<div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font><font>==============================</font><font>=======================<br>
L O W L A N D S - L - 19 November 2012 - Volume 03<br><a href="mailto:lowlands.list@gmail.com" target="_blank">lowlands.list@gmail.com</a>
- <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/" target="_blank">http://lowlands-l.net/</a><br>
Posting: <a href="mailto:lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
Archive: <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html</a><br>
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)<br>
Language Codes: <a href="http://lowlands-l.net/codes.php" target="_blank">lowlands-l.net/codes.php</a><br>
==============================</font><font>=======================</font></font></span></p>
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font><font><br></font></font>From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>
Subject: Language varieties<br><br>Dear Lowlanders,<br><br>Our Sandy wrote under "Pronouns":<br><br></span><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I
haven't started reading this book yet, but would like to discuss the
idea of what a standard language is, especially with respect to the
current situation in Scots. Not that the subject hasn't been done to
death in the past; but my ideas have changed since then, so it needs
doing to death again.<br><br>The situation with Scots is that nobody agrees on how it should be
written. There are groups that agree vaguely, but even within these
groups, an agreement that would produce a standard form of the language
isn't forthcoming. Indeed, it's very rare for a writer in Scots to even
agree with himself (women writers not excluded!), and the only way I can
achieve self-consistency without an external standard is by
concordancing on a computer.
<br><br>I haven't actually explained what I would consider to be a standard
form of a language. Maybe I could give a few examples to start.
<br><br>Like
Catalan, a standard form of the language would make it possible to
publish regular newspapers in the language that everyone's happy to
read.<br><br>Like Finnish, it would be a form that people can write consistently even if nobody actually speaks it.
<br><br>Like
English, any variations would be generally understood and not
significant enough to be worth worrying about (eg colour vs color: I
know some people moan about this, but that's nationalism rather than
linguistics; there can't really be a rational basis for making a fuss
over a very limited number of insignificant differences that are agreed
on throughout a wide publishing domain and recognisable outside that
domain).<br><br>With Scots, a lot of people, especially academics, think that Scots
shouldn't be written in anything but dialectical form, possibly with
some creatively fantastic forms thrown in.
<br><br>But there are also
those who believe that Scots will never thrive unless a standard form is
laid down and accepted. Unfortunately, their actions tend to contradict
their beliefs: they'll accept taking words they don't know from
dictionaries and learning to use them to strengthen the language, but
they draw the line at allowing words, or even just variant
pronunciations, to creep into what they see as standard language. Put
briefly, they're happy to use new forms in their writing, as long as
it's only augmenting their own dialect, not contradicting it.<br><br>I think there comes a point where if a language is to survive
against media onslaught and natural erosion, it's necessary to go
fundamentalist on the idea of a standard form of the language, and for
someone (lexicographers? publishers? government? - whatever works) to
say that "you have to spell this word this way or you're not writing
Scots, but a dialect of Scots".
<br><br>But Scots writers and academics, even the ones who want a standard
language and imagine they're supporting the idea, seem much more
attached to their own dialects, sometimes only certain aspects of their
own dialects, than to any concrete idea of a standard language where
they'd have to spell the way they're told. Is it worth dropping all your
own notions about how Scots should be written, in order to ensure a
future for Scots? Few seem to think so!
<br><br>In the Victorian revival of Scots, it was normal for Doric writers
to write "wha" rather than "fa", and "no" rather than "nae". They went
along with the accepted practice in other dialects. This would be less
likely now, and the opposite idea, of basing standard Scots on Doric
pronunciation, would seem almost impossible to implement.
<br><br>To me, this means that Scots, whether you think of it as a language
or a set of dialects, will eventually die out. For a language to reach
full maturity, its speakers have to stop thinking of it as their baby.
Especially if, as with Scots speakers, that means choking it to death
rather than letting it play with the horrible children across the
street.
<br><br>It seems ever more likely that Scotland will gain independence in
the next few years. I don't think this means anything in terms of the
survival of the language, although it might put standardisation higher
on the political agenda, which could be helpful. Nationalists tend to
use the language as a political tool, however, some even making out that
they speak it even when it's obvious that they don't. There seems no
reason to believe they'd continue the charade once they'd achieved their
political ends.
