<div dir="ltr"><div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">=========================================================================<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 16 July 2008 - Volume 01<br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">If viewing this in a web browser, please click on</span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page </span><br style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode</span>.<br>=========================================================================<br></div><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" class="HcCDpe"><span class="EP8xU" style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">jonny</span> <span class="lDACoc"><<a href="mailto:jonny.meibohm@arcor.de">jonny.meibohm@arcor.de</a>></span></span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Subject: </span><span class="HcCDpe"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.14 (03) [E]</span><br><br></span><div id=":e8" class="ArwC7c ckChnd">
<div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">Dear
Lowlanners,</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">let me try to
answer all your welcomed postings referring to my, admittedly, somehow
'rumbling' remarks to Sandy's and Rons suggestions about how to make a
language simpler.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><u>Ron:</u></font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><span>> </span>However, let me
remind you that it is a common misconception that grammars of languages of
"primitive" cultures are simple.</font></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">Let me ask you:
What or who makes the decision whether a culture is simple or not? A culture
(and its language) always has to be seen in context with its general living
condition. All the primitive races, which in German are much
better denoted as 'Naturvölker' ('folks of nature'), aren't really primitive at
all but mostly admirable and very skilful in managing their
hemispheres.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"><span>> </span>Because of
remnants of ancestor worship, we and people of some other cultures have been
brainwashed to believe in the "ancient golden </font></div>
<div><font><font face="Arial"><span>> </span>age"
notion. "Simple" should not be automatically equated with "primitive." If you
are eloquent, you can express the same within simple </font></font></div>
<div><font><font face="Arial"><span>>
</span>structural frameworks as within complex ones</font></font></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">But if I'm not so
eloquent it is easier for me to have clear, reliable rules and patterns,
without a mass of space for my personal, subjective interpretations.
And these patterns indeed are vanishing, if we compare our modern languages
with their forerunners, don't you think so?</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Arial">> Similarly, the Altaic
languages are not exactly grammatically <font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">simple, </span></font><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">and they distinguish things our grammars don't (e.g.,
reporting something </span></font></font></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Arial"><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">> with or without first-hand knowledge).
</span></font></font></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">I've always thought
our subjunctive (which is on the best way to get lost in German and already
quasi has been lost in Low Saxon) enables us to do the same, but maybe the
Altaic languages even do it better.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><font face="Arial">> You surely don't want to insinuate that the Chinese languages
and languages like them can be equated with "Neandertaler stammering", do >
you? </font><br>Surely not! For some thousand years the right, rich and
appropriate language in their culture '<u>behind</u> the Great Wall(!)', of
course. But modern history adopts, that one of the reasons why the Neanderthal
vanished in support of Homo Sapiens has been their different communication
system. This probably occurred under the conditions of the ice age, when their
common habitat changed dramatically. And this surely didn't happen as rapidly as
those revolutionary processes which happen today to many cultures,
being no longer able to keep themselves off-side the American Way of
Life.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><u>Sandy:</u></font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><div class="Ih2E3d"><font face="Times New Roman">> As you see above, I was talking about what we should
discard in<br>> inventing a world language, not about re-inventing existing
languages.</font><br></div>But a 'world language', this is implemented in the word
itself, would dominate the existing languages, or at least substitute
them.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><div class="Ih2E3d"><font face="Times New Roman">> I don't think Latin was any more logical than any
other language, and I<br>> don't see how the form of the language used makes
any difference to a<br>> society's tendency towards
imperialism.</font><br></div>Let me substitute 'logical' by 'straight', and then we
perhaps could agree on the point. I already mentioned above: it didn't give much
space for personal interpretations. A message, instruction, information or
command of a Roman Cesar could be read by any official stationed far away,
e.g on the British Islands, without doubts or misunderstanding. This is a
good basic for imperialism, I think. </font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><div class="Ih2E3d"><font face="Times New Roman">> Are you saying that complex grammar is somehow the
basis of military<br>> power or cultural influence?</font><br></div>Not complex,
but if clear and straight, on a high level of possibilities and
variability: yes.</font></span></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><font face="Times New Roman">>> And, Sandy, sorry for you: I fear in cases
like these you wouldn't get<br>>> along with Sign Language
exceptionally, but you would have to use the<br>>> written
word.</font></font></span></div>
</div><div><span><font face="Courier New"><div class="Ih2E3d"><font face="Times New Roman">> I don't know what you're referring to here, could
you explain further?</font><br></div>Well- I think for the reason of
efficiency SL has to be reduced to a certain, shortened level
of elements that are really important. In the past you already had
'outet' yourself as an advocate for simplifying languages, so I think many of
your theories have to be seen as a result of your personal experiences. (BTW: I
always see exactly the opposite occurring in your
postings!)</font></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">But- isn't this,
more or less, valid for all languages? If I'd have to deal with a very
complex, intricate matter I always should prefer a written script to
any spoken word. The possibilities then are wider; a written text, correctly
