<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"> </span><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">L O W L A N D S - L - 22 March 2007 - Volume 01</span><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">=========================================================================</span><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">From: </span><span id="_user_snepvangers@optushome.com.au" style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25); font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Peter Snepvangers <<a href="mailto:snepvangers@optushome.com.au">
snepvangers@optushome.com.au</a>></span><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Subject: LL-L "Language maintenance" 2007.03.21 (01) [E/LS]</span><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">
<table style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" class="mhc" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="4" class="hv hw"><br></td><td class="cbrn"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span>Beste Marcus,</span></div>
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,sans-serif;" class="q">
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>(English summary
below)</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Du schreyvst:</span><br></div>
</span><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span>
<span class="q"><div><span><span>(Mit
Diin Verlööv...) </span><strong><u>English summary
Marcus:</u></strong></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Jonny, when you write about the
aboriginal LS-speakers, who still have an archaical originality and
special syntax then this is a result of the fact that these people hadn't much
sense for any 'furor grammaticalis' and linguistical finesse. Their language
was rough and rifty, just like the thoughts came into their tongue- no matter
for grammatical correctness. Modern people have a more rational mentality,
weighing everything for being correct or uncorrect. They always distinguish
between nice or uggly, and they sort and categorize the whole world. This
wasn't important for the 'homo agriculus'; he didn't make many thoughts about
this. The aboriginals weren't so 'top-heavy', so much ruled by their heads:
they didn't mind for the sequence of the words as long as they made a
recognizable sense. Or so...</span></div></span></span></div><span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" class="q">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span></span> </div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span><u>(my
answer:)</u></span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> </div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span>And I guess your thoughts to be
wise! I myself often made thoughts about these 'plain' people using a
'plain' language for 'plain' matters. And this was the way how I learned LS,
with a vocabulary enabling to express everything which is necessary for a live
between wheat and water, cattle and fruit trading. And exactly this way it is
still used today; if we come to any overblown, intellectual themes we prefer
to use Standard German.</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span>But- these oldies weren't stupid
at all; they just lived in a smaller universe with less difficile rules. They
weren't forced to write down anything, they had everything in their minds and
that could be handed down to the next generation.</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span></span> </div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span>Ron and others often say that it's
a waste to use LS just this way, and I think they're quite right at this
point. In special Reinhard is very capable in describing matters and relations
in LS with a good and rich vocabulary. This way he helps to keep old, nearly
forgotten words, and so he should go on!</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span>But I for
myself again and again come in trouble to accept this as part of *my*
language; in a certain way it's still strange for me. My talking and writing
still are different worlds. The first one comes out of my heart and the second
one from the 'old, stupid' head... Ok- I think I'm on the best way to become
gentler and gentler here, but I still get upset when special people just turn
back the wheel of the 'Lautverschiebung' in Standard German and then sell it
as 'original' LS. I'm sure I won't get rid of this for all my
life! </span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> </div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> <span>Allerbest</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span></span> </div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span>Jonny Meibohm<font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" size="2"><br><br>----------<br><br>From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>Subject: Language maintenance<br><br></font>Moin, guys, and thanks for sharing your
thoughts on this.<br><br>As far as I am concerned, there is
little "right" and "wrong" here; it's a matter of changes, contexts and
choices. In the long run, I believe we and the language will be the
richer. <br><br>Personally I am not really in favor of either extreme:
guarding "purity" as one extreme, and starting a orgy of
</span><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span>free-for-all </span></font><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span>innovation as the
other extreme. Like Jonny, I'm definitely am not in favor of routinely
transforming German words according to what one thinks the sound shifts are,
because we are dealing with more than just sound shifts. (And, for the
record, some of my participation in suggesting neologisms were
tongue-in-cheek.) Nevertheless, I see no basic problem with
neologisms. All languages have them, and all languages adapt to changes
in various ways; so why not this one? Exempting it would be tantamount
to preserving it as a museum exhibit. In that case why should neither
touch nor use it. <br><br>I find the Low Saxon language to be full of tools
that can add great power to expressions, especially in written compositions,
with a plethora of uniquely evocative words and colorful idiomatic
constructs. It is only that most people are not familiar with many of
those because their acquaintance with the language is very shallow and from a
German vantage point. I love studding my wordcraft with those gems and
think it would be a shame if they fell by the wayside. Wider use of the
language and greater freedom of literary experimentation as well genre and
style expansion would go a long way in bringing out this littled-tapped
resource. However, this necessitates in large part more daring on the
part of publishers. <br><br>I am tired of the argument that the language
should stay in the village. There have always been many townsfolk and
city dwellers that use it, though it is true that since urban supression of
the language started in earnest it has been mostly in rural corners that it
has been used routinely. <br><br>As for pronouns, obviously Marcus has a point
in saying that familiar <span style="font-style: italic;">du</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">ji</span> are the default second person pronouns
among speakers of the language. This is definitely so in most villages,
because, as Marcus noted, there is not much of a social scale, if any.
