LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.04.09 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 10 April 2009 - Volume 08
===========================================


From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.04.10 (05) [E]

> From: jmtait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.04.10 (01) [E]

> On the other hand, if you raise the status of your speech to a level where
it requires a policy, then it's questionable whether you can continue to
regard it as a dialect.



I think you can have both, some examples:



- *Luxembourgish* emerged from being a Moselle-Franconian dialect. It now
has a grammar, dictionary, literature etc. The dictionary gives some
regional variants for some words though. Actually what you do is setting a
standard (the "dialect" of a representative area or town), but allow some
variants. However I think variants will slowly disappear as a result of TV
programs etc.



- *Faeroersk* certainly is a language on its own, though living in the
shadow of Danish before being cut-off from Danemark during WWII. Now it
is "the" language of the islands, with isogloss maps though for remaining
variants. I leave it open whether or not regional variants must be
classified as dialects.



The point is, I think, that many people believe that, because there are
regional variants, it is impossible that a standard form emerges. For
proving it to be wrong one just has to look at the history of French and
English.



-* Afrikaans* left the shadow of Dutch in the 1920's. although there are
variants, there clearly is a standard form with a common grammar and
dictionary.



In all these cases there is some coïncidence with a territorial political
development.

Curiously, though Australia and the US have proper variants, but I do not
see any action for intentionally creating really different languages. I
don't know whether some UK TV series are dubbed when programmed in Australia
or in the US. At least not in the US for Hyacint Bouquet (do I spell
correctly?) or for "Are you being served?". (Critical is, I think, "are the
jokes still understood"?)



What I do not undertstand is why Prussia did not support development of a
Low German language standard, giving the North an identity, loose from
Bavaria and Austria. Were they too much attached to "Hohenzollern"? When
Hoffmann von Fallersleben travelled in the Southern Netherlands and wrote
his "Horae Belgicae", he always kept a Pan-Germanic mindset.



- In the 1840's some politicians promoted a kind of *"standard Flemish",* as
distinct of Dutch. As a result the "commission orthography" was created a
kind of compromise between "Siegenbeek" from the Netherlands and Belgian
traditional writing. It didn't last for long, since in the mid 1860's a
common "Netherlands-Belgian spelling of De Vries & Ten Winkel" was adopted.

If I make my analysis why the creation of a "standard Flemish" failed, I
would say:

- The (West-)Flemish, Brabantish and Limburgish dialects were too different
for coming to something common on short term

- In defence against dominance of French one needed a strong language
position. Standard Dutch from the Netherlands could offer that.

- Standard Dutch, or something close to it, remained the written form of the
language all the time. One can say that the Brussels chancellary language
was setting the tone before the separation at the end of the 16th century.

- At the end of the 19th century, in the Romantic period, the Flemish
movement emerged. It was rather "pan-Diets" from the beginning and certainly
reluctant to create "Belgian" symbols.

This does not exclude that standard Dutch in Belgium has its local color.



- "*Limburgish*" was recognized in the Netherlands, not in Belgium. Imposing
the central "Maasland"-form as a common standard failed. One
wanted "Limburgish" being protected, but *preserved with its parish variants
*. I don't know the actual situation in the Netherlands, but in Belgium the
language is in decline with the younger generation.

Some issues here:

- the definition of the language area corresponds for 80 percent with the
territory of the 2 provinces. However the provincial government considers
also the Kleverlandsh of the Venlo area in the North as protected
Limburgish. (*unclear policy* with Limburgish as territorial *area* - versus
- Limburgish as language *area* between the "Ich maak" isoglosses)

- Parish *variants are strongly different* since we are here in a spread
variance of the transition between Low-German and Middle-German. So it is
not obvious to define what should be the standard form.

- Belgian Limburg had to do significant efforts for learning ABN (standard
Dutch) in the 1960's. I guess they all will hate doing a similar
indoctrination forcing for imposing some form of "standard Limburgish".

- *Immigrants* from other areas continue speaking Dutch, and do no effort
for learning their Parish Limburgish.



It may help to compare situations.

Regards,



Roger


----------

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

Thanks, as always, dear Roger.

I don’t think Faroese has ever been not considered a language in its own
right. Or has it? Certainly its spoken forms are incomprehensible to Danes
without extensive exposure to it. Surely Icelanders have an easier time with
it. I can read it fairly well, also Icelandic, but I understand very, very
little of it when I hear it.

I guess Luxembourgish and Limburgish would be officially Rhenish German
dialects now had they not found themselves outside German territory. I
understand both of them very well.

And there is Low Saxon, officially considered a collection of dialect Dutch
and German groups, depending on which side of the border they fell.
Officially it is now a regional language, but many people cannot yet wrap
their minds around that concept, and they continue treating it lexically,
grammatically and orthographically dependent on Dutch and German
respectively. The old bird has been caged for too long to take advantage of
the open cage door, seems to have forgotten how to fly.

Pennsylvania German, on the other hand, seems to enjoy its position as an
American language, albeit with some acknowledgement to the old country.
Religious segregation probably plays a role in this, as well as the fact
that local organizations and institutions have been promoting the language
as worth treasuring.

Low Saxon in America had similar beginnings, even being the language of
early patriotic American literature, so much so that people like Claus Groth
considered it exemplary. Its early speakers seem to have appreciated their
liberation from the German-speaking shadow. Some such communities remain in
the Midwest, but the language is fading away in this country too, apparently
even in Mennonite communities.

What about some people's attempts to have Zealandic (Zeeuws) officially
recognized, with or without West Flemish?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

==============================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/20090410/8e4cfe58/attachment.htm>