LL-L "History" 2008.07.06 (02) [E/LS/French]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 06 July 2008 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.07.05 (07) [E]

from heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk

This may be a new thread - I'm not quite sure!

Reading Mike Winzer's contribution re the French language..

I read this morning in an old National Geo that the Icelandic language has
barely changed in the last 1000 years to such an extent that modern day
icelanders can still read the old sagas with ease.

Why is this? What has happened in Iceland that the language has not
diversified, changed, 'dialectised itself '? How come after 1000 years the
language has seen so little change? And is Icelandic a unique example of a
language that has remained 'intact'?

best wishes

Heather
----------

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.07.05 (07) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language politics
> Henri Grégoire's influential report (June 4, 1794) "Rapport sur la
Nécessité et les Moyens d'anéantir les Patois et d'universaliser l'Usage de
la Langue française" ("Report on the necessity and means to annihilate
the *patois
*and to universalize the use of the French language") came to set the tone
for 200 years

The full text is at:
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Rapport_Grégoire<http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Rapport_Gr%C3%A9goire>

Basically it's conclusion, as well as the resulting motion, was less nocif:
it stated that *the grammar and vocabulary of the French language needed a
review*, quote:
*"Le Comité d'instruction publique présentera un rapport sur les moyens
d'exécution pour une nouvelle grammaire et un vocabulaire nouveau de la
langue française. Il présentera des vues sur les changements qui en
faciliteront l'étude et lui donneront le caractère qui convient à la langue
de la liberté."*

Interesting is his list of regional languages (omitting what is stated about
the "colonies"), quote:
"Nous n'avons plus de provinces, et nous avons encore environ trente patois
qui en rappellent les noms.
Peut-être n'est-il pas inutile d'en faire l'énumération :
- le bas-breton,
- le normand,
- le picard,
- le rouchi ou wallon, *[Rouchi (of the Valenciennes area) is nowadays
included in the Picard area]*
- *le flamand,*
- le champenois, *[Only spoken in a small part of Belgium: in the South of
the actual municipality of Vresse-sur-Semois]*
- le messin, *[I think nowadays it is generally included in lorrain]*
- le lorrain, *[Belgian lorrain is also called "Gaumais"]*
- le franc-comtois,
- le bourguignon,
- le bressan,
- le lyonnais,
- le dauphinois,
- l'auvergnat,
- le poitevin,
- le limousin,
- le picard,* [This is a repetition]*
- le provençal,
- le languedocien,
- le velayen,
- le catalan,
- le béarnais,
- le basque,
- le rouergat et
- le gascon ; ce dernier seul est parlé sur une surface de 60 lieues en tout
sens.
Au nombre des patois, on doit placer encore
- l'italien de la Corse, des Alpes-Maritimes, et
- l'allemand des Haut et Bas-Rhin, *[He does not distinguish between
Alsatian and Moselle & Rhine Franconian]*
parce que ces deux idiomes y sont très-dégénérés."

I guess that report got quite some attention. Although intended to force
improvements of the grammar and for getting an actualisation of the French
vocabulary, it translates the *Jacobine* (
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobins) feelings of the need of having a
single language for the nation, for giving all subjects "equal tools" for
realizing themselves.

I think there are *more precise laws* regulating the use of language in
France. Maybe I find some time for listing them.

> Let's also mention that at present the only way Occitan and any other
indigenous language of France can be taught in French schools is as a *foreign
*language.

I'm not sure about that.
I see concurrent initiatives of:
- teaching both Dutch and Regional Flemish in Northern France
- teaching German, local Moselle-Franconian and Letzebuergesch in the
Thionville area
- teaching German and Alsatian in the North-East
I don't know what is subsidized to what degree.
There are also *workarounds*. I got something about dialects in middle
schools as part of the courses of Dutch. Similarely courses of history can
be used for creating some openings. One just needs motivated teachers, who
obviously also master the subject.