However, I <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span> heard villagers
addressing "dignitaries" such as teachers, clerics and politicians with polite
<span style="font-style: italic;">Se</span>. It is true, though, that
even in cities the use of the language facilitates the path to being on first
name basis and using familiar </span></font><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span><span style="font-style: italic;">du</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">ji</span>, among the oldtimers at least if the
speakers are roughly on the same social level. My point is that it is an
oversimplification to say that familiar </span></font><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><span><span style="font-style: italic;">du</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">ji</span> are the only second person pronouns used
in the language, though it seems fair to me to say that they predominate and
are preferred. <br><br>Polite forms used to be routinely used in Low Saxon in
earlier times, namely when people of various social backgrounds still used the
language with each other. In my opinion, the pronominal "shrinkage" is
due to social "shrinkage." As the language retreated from the public
arena and developed into a small-community language, and in the cities into a
home, club or closet language, its use came to be more or less confined to
circles of people that were close to each other and therefore addressed each
other in familiar modes. This is further proven by jocular "abuse,"
namely by the more ready use of epithet-like "titles" for each other (in other
words, calling each other names in jest the way Jonny and I often do).
The use of Low Saxon allows speakers to get to this more intimate relationship
more quickly than when using German, for instance. There is a sort of
instant sense of familiarity, which does not mean that there is a complete
absence of boundaries and respect. (It's more like men teasingly calling
each other "old chap" or "you dirty old rascal" in somewhat
old-fashioned English, or Australians calling someone they like "cheeky
bugger" or such.) <br></span></font></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"></span>
<div><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Anyway, this was today's 75 cents worth
from the windbag.</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Regards,</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">
Reinhard/Ron</span> </div>
<div> <br></div><div><br></div></span>
<div style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><font size="2">Beste Johnny, Reinhard and
Lowlanderen,</font></div>
<div style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><font size="2">I am not
qualified at all to give 2 cents worth here, but what the heck, thats never
stopped me digging a hole and falling into it before. After reading much of
what Johnny has written about Low Saxon I feel for him and his understanding
of the historical context of his language. All this talk of agricultural
users or regional users, and the idea that the speakers are somehow dumb or
poorer intellectually is just so bloody typically elitist European. The
speaker is made to feel inferior because this is what the elitist German or
Dutch want you to feel in order for the language to not be taken seriously and
be a real threat to the "approved" national language. People need to be
Proud and Loud. The oldies Johnny knows probably do Naturally... speak in
a more colloqial manner because this is how it is (or was). German would have
been used on official occassions the same as Latin would have been used
centuries earlier. It is only elitist fools who are probably too stupid to
have a grasp on LS and felt self conscious of their lack of ability to be able
to fluently converse in this language who trivialised it. I cannot see why LS
would also not have been spoken in this colloqial manner during the Hanse
period. There is nothing to be embarrassed or apologetic about how LS is or
was spoken. This tactic is used all the time to make people conform to what
the government wants you to be (or speak). Take the current Dutch push for
making the Nederlands more "modern". The way I see it Johnny's is the real LS
and Reinhard's is an evolved form of it (modern) similar to how Aussie is an
evolved form of English, but still English. When I was a little nipper we
would sit at the kitchen table and always listen to the ABC (government tv)
news. It was delivered in a forced English accent. We used to think the
newsreader was a right old wanker as he had to put on a silly forced accent as
if he was not proud to be an Aussie and speak the way all people of all
classes spoke in Australia. I agree with Reinhard when he says LS allows
speakers to get to an intimate or familiar relationship when speaking it which
is just not there in the same sense in speaking German or Dutch. Language is
flexible enough to be pulled and punched and stretched in many different
directions and what is right or wrong is really only in the ear of the
listener not the speaker. The speaker says it how they want, and that is how
it should be. The written aspect and all the rules that involves is for the
word scientists and I do not mean that in an offensive manner. (time to crawl
out of that hole now???). </font></div>
<div style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><font size="2">Cheers,</font></div>
<div style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><font size="2">Peter
Snepvangers</font></div>
<div style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><font size="2"><a href="mailto:snepvangers@optushome.com.au" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">snepvangers@optushome.com.au</a></font></div>
<div style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;"><font size="2">Sydney<br><br>----------<br><br></font><span class="q"><span><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" size="2">From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>Subject: Language maintenance<br><br>Hi, Pete!<br><br>Thanks for the more than 2 cents' worth! (No, disclaimers needed. <span style="font-style: italic;">Every</span>body on the List gets to "chirp" in.)
