<div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">===============================================<br>L O W L A N D S - L - 07 January 2010 - Volume 03<br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><a href="mailto:lowlands.list@gmail.com">lowlands.list@gmail.com</a> - <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/">http://lowlands-l.net/</a></span><br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">
<span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Archive: <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html</a></span><br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">
<span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)</span><br style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Language Codes: <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/codes.php">lowlands-l.net/codes.php</a></span><br>
===============================================<br></div><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">From: R. F. Hahn <</span><a rel="nofollow" style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a><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;">
Subject: Language promotion</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Lowlanders,</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">A couple of days ago I responded to Marlou's query regarding differences in Low Saxon and Welsh language activism. (Please see below.) I take the liberty of adding a few notes.</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><ul style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><li>Of course there is the aspect of relative closeness. Welsh is a Celtic language, is thus related to English only on an Indo-European level and is thus not at all mutually intelligible with English. There is no doubt about its separate language status. Scots and Northumbrian, however, are closely related to English on a "sister language" level. This makes it fairly easy to "dismiss" them as being dialect groups of English, especially when they show various degrees and types of English influence. This latter case is similar to that of Low Saxon <i>vis-à -vis</i> dominant Dutch and German. In other parts of Europe it is similar to cases such as Kashubian and Slavic Silesian <i>vis-à -vis </i>dominant Polish (the latter also <i>vis-à -vis</i> dominant Czech), Ruthenian (Rusyn) <i>vis-à -vis</i> dominant Ukrainian, Jamtlandic <i>vis-à -vis</i> dominant Swedish, Võrõ <i>vis-à -vis</i> dominant Estonian, and a good number of "regional" Romance languages <i>vis-à -vis</i> dominant Portuguese, Spanish (Castilian), French and Italian.<br>
<br></li><li>The cases of Catalan (including Valencian and Balearic) and Galician in Spain may be seen as a case in between the above and that of Welsh. Andalusia, Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque Country are considered "historical nationalities" of Spain. There is a fairly strong sense of separate ethnicity, and Catalan, Galician and Basque respectively are co-official with Spanish within these official regions. During the era of fascist rule this idea ran counter to the ideology espoused at that time, and the use of indigenous languages other than Castilian was prohibited. However, especially Catalan ethnic, linguistic and even national consciousness has endured and is going pretty much full steam nowadays, even though the Catalan-speaking regions are not separate countries. Catalans have simply never internalized the view that theirs is a language inferior to Castilian or to any other language for that matter. Of course, it helps that Catalan is the official language of an independent, albeit tiny country: Andorra.<br>
</li></ul><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Regards,</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Reinhard/Ron</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Seattle, USA</span><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
Hi, Marlou!<br><br>You wrote:<br><br></div><div style="margin-left: 80px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><font size="4">The Welsh seem to take themselves and their
language seriously, while many of the Plattdüütschen still think theirs is
just the buffo version of a language, or something extra, not
necessary, and therefore they should not be a nuisance... If we knew how
this could be changed...</font><br></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><br>I
have a type of hypothesis about this. It doesn't really take a genius
to figure it out if one is willing and able to consider history and in
the process deal with the odd, usually unnamed sacred cow.<br><br>As
you probably know, the Saxon ancestors were extremely independent and
were good at defending their independence, even keeping out the Romans
which was no mean feat. They absolutely abhorred the idea of a monarchy
and even more that of an empire, and for decades they fought tooth and
nail against the introduction of Christianity. It is clear that even
after the Franks under Charlemagne finally baptized them by means of
the sword (beginning with a mass beheading) and incorporated Saxony
into the Holy Roman Empire the Saxons remained unwilling Christians and
grudging imperial subjects, as did the westernmost Slavs that suffered
a similar fate.<br><br>I
believe that this reluctance and this resentment against the empire and
the all powerful Roman Catholic church that represented it have been
fading away only very slowly. The Saxons acquired a measure of
quasi-independence by creating and running their medieval commercial
empire, the Hanseatic League, and thereby amassing independent and
hitherto unequaled wealth as well as trade colonies and thus power
abroad. They missed that opportunity by not separating themselves as an
independent country. When the Low Frankish people later surpassed the
Saxons in overseas trade they did take advantage of this opportunity by
becoming the Netherlands, the area of today's Netherlands, Belgium and
French Flanders. Had they not done so they might today be a part of
Germany.<br><br>I
go as far as hypothesizing that the success of the Christian
Reformation in what used to be (the real) Saxony - thus in Northern
Germany and the Eastern Netherlands - is at least in part due to
remaining feelings of ethnic and subliminally national independence as
well as remaining resentment regarding the Roman Catholic church in
whose name the Saxons had been beaten down not too long before that.