<br><br>I think that the most likely scenario is that Scots will go the way
of Cornish. Once nobody speaks it any more, there will be a generation
who want it back and are willing to learn it, but aren't emotionally
attached to specific dialects. I'm thinking Scots would then fare even
better than Cornish, considering the large amount of material the
neoScots would have to work with, including a large corpus of literature
and several dictionaries, two of them very large and scholastic.
<br><br>Of course, the Scots they devise as a standard for themselves
wouldn't be like the Scots we know, and would be pooh-poohed (or rather
"[a:xt]-ed") away by Scots speakers of the present time, but then so
would any standard anybody might create for us now.<span><span><span><span><span class="yiv886797114gI"><span><span><span><span><span class="yiv886797114gI"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br>
<span><span><span><span><span class="yiv886797114gI"><span><span><span><span><span class="yiv886797114gI"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
I concur at the very least in general from where <b>I</b> am sitting. Not only that, but, after years of observing discussions about Scots, it once again confirms to me that this case and the case of Low Saxon ("Low German") in Germany are strikingly similar (if you substitute "English" with "German"). (I leave it to our members in and from the Netherlands to let us know how they feel about Low Saxon and Limburgish used in their country.)<br>
<br>Yes, I have been saying this for well over a decade, even publicly wrote about it (in print as well!). Once I even received a snail mail letter from Scotland telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about and to mind my own bl...y business. Last week alone I spoke in person about Scots with two people from Scotland, one who immigrated to the USA right after World War II, and the other a current citizen of (West Coast) Scotland visiting Seattle. Neither of them knew what I meant by "Scots." It was only after I said "Braid Scots ... Doric ... Ye ken?" that they caught on. OK, there may be the element of them not being prepared for a non-Scot in America even knowing about it. What was striking, however, is their almost identical response with regard to Scottish English versus Scots: "I wouldn't know where one starts and the other begins."<br>
<br>The differences between ("High") German and Low Saxon ("Low German") ought to be very clear not only to trained linguists but to anyone who pays at least some attention. However, Standard German is still widely considered the "umbrella language," and resistance to some people's attempts to create specific standards for Low Saxon usage and orthography tends to be fierce. I suspect that there is an undercurrent opinion that considers the very idea of Low Saxon "independence" treason. The same among Scots? We need to bear in mind here that neither Low-Saxon-speaking Germans nor Scots-speaking Scots are considered separate ethnic groups, and that the prevailing European view remains that an ethnic group is defined by its use of language.<br>
<br>I believe that the basic "problem" is that most people in the UK and in (Northern) Germany still regard Scots and Low Saxon (of Germany) respectively as being subset language variety groups of (Scottish) English and of (Northern) German respectively. In other words, in their (politically conditioned?) views Scots and Low Saxon activists' demands for their own standards are regarded as treasonous or at least as disloyal. In Germany, it is considered acceptable for speakers of Danish, Frisian, Sorbian, Romany, Sinti, and of course speakers of Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, Hebrew, etc., to claim ethnic minority status. Not so speakers of Low Saxon. They and their language are considered <i>bodenständig</i> ("rooted in the soil" = "homegrown" = "autochtonous" = "native"). And this applies, by and large, to speakers of Eastern Friesland dialects of Low Saxon as well, even though culturally they <i>are</i> Frisian rather than German. Similarly, there are many predominantly German-speaking Danes, Frisians, Sorbs, Poles, Slovenes, Croats, Italians, etc., in Germany that tend to be classified as ethnic Germans by most people. (However, German-only-speaking Roma, Sinti, Jews, Turks, Kurds, etc., tend to remain ethnically distinct in most people's minds. I bet the same applies to people of South Asian, West Indian, East Asian and other backgrounds in Scotland, even if they speak Scots or even Gaelic besides English.)<br>
<br>Best wishes to everyone, and happy Thanksgiving to all our Lowlanders in and from the USA! <br><br>Regards,<br>Reinhard/Ron<br>Seattle, USA<br></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font><font>==============================</font><font>===========================<br>
Send posting submissions to <a href="mailto:lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lowlands-l@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>.<br>
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.<br>
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to<br><a href="mailto:listserv@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">listserv@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
or <a href="mailto:lowlands.list@gmail.com" target="_blank">lowlands.list@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html" target="_blank">http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html</a>
.<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#%21/group.php?gid=118916521473498" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498</a>
<br>
==============================</font><font>============================ </font></font></span></p></div></div>