LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.01.15 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

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

 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  -  15 January 2008 - Volume 01
 ========================================================================

From: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.01.14 (03) [E]

Thanks, Ron:

Subject: L-Lowlands "Language varieties"

As far as I am concerned, geography may play an historical role, and that
can be pretty interesting. But I feel that there are other levels,
dimensions or contexts where geography isn't really important.

At least this is my take on it.

I couldn't have put it better myself - hem.

Deep Regards,
Mark

----------

From: Maria Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.01.14 (03) [E]

Hi all,

Thanks Ron, for the insights.

I think the difference of 'indigenousness' between American English and
Afrikaans, for instance, is that English has been carried, as is, to the US.
Its linguistic structures have not been influenced by any first nation or
any other language, for that matter. The same is not true of Afrikaans.

One could pose the question whether English in the UK is an indigenous
language which developed from Anglo and Saxon and Normandy French or just
merely an altered version of Saxon.

Elsie Zinsser


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

Hmm ... Let me interject something basic and seemingly naive here, folks.

Is it *really* necessary to label whole languages by geographical
considerations in this day and age? Yes, there is definite merit to
classifying dialects of a language geographically, even if populations have
shifted around. The alternative would be ... what? Given dialects arbitrary
names? Well, that's possible, such as using older ethnic names.

Language names are rarely geographical by origin. They tend to be ethnically
based. There are some exceptions, and Afrikaans is one of them. It simply
means "African," and I assume it originally referred to something like
"African speech that is understandable to Dutch speakers." So this is why
names like "Cape Dutch" used to fly around in the past.

Clearly, the Afrikaans movement and probably the majority of Afrikaans
speakers *want* Afrikaans to be an African language. I believe that this
developed as part and parcel of the early linguistic and ethnic assertion
movement and may have been in part a reaction to the suppression and
oppression of "Afrikanerhood" under Dutch- and English-speaking rules that
tried to ram European standards and values down the people that had "gone
native."

Undeniably, Afrikaans arose in large part from a mix of language varieties
we now call "Dutch," and numerous other languages influenced its
development, among them African and Asian languages, the African languages
including those of what to all intents and purposes are South Africa's
aboriginal people (Khoi-San, etc.).

So it seems to me that Afrikaans *per se* is a locally grown language, was
created on African soil and was very much adapted to life in Southern
Africa, though the preponderance of its linguistic base is European. In
other words, there was no Afrikaans or Old Afrikaans before Europeans
settled on the Cape.

On the other hand, there was an English before European settlers arrived in
various overseas regions and there developed new varieties of English in
adaptation to places and cultures and adoption by people from all over the
world.

If you really want to you could force it, claim that this is just a name
game and then extend the English situation analogously to the Afrikaans
situation. In that case you would indeed have to start with the assumption
that Afrikaans is a sort of Dutch, just like for instance American English
is a sort of English.

Here come the details to quibble about. Yes, you could perhaps argue that
Afrikaans is an "African Dutch" in that there is still a fairly high degree
of mutual intelligibility. However, against this you could argue that a good
part of the mutual intelligibility has to do with mutual exposure, much as
speakers of the closely related languages Danish, Norwegian and Swedish
understand each other because constant mutual exposure teaches them about
each other's peculiarities, and they pick up "special" words and expressions
from each other's lexicons. It is also very similar to the case of high
degrees of mutual intelligibility between Dutch and Low Saxon.

Afrikaans is structurally rather different from Dutch, much more different
than any recognized variety of English is from "original" English. You might
even go as far as saying that Afrikaans goes about halfway toward what
various creole derivatives are in relation to their respective "mother"
languages. I assume that this is the reason why people are now describing
Afrikaans as a "semi-creole." At any rate, I hardly think you can compare
the situation of American, Australian, South African, etc. Englishes in
relation to British Englishes with the case of Afrikaans in relation to
"Dutch" varieties.

However, as I said in the beginning, I wonder if geographically-based
descriptions are really warranted these days. Dutch is Dutch, and Afrikaans
is Afrikaans. As most of you know by now, I like to push the Eurasian
envelop as opposed to clinging to the essentially chauvinist notion of
Europe as a continent. Notions of continents depend on the eye and the slant
of the beholder. For example: North and South America are seen as two
continents in North America but are seen as one continent in Europe. Due to
its Danish colonial history, Greenland is seen as a European country in
Europe while more and more people elsewhere tend to see it as an American
country. While people quibble if Turkey even has the right to apply for EU
membership they are silently making the once excluded but partly Christian
Caucasus European territory, drawing a new dividing line between Asia and
Europe along Kazakhstan's western border. (I'm sure people would love to
exclude Azerbaijan while including predominantly Christian Armenia and
Georgia.) The European Song Contests includes Israel but excludes other
Asian countries. Hello! Do I need to go on arguing that all this is a bunch
of culturally and religiously biased and bigoted hogwash?

So Afrikaans is in large part derived from language varieties brought by
immigrants from the European subcontinent, but it developed today's
characteristics under non-European influences in a region we happen to call
Southern Africa. You could say it's both European and African ... or neither
of them? But what's the point?

Similarly, Moroccan Arabic and, say, Syrian Arabic are barely mutually
comprehensible, perhaps essentially not, at least not conveniently so. When
their speakers resort to Classical Arabic as a lingua franca it's hard
enough to understand each other because of the heavy "accents." Syrian
Arabic is pretty strongly influenced by Aramaic ("Assyrian"). Moroccan
Arabic is very much influenced by the various indigenous Berber languages
(especially Tarifit, Tachelhit, and Central Moroccan Tamazight). In fact,
Moroccan Arabic is not only influenced by these languages but it seems to
have rather sturdy Berber substrata. In this regard, then, you could argue
that it is a North African language, although the "mother" language (or
rather superstratum language) was imported from Asia. You could do this if
you insist on using such geographically based labels. New Arabic varieties
are now being developed in Europe. Will those be European varieties? What's
the point? Or will we say, "Arabic is an Asian language, because Asia is
where it's from originally"? Arabic is being used all over the world. Where
will it end?

Besides, the case of Arabic can hardly be compared with that of Dutch versus
Afrikaans. Arabic has Classical Written and Spoken Arabic (which hovers
around Qur'anic Arabic as its focus) to at least symbolically hold together
as one perceived language varieties that otherwise might well be seen as
separate languages. That's really all that is important to the average
Arabic speaker, and continents hardly enter the equation. Dutch has Standard
Dutch as its "glue." There is no such "glue" that formally holds together
Dutch and Afrikaans, and this besides or despite of a certain degree of
mutual intelligibility. While Afrikaans speakers utilize this informal link,
apparently the majority of them don't *want* their language to be perceived
as a tendril of a Dutch vine, though its earliest beginnings may have been
such. Besides, it is not as though they are all considered citizens of the
Netherlands or are favored candidates of such, whereas most Anglo-South
Africans do have some sort of legal right to live in the UK. Obviously, most
Afrikaans speakers cherish the regional rootedness of their language and
culture, and they feel "African." That's good enough for me. At the same
time, that doesn't exclude them from gatherings such as ours. As far as I am
concerned, geography may play an historical role, and that can be pretty
interesting. But I feel that there are other levels, dimensions or contexts
where geography isn't really important.

At least this is my take on it.

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/20080115/c8cae27b/attachment.htm>