I do know there is much *competition *among the *defenders of one or another
variant*. E.g. defenders of local Flemish state that Dutch is more
destructive for the survival of their [local] language, than French is. At
the end everything is fading out by lack of motivation by local people, who
hardly understand language classifications, and just want (what they think
is the best) for their children.
Some links:
http://www.uoc.edu/euromosaic/web/document/neerlandes/fr/i1/i1.html
http://www.anvt.org/

I think legislation has a drawback.
In Belgium we legislate quite a lot for protecting the maintenance of Dutch,
e.g. in the surroundings of Brussels. This causes a lot of court actions
against the laws because of *reverse discrimination*, at national and
international courts, including at the Council of Europe. The French group
does not need to legislate similarily, since the French speaking people in
the field force all others to use their language.
As a result the Flemish get quite some bad press in international newspapers
for their "discriminatory" behaviour. Basically most acceptable for the
international press is: no (protective = discriminatory?) legislation (and
let the strongest win). It must be added that most international press
correspondents in Brussels are only able to read Belgian French language
newspapers.

Some attitudes:

- 1 - Let all people learn one national language, it easies communication
and leads to equal rights (The French Jacobine doctine). Basics is that the
"preservation of regional languages and municipal dialects" is of less value
than "the development of the citizen to people with *equal professional
opportunities" * (through mastering a common language at equal level). Maybe
English will become a better choice once a day.

- 2 - *Don't interfere* and let the social processes have their course. Some
regions with a strong linguistic identity (as e.g. the basque region) may
linguistically survive. Others, as e.g. the many language pockets in the
Congo, may fade away against French, Lingala, Swahili, ... The US do not
need a Jacobine doctrine for letting English prevail (not yet at least,
maybe they will legislate against Spanish some time).

- 3 - Defend one variant and oppress all other variants as ugly
and undesired (*negative approach*): The "My Fair Lady" approach.

- 4 - *Hypocritical *attitudes: Sign international treaties and do nothing
or hardly anything. It allows though to get the language listed in language
lists and dictionaries.

Some policies:

- 1 - Create *regulatory language bodies*, as e.g. the Académie française in
France, the "Taalunie" in the Benelux (+ Surinam). The Taalunie stopped
recognizing regional languages, after the Belgians saw the position of Durch
in Belgium jeopardized. As a result Limburgish is recognized as regional
language in the Netherlands but could not pass through for Belgium.
Setting things up for defending something is often destructive for something
else.

- 2 - *Standardize regional variants*: we see quite some struggling for and
against a common orthography for walloon. We have seen a similar battle
around the spelling of Limburgish. In the 19th century Hansen could not come
to an agreement with Groth for stardardizing extended Low German...
Issue is:
- are people willing to let their municipal variant disappear and it being
absorbed by a regional standard?
- what is the boundary?
  - Uikhoven, Maasland, Limburg, Northern Belgium, Benelux?
  - St Pauli, Hamburg, Lower Saxony, the German lowlandic area, Germany?
  Is this a linguistical choice or a political choice?

- 3 - *Create identities*. We see that Antwerpish (a variant of Brabantish)
keeps a strong position (with songs, theatre etc in the local variant).
Antwerp people have a very high self-esteem and consider their metroplitan
variant as a universal language.

- 4 - *Keep the language area isolated*. I think that the position of
West-Flemish is still that strong because the area has been spared of
massive cross-migration. So circumstances may be beneficial, but can one
isolate intentionally language pockets?

What can *individuals *do?

Some individuals had a very strong impact, as e.g. *writers *as Conscience,
Rodenbach in the Flemish area.
It starts with getting an audience.
I remember a speach of the wife of a former US ambassador in Brussels. The
lady is board member of several major US companies. Asked for recepees for
making such a career she said she did it with writing some books on
management, creating her image and making her a desired person for boards.
So crying in the desert may relief some emotions, but it is not very
effective. Getting a microphone in a filled Royal Albert Hall is more
effective.

Regards,
Roger

----------

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

Hi, everyone, and thanks, Heather and Roger!

Heather, as far as I know, Icelandic linguistic conservatism, simply put, is
due to a mixture of isolation and a "language purity" policy, the latter
apparently due to what can be loosely called "nationalism." Icelanders have
been taught that they are the direct descendants of the Old Norse people
(although in reality they are to a large extent of Celtic descent, due to
Old Norwegian settlers having taken women with them from Britain and
Ireland), and they feel obligated to keep the linguistic heritage "pure."
Perhaps, centuries under Danish rule strengthened their resolve to keep
their language pure of influences of the "invaders." At any rate,
purity-preserving language policies and language planning has been in force
for a long time. Although there *are* loanwords, language planners create
Icelandic-based neologisms. While everyone knows these, for they are used in
the media and official communication, I am told that in real life many
people use quite a few loanwords in place of native-based neologisms. (An
Icelander I know calls it "casual speech.") Structurally, though, Icelandic
has changed little from Old Norse, and the average Icelander has a
relatively easy time reading Old Norse literature.

