LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.06.08 (10) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  - 08 June 2008 - Volume 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: Language Varieties

I've copied a part of a discussion at the Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia, about
a mean orthography for Low Saxon in the Netherlands and in Germany. The
name I use there is "Chamavian" - because I was born in Hamaland, in Latin
Chamavia, named after the ancient Germanic tribe of the Chamavii. Btw that
was a Frankish, not a Saxon tribe, however the dialect spoken there
nowadays is considered to be typicaly Low Saxon. Dutch, the Standard
language of Hamaland, as a part of the Netherlands, is Low Franconian.

Anyway, I concluded here that there is not such a thing as one Low Saxon
language, and that Low Saxon from the Netherlands and LS from Germany can
actually be seen as two different languages. Just like Swedish and Danish
or Norwegian are closely related, but different, independent languages.
Or Castillian (Spanish), Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Asturian, Leonese,
Valencian are all closely related Iberian but seperate languages.

Actually, Swedish and Norwegian, or Norwegian and Danish are much closer
to eachother then NL Low Saxon and DL Low Saxon generally are.
So are most Iberian languages. So are Bulgarian and Macedonian, or
Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak, or Czech and Slovak.

If even Dutch and Afrikaans are considered to be different languages, how
can we maintain that Low Saxon is one language?

Therefor I think it is better to speak of the Low Saxon languageS (plural).
Only in the Netherlands there may already be three linguistically
different Low Saxon languages: a Northern one, a South Western and a South
Eastern one.

I know this will not be a popular point of view to some of us here, but
that's how I think about it right now

Ingmar

Wee'j, deur al die discussies oaver de mandielige spelling veur
Nedersaksisch in Nederlaand en Duutslaand is mij ien ding dudelik eworden:
eigenlik bint 't gewoon verschillende talen. Misschien vrogger niet, mar
nou deur de lange en hèvige invlod van de Standaordtalen wel. Nederduuts
is gien Nedersaksisch en aansumme. Okee, 't Achterhoeks van mien
geboorteplaats Wenters(wiek) lek barre veule op 't Westmönsterlaands van
de Duutse naoberplasen Vraene (Vreden) en Bokelt (Bocholt) en dat zal
langes aandere greinzen ok wel iens zo weden, mar oaver 't algemien
bint 't toch vrömde talen veur mekare. Binnen 't NL Nedersaksisch bint de
verschillen al zo groot, lat staon oaver de greinzen. Mu'w daor nog mit
perberen een ienheid te worden? Ik wete, 't is vluken in de karke, mar zo
zie'k 't wel nou Chamavian 18:44, 8 jun 2008 (CEST)

Daor he-j gelieke an, ik ware van de weke doonde um een artikel te
vertalen uut 't Platduuts mar dat was m'n een uutzeukerieje, eers 't
Platduutse woord ummezetten naor 't Duuts, dan 't Duutse woord opzeuken
dat geet allemaole neet zo vlogge, dan mu-j nog ees de grammatica anpassen
zodat 't een bietjen te begriepen is... man-man wat een gedo, krek twee
amparte talen! Sεrvιεи | Overleg » 19:25, 8 jun 2008 (CEST)
Wat wi-j mit een taal die hum uutstrekt töt an Denemarken en wel-wet-waor
in Oost-Duutslaand. De dialecten körtan Nederlaand liekt nog altied meer
op oenzende as op die an de varre kaante. Veural dus aj oaver 't skienbare
verskil henkiekt det deur de verskillende skriefwiezen kump. Ik hebbe ok
muite mit 't Platduuts, mar viene 't wal barre interessaant. Wi'j hebt
affiniteit mit menare en kunt menare haalfstaon (mit projecten op
Wikipedia ezw.). Det lik mi'j 't belangriekste, daorumme zie ik ok geern
dew in de maande warkt. Ni'jluuseger 20:12, 8 jun 2008 (CEST)

En dat is allennig nog mar op papier... noh ja, of op 't scharm dan. Ik
deinke dat 't verstaon van mekare in levendig lief hielemaole muilik zol
weden. Kiek, wij könt ook allemaole wel aordig wat herkennen in een
Deense, Noorse of Zweedse eschreven tekst, mar van een Skandinavische film
begriepe wij zunder ondertitels krek zo veule as van een Italiaanse of
Spaonse (of weiniger, in mien geval). En Duuts is ook hiel wat makkeliker
te verstaon veur oens as "Platduuts", wees mar eerlik, want Duuts he'w
as 't goed is op schoele had of kenne wij van Derrick en Schimanski ;-)
En 't lek verrekte veul op Nederlaands, natuurlik, die twei talen hebt een
grote onderlinge verstaonbaorheid. Ik deinke dat wij deur oenze kennis
van 't Duuts juust 't Nederduuts beter verstaot as aandersumme.