using all facilities of grammar, implies more accuracy. And it can shorten
the way to the object considerably.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">As you might
remember, caused by your contributions I've dealt a little bit with the
unbelievable and striking possibilities of SL, but large and by it 'just'
will remain a replacement for spoken languages- with less potentiality in
comparison of people who are on the same educational level, one group using SL,
the other one spoken words. Or don't you think so?</font></span></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><font face="Times New Roman">> Expressiveness in natural<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> languages doesn't arise
from the logicality of the grammar, but from the</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></font><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><font face="Times New Roman">> use of metaphor, and I'd say that can be used in any
language.</font> </span></font></span></div>
</div><div><span><font face="Courier New">Idioms and
metaphors are the most difficult parts for a learner of a foreign
language, and they are often longwinded.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><u>Ingmar:</u></font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> Dear Jonny, but you should
know there is also a NEW Latin, without gender,</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> difficult verb
conjungations, cases etc. and there you have that world</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> language you were talking
about: Interlingua.</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Ingmar, I'd prefer
'Middlesprake' in this case *s*!</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New"><u>Heiko:</u></font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> Oh, no, what a mess
compared to the nice, simple grammar of Esperanto.</span></span></div>
<div><span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> ...</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> If anyone ever needs a
planned language, Esperanto is ready. The only drawback</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> is that the major players
involved (like e.g.) the Americans, do not want a</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">> planned
language.</span></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">I don't think this
to be a special problem of the U.S.A. (whom you mean, I guess). And just have a
look into yourself: The E.U. is moving together more and more, and suddenly the
yearning for local minority languages starts to increase.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">Summa summarum: in
some deep chambers of my heart there really may be</font><font face="Arial"> " remnants of ancestor worship,"</font></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">as Ron presumed.
But I really don't want to be forced to rely exceptionless on any language with
'castrated' grammar, and- sorry!- exactly this would be the case if I had to
manage all my daily life with Low Saxon. The structures are too complex,
meanwhile.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Courier New">As a result of
these coherences we will have to watch a lot of minority languages vanish and
perhaps to wait for another, complete new way of communication-
'world-wide-webbed' *s*.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div align="left"><font face="Courier New"><span>Thanks
and regards to all of you</span>!</font></div>
<div align="left"> </div><font color="#888888">
<div align="left"><font face="Courier New">Jonny
Meibohm</font></div></font></div>
</div><br>----------<br><br><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">From: R. F. Hahn <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>>
<br>
Subject: Grammar<br><br>Moin, Jonny!</span></font><br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><font face="Arial"><span>> </span>However, let me
remind you that it is a common misconception that grammars of languages of
"primitive" cultures are simple.</font></div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span><font face="Courier New">Let me ask you:
What or who makes the decision whether a culture is simple or not? A culture
(and its language) always has to be seen in context with its general living
condition. All the primitive races, which in German are much
better denoted as 'Naturvölker' ('folks of nature'), aren't really primitive at
all but mostly admirable and very skilful in managing their
hemispheres.</font></span></div><br><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Why ask <i>me</i> of all people? I'm the one that wrote "primitive" with quotation marks. My personal experience is that all ethnic groups and cultures are highly developed in their own ways, in <i>different</i> ways.<br>
<br></span></font><div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span><font face="Arial">> Similarly, the Altaic
languages are not exactly grammatically <font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">simple, </span></font><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">and they distinguish things our grammars don't (e.g.,
reporting something </span></font></font></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span><font face="Arial"><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">> with or without first-hand knowledge).
</span></font></font></span></div>
<div><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><font face="Courier New">I've always thought
our subjunctive (which is on the best way to get lost in German and already
quasi has been lost in Low Saxon) enables us to do the same, but maybe the
Altaic languages even do it better.</font></span><br></div><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span></span></div><span><font face="Courier New"><br></font></span><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">It's similar, but the German subjunctive is more cumbersome. In Turkic languages, you just change the verb suffix, and you <i>must</i> do so, or else it comes across as if you're passing it off as first-hand knowledge, and in this it's a bit similar to the insertion of Japanese <i>-n</i>. The German subjunctive is only used with a sort of emphasis on hearsay, much like English "apparently ..." and "supposed to". So these second-hand knowledge forms predominate in the Turkic language media and non-fiction literature. And you can use it with the first person too; e.g. Turkish ...<br>
<br> İstanbul'a git<b>t</b>im.<br> I went to Istanbul.<br><br> İstanbul'a git<b>miş</b>im.<br> (They say) I went to Istanbul. I'm supposed to have gone to Istanbul.<br></span></font><div style="margin-left: 40px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"></span></font><br></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"></span></font></div>
</div><font style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size="2"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Regards,<br>Reinhard/Ron</span></font>
</div>