Thanks for the details about the French situation, Roger.

I feel I need to add something to what I said about Henri Grégoire and his
influential appeal to abolish language diversity in France. I don't think
there were any sinister intents as it would seem in today's context. Grégoire
and his ilk had lofty ideals for the time. He himself was also a strong
advocate of racial equality and the abolition of slavery, well ahead of his
time. Those revolutionaries truly, even literally, followed the motto *
Libert**é, égalité, fraternit**é* of their cause. To them this meant
abolition of any sort of diversity. They just overreached by meaning to
create a new, uniform, classless community of the French revolutionary
equivalent of the "Soviet Mensch," an impossible Utopian cookie-cutter
creature, an ideal that ignores the human element. Remember that they were
trying to do something that to their knowledge had never been tried before.
They didn't know any better, simply saw linguistic diversity as a detriment,
a very common view at the time ... and in following times ... even now ...
all over Europe. Furthermore, it was quite common, in fact the norm, to
think of languages in hierarchical terms, where classical languages were on
top as the hallowed ancestors in the clouds, and unwritten languages were
crawling around in the muck at the bottom of pits and were considered
"primitive" or "debased," "corrupted" versions of "good" language. "Good"
language was by default a country's power language among the living, spoken
and written languages, typically the language used in the national capital,
the language used by the rulers and policy makers themselves.

Times have changed, views and attitudes have evolved, and there is pressure
for administrations to abandon the view that cultural and linguistic
diversity is detrimental. What is being criticized now is the steadfast
refusal of the French senate and the Académie française to formally
recognize the right of languages besides French to exist and thrive, which,
rightly or wrongly, is being seen as hanging on to the views of Grégoire's
time. Perhaps added to it, or being at the bottom of it, is the fear of
further demotion of French now that it plays a less important international
role than it used to play.

This might be similar to the view of the Nederlandse Unie that has expressed
regret over official recognition of Limburgish and Low Saxon in the
Netherlands, frankly stating that it is afraid that official diversity will
further erode the importance of Dutch which is suddenly minus Limburgish and
Low Saxon varieties that used to be considered varieties of Dutch.

As for the French overseas collectivities, much has to do with intensive
French influence and education, which comes with the traditional view that
French is superior and all languages "under" it are *patois*. If you want to
come across as "sophisticated" you'd better be as French as you can be. When
I was in Tahiti I heard hardly any Tahitian (*Reo Mā`ohi*) spoken in Papeete
(*Pape**`**ete*) and elsewhere on the main island. I noticed that even
Polynesians among themselves out in the streets and such were using French.
Service personnel could speak English but tried not to. If you couldn't
speak French you got the cold treatment. If you spoke French well, or at
least tried your hardest, you got kissie-kissie already as a farewell at
your first visit. I met a German travel organizer who had been living there
for decades. She told me that she gets treated like a true weirdo whenever
she speaks Tahitian, and she can't use it in business because she wouldn't
be respected if she did. These attitudes are also being perpetuated among
formally better educated people in former French and Belgian colonies in
Africa.

I would be the last person to "trash" French, since I "trash" *no *language,
not even in my mind. What I am talking about here has nothing to do with
specific languages, just with the attitudes and dynamics involved in
language recognition struggles.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.07.04 (06) [E]

Miin beste Marcus,

Du schreyvst:
> Don't make fun about my worries. It's really not nice to have problems
like that. I am still trying to do _something_ despite my lack of skills,
> but I would love to do things, that really could change something about
the problems I'm worried about.

Dat is noch gonne lang her, wat ick Di seggt hebb', wat Du 'n feinen Jungen
un' ennigen Keyrl byst!
Nu weyt ick natoyrlich ne recht, wat Du in't eynkelte för'n Ploog' hesst,
wat Di letz'nach's sou daol-oorig moakt hett.
Daorüm segg ick ouk ne', wat ick Di för 'n undankboar'n Minschen houl'n dou.
Nee- ick segg doar nix van, wat Diin' 'Schöpfer' Dii al'ns mit-geben hett-
anfungen mit dennen klouken Kopp, de opp 'n liik-wussen' Körper sitt. Un'
wat Du ouk noch 'n sympaath'schet Gesicht hesst, schall eyn Di beter gonne
eyrst vertell'n...

