LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 14.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

Lowlands-L sassisch at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 14 18:40:03 UTC 2000 

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 14.AUG.2000 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
  Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
  Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
  User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
  =======================================================================

From: Gerry Mak [Gerry.Mak at aspentech.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 11.AUG.2000 (08) [E]

Collin wrote:

> On the other hand, I don't understand the objection to "Dutch". I
> suppose we could say "Netherlandic", but what's wrong with "Dutch"?
> It isn't (to my knowledge) a _pars pro totem_ as "Holland" is.
>

The problem I found is that a lot of people confuse "Dutch" with "Deutsch".

I have run across this situation myself on numerous occasions where I have
been asked to submit a report in Dutch, when it was really meant to be in
"Deutsch".

Best regards,
Gerry Mak
AspenTech Ltd.,
Tel: +44 (0)181 326 6097
Fax: +44 (0)181 326 6001
Email:gerry.mak at aspentech.com
URL: http://www.aspentech.com

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 11.AUG.2000 (08) [E]

Dear all,

Well this is all very interesting. I would add that
I've always been very conscious of names, probably
from my political stance and my background.

I noted a peculiar example of the idiosyncracies of
appellations when I observed the interaction between a
Catalan friend and her Castillian and Aragonese
associates: whenever I spoke to her about nationality,
she would say she was "Catalan" but whenever she spoke
to her friends or to English people in general, she
would say she was "Spanish". Similarly, she would talk
of being from "Catalonia" when she was with me but
"Spain" at every other time. Clearly this factor
developed because I was conscious of Catalan national
identity and supportive of it, whereas our Castillian
associates were not sensitive to the issue. In the
end, I discovered that one of the Aragonese girls
didn't even know that Anna's first language was
Catalan!

I've encountered this subsumation of local
nationalities before a number of times. I was most
surprised, however, when I encountered a pair of Kurds
who introduced themselves as "Turkish", apparently
because they presumed western Europeans have complete
ignorance of a locale named Kurdistan. However, when
they proffered that they were "Turkish", a third Kurd
interjected angrily, "No, we're not. We're Kurdish."
and then harangued the offenders in Kurdish,
presumably something along the lines of "don't ever
say we're Turkish again."

And whilst not seeking to politicise Lowlands-L once
again, my own Cornish background frequently leads to
situations where I have to assert that I am not
English, and that Cornwall is not part of England. In
addition, I recall the visit to Cornwall when I was 12
of a group of Breton exchange students. The teacher
introduced them as "French", at which the whole class
was made to resonate "Bonjour!". I mentioned that to
the arrivals that I thought they were Breton and not
French, to which they let out a huge sigh of relief
and excitement and replied "That's right, we're not
French!". The tecaher then sought to patronise them as
regards their nationality, telling them that yes, they
were indeed French and that Brittany was a part
thereof, etc. It was a very telling instance.

Until next time,

Criostoir.

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 13.AUG.2000 (06) [D/E/French]

Dear all,

Well, the whole "England for Britain" idiosyncracy of
American speech is particularly galling to the
non-English elements of the United Kingdom, although I
can't speak for Scots.

I remember a discussion I had with an American
relative concerning where, what and just when was
"Wales". She didn't have the faintest clue of the
existence of such a place, and asked if it was in
"England". I said no, it wasn't, and that it was a
country in its own right within the United Kingdom
with a capital at Cardiff and the Red Dragon flag. At
that realisation hit, and she said "Oh, I see: you
mean Wales, England?"

And once again not wishing to bait Ian, I should point
out that the continual assertion of the north of
Ireland as "part of Britain" is legally incorrect:
Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain (i.e., legally England *and*
Wales, together with Scotland) *and* Northern Ireland,
but not a part of "Great Britain".

However, that is not to say that Unionists have no
right to consider themselves British: it just means at
if we are being entirely legally correct, the north of
Ireland is not part of Britain. :-)

In extremis, "England" doesn't exist legally either,
because the actual country is "England *and* Wales",
ever since the so-called Act of Union in 1536.
Likewise, "Wales" cannot be said to be strictly
speaking extant either. In the United Kingdom, only
Scotland exists as the unitary entity we refer to in
conventional speech.

Go raibh maith agaibh,

Criostoir.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Names

Dear Lowlanders,

In my view, the underlying problem of most of what has been discussed in
this thead is that ethnicity has begun to be looked at differently in the
recent past and that this is at odds with the old "one ethnicity for one
country" or "one country for one ethnicity" ideal (or wishful thinking) on
which most country names are based.

At least in Europe, even if people were aware that more than one ethnic
group inhabited a political state, the non-dominant ethnic groups were
expected to and in many cases did eventually integrate into the dominant
ethnicity after which the county was named.  You still see this at work in
many European countries, especially in France and Greece where everyone has
been expected to conform to the ethnic standards of the dominant French and
Greek ethnicities and minority groups and languages have a hard time
finding official recognition and support.

This did not happen in the "New World".  There are no ethnic groups called
"American", "Canadian", "Agentinian" or "Australian", not even among the
native populations who are composed of numerous ethnic goups with their own
names and languages.  So there is no conflict in the naming of nationality
versus ethnicity.  The same may be said of "Britain" and "Netherlands" for
they cover several ethnicities each.  However, while the adjective for
"Britain" is equally general "British", "Netherlands" only has the
adjective "Dutch", which some people understand as referring only to the
Hollandic ethnicity.  Obviously, something like "Netherlandic" is called
for.

I never refer to citizens of the Netherlands as "Dutch" without knowing
that they are in fact ethnically Dutch.  If in doubt or when referring to
the entire population of the country I always use "Netherlanders".  Not
only is this more precise, but it is also more tactful and respectful in
that it acknowledges the multi-ethnic make-up of the country and allows for
people's preference to be acknowledged as ethnically Frisian, Saxon,
Limburgish, Javanese, Surinamese, etc.  I know that most people in the
English-speaking world simply don't care, or are ignorant about this, and
call the country "Holland" and the people "Dutch".  This does not mean that
*I* have to do so.  If anyone finds this odd and wants an explanation about
my insistence on "Netherlands" and "Netherlanders", I'm all too happy to
supply it, as you can well imagine.  We don't *have* to follow a naming
convention we consider incorrect just because it is commonly used.  Change
will never occur if we all bow to majority views and conventions.

In the case of most European countries this cannot be done.  When I know
that someone is a citizen of Germany but is ethnically not German I
acknowledge this, context permitting, by saying things like _an ethnically
Danish German citizen_, _a Frisian from Germany_, _a German Rom_ or _a
German of Sorbian ethnicity_, _a German of Turkish background_ (if I know
that this Turkish person has German citizenship).  I use plain "German"
only if "nationality" or "citizenship" is clearly implied.  I have asked
some Frisians, Sorbs and Turks from Germany about this, and they agreed
that this was the preferred way.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
  You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
  request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
  as message text from the same account to
  <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
  =======================================================================
  * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
  * Contributions 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>.
  * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
    type of format, in your submissions
  =======================================================================

More information about the LOWLANDS-L mailing list