Wat wi'k nou eigenlik zeggen: misschien mu'w mar gewoon toegeven dat der
meer as ien Nedersaksische taal is, en niet oaver Nedersaksisch dialecten,
mar oaver Nedersaksische talen praoten. Krek a'j Skandinavische talen
hebt, die ook dichtebij mekare staot mar toch verschillend en zölfstaandig
bint. Of de Iberische talen: Spaons (Castiliaans), Catalaans, Galicisch,
Portugees, Leonees, Asturiaans.

As indieling zo'j dan in Nederlaand allennig al drei Nedersaksische talen
hebben:

1) Grunnings en Noord-Dreints (verwant mit Oost-Fries en ook Noordelik
Nederduuts) 2) Zuud-Dreints, Stellingwarfs, Sallaands, Oost-Veluws
(verwant mit Benthems in DL) 3) Twents en Achterhoeks (verwant mit 't
Westmönsterlaandse Westfaals in DL)

En die heufdtalen kunt weer in dialecten en subdialecten onderverdield
worden:

bv bij 2] heufddialecten:

2a Zuud-West-Dreints (Möppelt, Hogeveine etc) 2b Zuud-Oost-Dreints (Emmen,
Koevern etc) 2c Stellingwarfs (Wolvege, Oosterwolde etc) 2d
Stienwiekerlaands (Kop van Oaveriessel) 2e West-Sallaands (Zwolle, Kaampen
etc) 2f Oost-Sallaands (Raolte, Ommen, Nieverdal etc) 2g Oost-Veluws
(Apeldoorne, Heerde etc) 2h Benthems (Emmelkaamp DL etc)

Chamavian 22:30, 8 jun 2008 (CEST)

----------

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

Ingmar,

In this case and in analogous cases, going one way or another primarily
requires a type of value judgment depending on your bias. There is no
clear-cut formula, nor is this entirely measurable.

You can either look at the large picture while ignoring details, or you can
forget about the large picture and focus on details and find a plethora of
differences that seem to justify all sorts of divisions. You can also have
orthographic differences weigh in and pretend they are inseparable from
language and are not resolvable.

I put it to you that, if you go this latter way, you ought to be consistent
and chop Low Saxon up even further and call the various parts languages, at
the very least North Saxon, East Frisian, Eastphalian, Northeastern Low
Saxon, Southeastern Low Saxon, and Westphalian on the German side, and
probably more parts > languages on the Netherlands side, for putting for
instance Groningen LS (which I consider part of North Saxon) and Twente LS
(which I consider part of Westphalian) into one pot would mean ignoring
details that elsewhere are not ignored.

Furthermore, division by country is tantamount to playing up respective
national influences to bolster one's argument. The opposite would be to
focus on the broad common base and consider the rather recent alienating
influences relatively insignificant.

In the case of Low Saxon, fragmentation is in actual fact life-threatening,
not only linguistic differences but also as far as attitudes and mindsets
are concerned. Few people are prepared to look beyond their local dialects,
and in this mindset (which I call "myopic") every little difference seems
enormous, even from village to village. For instance, in Eastern Friesland
and Emsland dialects (in Germany) many words and expressions are those that
are used in Netherlands LS and in Dutch. Yet, few people would consider
these dialects belonging to a different language. In Groningen they
say *du*(written
*doe*) for 'thou', as in Germany and unlike other LS dialects in the
Netherlands. Add to this *aai* for *ei* etc., and you can either make the
argument that Groningen dialects belong to North Saxon or, considering Dutch
influences and nationalistic interests as well as difference of orthography,
that they represent yet another language. My point is that you can go two
ways, but that you should then follow through methodically and consistently
rather than stop at the half-assed solution of dividing Low Saxon along a
political boundary, for Dutch vs German influences seem like a weak argument
to me, and artificial things like orthographic issues ought not be brought
into it.

As far as mutual comprehensibility are concerned (aside from orthography,
which is resolvable), there are people that cannot understand the dialect of
a couple of villages down the road, and there are people that have no
serious problem understanding people hundreds of miles away across a
national boundary or two. Most of this has to do with experience and with
attitude, and experience and attitude are not set in stone; they can change.

What you are proposing is in my opinion analogous for instance to Galician
vs. Portuguese. Linguists that do not consider the border between Spain and
Portugal consider the two one language. Differences between the two,
including Castilian influences on Galician, are not very significant.
Differences in spelling convention enhance the illusion of division
visually. And those that *want* the division will play up all of these
relatively insignificant differences.

It is also analogous to the case of Ulster Scots vs. Mainland Scots which
some interest groups in Ulster wish to make official. On the other hand, I
know of no real movement demanding that Shetlandic be officially separate
from Scots, even though arguments for this would seem far more compelling.
But, see, Mainland Scots and Shetlandic are both used in Scotland, while
Ulster Scots is used outside Scotland and many Ulster Protestants wish to be
seen as an indigenous group in its own right, not as a bunch of Scots that
ought to be sent home as has been demanded by certain Catholic groups. So
it's a political thing, and you can not argue that the case of Low Saxon is
devoid of political considerations.

For me personally language survival is the most important thing.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080608/5b457271/attachment.htm>