However, following the eventual collapse of the Hanseatic League and
thus of the North's economic clout, German education, institutions,
power and language encroached in the North, as did the Dutch
equivalents in Saxon-speaking parts of the Netherlands. The descendant
of the Saxon language came to be pushed aside and led a precarious
existence mostly in rural and low-class communities, and the equivalent
names of "Low Saxon" shifted more and more to the equivalent names of
"Low German" on the German side of the border. Another blow to the
language was when, beginning in earnest in the 18th century, use of the
language came to be prohibited in certain contexts, especially in
schools.<br><br>Northern
resistance and independence had been sufficiently worn down by 1871,
when Germany as we now know it came into existence as a nation state.
However, as most of us know that grew up in Germany, there remains a
sense of "Northern pride," an often romanticized feeling of being
different from the rest of Germany. For many, the Low Saxon ("Platt")
language is the ultimate, albeit fading, expression and symbol of this.
But the descendants of Saxons in Northern Germany and the Eastern
Netherlands have been made into German and Netherlandic nationals, and
a sense of their own, separate ethnicity has all but faded away. Add to
this the emotional repercussions of required loyalty to the emperor in
WW I and to the Nazi government in WW II on the German side, and any
talk of separate ethnicity now has a distinctively unpatriotic,
disloyal and even rebellious, secessionist ring to most. (This is where
one of the main sacred cows lies and chews her dinner over and over.) I
believe that this is where this type of ambivalence comes from, the
supposedly "lame" responses to organizing anything that seems to go too
radically in the direction of "independence" (such as "independent
language" and "independent TV station"), even talk about the Old Saxons.<br><br>Wales,
on the other hand, has always remained a country in its own right, not
a vaguely defined region like that of the Low-Saxon-speaking area. I
don't think anyone in their right mind has ever doubted that Welsh is
the unique language of Wales and the Welsh. Even English-speaking Welsh
people embrace that and many of them learn Welsh as a second language.
So what you have here is a strong sense of distinct ethnicity, culture,
language and nationhood. When London was not supportive of Welsh
language needs, it was a matter of ethnic and national rights, not a
matter of regional and minority rights. It is much easier to stand up
under such circumstances.<br><br>In
my opinion, the case of Low Saxon is more akin to that of Scots in
Scotland and Northumbrian in Northern England. Both Scots and
Northumbrian are descendants of Old Northumbrian. Scots has been
traditionally considered the poor, uneducated relative of Scottish
English. Northumbrian happens to be spoken in England and there has
been traditionally considered a dialect group of English, even though
linguistically it is arguably connected with Scots on the other side of
the border. I am told that even many Northumbrian speakers are not fond
of making this connection, in part because they have to be conditioned
to be loyal to England.<br><br>Anyway, some of the above may be worth considering when you wonder what you are up against and why you are up against it.<br><br>Regards,<br>Reinhard/Ron<br>Seattle, USA<br></div>
<br style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
•
<p>
==============================END===================================
<p>
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org.
<p>
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
<p>
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
<p>
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")
<p>
are to be sent to listserv@listserv.linguistlist.org or at
<p>
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
<p>
*********************************************************************