LL-L "Language politics" 2009.09.22 (02) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================== L O W L A N D S - L - 22
September 2009 - Volume 02
lowlands at lowlands-l.net - http://lowlands-l.net/
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

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

Lowlanders,
I forgot to add [EN] for "English" in the previous message. So those of you
that don't read English may not have scrolled down to see my English
response to Jonny's German language posting. Not that I think my reponse was
that valuable. It's only that Jonny's posting -- actually mostly the
19th-century material he quoted -- may be of enough interest to warrant
bringing in everyone.

Please see below.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

Posted previously:

Jonny, Lowlanders,

Unless I totally misunderstand it, the basic premise of the author's thesis
appears to be the typical one prior to the late 20th century: a language is
only then valuable and thus worth saving if it has complex morphological
forms, that languages that do not have developed such forms are "primitive"
and that those that have lost them are "debased". (The latter would apply to
English, and English would thus be worth abandoning, in his words
"eradicating," if we follow his way of thinking.)
This was indeed still the predominant attitude in 1950s Northern Germany. I
am convinced that it is in large part the result of centuries of "classical
education," indoctrination in which the complex grammars of Latin and Greek
were portrayed as being supreme linguistic hallmarks of "true
civilizations."

Fortunately, I would say, most people these days have moved beyond that type
of thinking and assume that languages, like cultures, are resiliant, will
constantly reinvent themselves unless there are concerted efforts to
eradicate them and obstacles and discouragement can no longer be overcome.
One manner of eradication is denigration (beginning with the
characterization "primitive" or "debased"). The other other is deliberate,
gross neglect. The two tend to go hand in hand. Furthermore, as we have
expanded our view globally, it has become abundantly clear that
morphological complexity (which is not necessarily the same as "grammatical
complexity") says nothing about civilization, at least not about levels of
political and technological development or decline.

That's my groschen worth's this morning.

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/20090922/41ddf5b8/attachment.htm>