Man- *wat* ick Di vertell'n kann, is, wat *ick* in miin Studeer-Tiid jümmers
Heimweh haar, wiildes ick 'n Land-Minschen bün un' de grouden Steeden mit
jemmer Agressivität un' Maskeroad ne moygt hebb. (Ick hebb dennen Schiit
denn jo ouk achter-ruut smeeten un' [mit 27] *dat* moakt, wat an miin'
Naturell dichter bi weyr. Man- un' dat weyr goud sou!)

Na- un' wegen dat Doud-Bliiven van uns Platt  schullst' Di man ouk ne
groamen. Dat is nu moal keyn Sproak tou'n schriiben, dat is oyber de
Jaohr-Hunnern 'n reine 'Spreek-Spraok' mit 'n Dutz' un'
meyhr van Dialekten worr'n (vergliik dat inns mit Middel-Sassisch, denn
weits't, wat ick meyn). Un eyn Sproak, de ne *ennig* opp-schreben warr'n *
kann* un' worr'n *is*, mutt snackt waar'n. Un wenn se ne snackt waard,
blivvt se doud.
Ick will nu' nümms anne Büx goahn, de disse Sproak opp-schriiben dayht. Sou
lang, as hey ennig un' eyhrlich is, schall jeydereyn tohoup-roaken, wat he
finnen kann. Denn schall dat as Dok'mentatschion woll Hand un' Fout hebben-
ouk, wenn't oppletzt man 'n goudlichen Versoyk bliiben mutt.

Mennig-moal denk ick ouk, Platt is 'n Sproak foyr Individualisten, foyr
'Originale', as Du moal sülbst schreben hesst. Dat fangt mit de veelen
Dialekten an, un' dat hoyrt mit de Grammatik opp. Joo- doar is keyn Duden
edders 'n 'Kommission für deutsche Rechtschreibung', de Dii seggen kann, wat
Du dröffst un' wat Du ne dröffst! Un dat is Segen un' Fluch tou 'liiker
Deylen. Disse Sproak lett sich ne inne Zwangs-Jacken steeken, ouk wenn Jii
't opp nds.wiki versoyken douht. Ick hebb doar jo ouk all wat schreben, un'
kunn miin eygen Kraom ne weller-finnen, van wegen wat dat nu in eyn anner
Schriiv-Wiis tou eyn anner Lemma worr'n weyr. Un' mit de Sass'sche
Schriiv-Wiis kann 'ck nu moal ne kloar-kaomen; denn foyhl ick mi foors as
'Verräter' an *miin* Sproak/Dialekt. Un' miin Schriiv-Wiis is ouk ne
konsequent, ergo grouden Schiit! (Na- nu' hesst Du mi woll all an-steken mit
Diin' Depri *s*.)
Nu' gauw trüch noa' de Individualisten: doar findst' jümmer minner van.
Chancengleicheit in der Ausbildung, alles bedeckende (und beglückende?)
soziale 'Fang'netze, Globalisierung, Konsum- und Medienterror lassen eine
Originalität nicht mehr (zahlreich) zu.

Man- de Sehnsucht blivvt... Wenn ick (wat selten worr'n is) maol in 't
'Brauhaus Alt-Neuhaus' gohn dou, denn koamt jümmer meyhr junge Lüü' opp mii
doal un' wöllt van mi Platt hoyr'n. Un denn bün 'ck jüst doar an-langt, wo
Ina Müller un' dat Ohnsorg-Theater all lang sünd: bi de 'Volksbelustigung'.

Nee, Marcus, loat dennen Kopp man ne hingen. Du hesst all Diin Spoyr'n
moakt; Du büsst all 'n Oart van Vörbild mit al Diin' Ehrenämters. Moak man
wiider sou, man pack Dii ne tou veel Eier ünner. Du büsst mi doch
keyn Vaogel Strauss, un' dey steekt jo mennig-moal dennen Kopp innen Sand
;-)!

Allerbest, houl Di hattig!

Jonny Meibohm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080706/0ba16cce/attachment.htm>