south of Hadrian's Wall) remain
considered a distinct unit within the whole.

Now let me indulge in a bit more "naive" speculation on this basis. Let's
assume all the Northumbrian speakers on both sides of the border did come to
an understanding, how would the government of England react? I assume there
would be little or no opposition on the part of the government of Scotland
(since it would be no fat off *their *backs).

The issue of national loyalty should not arise in this day and age, and
there would probably no well-founded fear of secession. But you never know.
(What ever is happening with the Cornish independence movement?)

I am not suggesting that I think such unification should happen. After all,
who am to suggest this? I am only curious to know how such a proposal would
be received by the relevant parties.

So what say the horses' mouths?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron


A few points here Ron;
1. I'm not convinced that Northumbrian dialects are any closer to Scots than
to other Northern English dialects.  In particular, Geordies don't generally
sound medial "r"s any more than other Northern or Midland English, or
Standard (Southwestern does, but more like an American "r" than a Scottish
one).  What purpose would grouping Northumbrian with Scots serve, other than
to satisfy a few linguists?

2. Hadrian's Wall is not, and never has been the border between England and
Scotland; most Northumbrians live north of it.  It was built by the Romans,
long before there were any English or Scots in anything like their modern,
or even Mediaeval, sense.

3. Government of England? I wish! where do I find them? Scotland has a
Parliament, as does Northern Ireland, and Wales has an Assembly.  England is
ruled directly by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, with members from
other countries in the Union having the same voting rights as English MPs.

3. "The issue of national loyalty should not arise in this day and age, and
there would probably no well-founded fear of secession. But you never know."
 The fear of secession, as you put it, is the British govenrment's concerns
about growing English identity, and growing demands for the same degree of
political independence as other countries in the UK - an aspiration
supported by the Scottish Nationalists incidentally. Our last two Prime
Ministers have been Scots.  Dividing England into blocks to argue that it
"isn't a real country" is one of the tactics used.

Paul

----------

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

Thanks a lot for this one especially, Paul. I really appreciate the way you
answered my questions in the spirit they were given.

So let me recap and add to make sure I got this right.

   - England is not formally a country but is a historical entity
   contained within the United Kingdom, though it consists of formal regions.
   - Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies, and Scotland
      has its own government, while England has neither on a country level.
      - The Crown Dependencies Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are
      not formally parts of the United Kingdom, nor are the fourteen British
      overseas territories.
      - Elizabeth II holds the title of Queen regnant of the United
      Kingdom, among others. But is it correct to say that Queen of
England is not
      a formal title, because England is not formally a country?
      - Northumberland is not a formal region but is a historical,
   cultural and linguistic entity contained within today's two formal regions
   Northeast and Yorkshire and the Humber.

Thanks again, Paul.

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.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080204/eb45967c/attachment.htm>

More information about the LOWLANDS-L mailing list