<br><br>Everything you said makes total sense to me. But I would like to add, or repeat, what I believe lies at the bottom of it all. No, it ain't "Europe-bashing," just observations from life memories and from history reading.
<br><br>As far as I can tell, it is only now that Europe has started to grow out of the old mode of thinking, has truly, though still haltingly, begun to abandon the old ideal of one country coinciding with one ethnicity, one religion and one language -- in other words, the ideal of "country = tribe."
<br><br>Until recently, minorities were considered flies in the ointment, much like resident foreigners. If they could not be treated like foreigners because their ancestry was somewhere else, no matter how long ago (such as Jews before grudgingly granting them citizenship), then they had to be
<span style="font-style: italic;">made</span> into members of the tribe. An important part of this was making them use the same language as the tribe, not only in public but altogether, and this was considered an essential part of acculturation. The easiest way of accomplishing this was to outlaw their languages (which still happened in the recent past, and Australia and North America took this one step farther in the early part of the 20th century by sending indigenous children away from their people to English-only boarding schools). The surest albeit slower way is to ban their languages from schools. Of great advantage to this cause is it if a minority language is fairly closely related to the
<span style="font-style: italic;">Kultursprache</span> of the country/tribe. In this case you can declare that it is merely a dialect (group) of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Kultursprache</span>, and "dialect" comes with the flags "local color" and "inferior." Not only do you then not have to provide it with special consideration and funding, but you also instill in the speakers themselves what amounts to a linguistic inferiority complex, a shame complex, so that eventually the speakers themselves will participate in the process of eliminating the language, such as elders not teaching it to the offspring, and youngsters at some point in their lives refusing to continue using the language even in their homes. (After all, teenagers want to be like their perceived peers.)
<br><br>Mind you, this is by no means unique to Low Saxon. Other examples of "dialects," past and present, abound, such as Occitan, Catalan and </font></span></span><font size="2">Franco-Provençal </font><span class="q">
<span><font style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;" size="2"> in France, Scots in Scotland, Darlecalian, Jamtlandish and Scanian in Sweden, Catalan, Valencian, Balearic and Galician in Spain, Aragonese, Kashubian in Poland ...
<br><br>By, the way, I'm not totally sure I use a "more evolved" version of LS. I always try to stick with what the language itself has to offer, but I also try to use it by dealing with a greater variety of subject matter and contexts, and I am by no means alone there. Furthermore, unless, as a writer, you stick to narrative in everyday spoken style, you inevitably "play" with the language in what is known as "language art," especially in poetry. After all, like visual art forms, poetry is supposed to afford you the freedom of exploring and experimenting, of allowing the words to sound and interact in ways ordinary speech modes are unable to do.
<span style="font-style: italic;">All</span> languages allow for this. If they don't it is that they have been artificially restrained and thus limited, and this is a sure sign of impending language death.<br><br>Kumpelmenten,
<br>Reinhard/Ron</font></span></span></div><br style="font-family: arial,sans-serif;">