LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 15.AUG.2000 (03) [E]

Tue Aug 15 15:49:47 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 15.AUG.2000 (03) * 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: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 14.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

Cristoir wrote:

> 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."

My mum and her friend from Liverpool once attended English-language
Mass in Rome and realized the priest was from southern Ireland. At the
end, the three started chatting, and my mum said she was from Belfast,
her friend from Liverpool and the priest said he was from Cork. "So
we're all British", he said, and then, having thought for a while,
added, "Except me, I'm not, I'm Irish". On hearing the story I
suggested to my mum that actually, seeing as her friend was from
Liverpool, they were actually all Irish!!

> 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?"

Well, I must say I tend to forgive Americans in general. Let's face
it, they live in a very large country and I would know little of its
geography myself. But on a recent EBLUL trip to South Tyrol the Welsh
representative was consistently introduced as "aus Wales in
Westengland" - really a German-speaker in northern Italy, therefore
one belonging to a minority, should have known better.

> 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".

I'm not particularly unionist actually, so I have no problem with this
entirely accurate assessment!! Historically Britain has grown and
declined - Ptolemy used "Britannic Isles" to refer to both islands,
but the Roman province applied only to most of England and Wales.
"Britain" these days is used mainly to mean the island of "Great
Britain", although occasionally it does refer to the whole UK (as per
my previous example of "Britain in Europe" actually meaning "the UK in
the EU"). But certainly strictly speaking Northern Ireland is not part
of Britain or Great Britain, though its citizens are, or at least have
the right to be, "British".

Ron wrote:

> 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.

Saturday's session at the DIALECT 2000 conference in Belfast was
interesting on this. The point was raised that only 10% of nations on
Earth are ethnically homogenous (the fact that the Irish Republic is
one of them but would cease to be in the event of unity with the North
is actually a major factor in the conflict here).

> 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 country was named.

This indeed is what frightens "British" Protestants about entering an
"Irish" State, and is the reason the "Irish" don't really want to live
in a "British" (="English") State. It does make the position of the
Ulster Scots rather interesting though, since they don't fit into the
"two traditions cultural model".

> I never refer to citizens of the Netherlands as "Dutch" without
knowing
> that they are in fact ethnically Dutch.

As you say, most English-speakers do do this and will continue to do
so. But I wonder in cases of languages without a formal written
standard if there is a case for "correcting" this. For example, in
historical Scots texts we find "Dutch" to mean "German", and I heard
it so used by a Scots-speaker only the other day. This use could be
formalized, so that a citizen of the Netherlands would be a
"Netherlander", and an ethnically German citizen of Germany would be
"Dutch" (as would the language High German). This would leave "German"
to mean a citizen/inhabitant of Germany regardless of ethnic origin.

Germany remains a problem of course, partly because it seems the
Government still seems to regard itself as "dem deutschen Volke" (as
written on the Parliament building) rather than "dem deutschen
Staate". I often wonder why ethnically non-German inhabitants weren't
rather more concerned about this or, if they were, why their concerns
went unrecognized.

I hope we are still clinging to a link with LOWLANDS-L here, by
vaguely touching on cultural issues affecting Ulster Scots and
non-ethnically German Germans and Netherlanders, many of whom would
speak other Lowlands languages!

Best wishes,
---------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Names" LOWLANDS-L, 15.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

John hef schreven:
>
>It may be that many Americans (see qualifications above) have very little
>idea about the geography of the UK. So what? It was being argued here not
>long ago that ordinary people have better things to do with their time than
>accumulate useless knowledge. Why learn about a country which (a) doesn't
>exist and (b) is part of an entity which the World Almanac correctly says is
>"slightly smaller than Oregon"?
>
Because it prevents you from looking stupid and getting flamed
for saying the wrong thing?

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Dear Lowlanders,

In some Low Saxon (Low German) dialects, at least those in the Lower Elbe
area, both "England" and "Britain" are traditionally referred to as _Ingland_
or _England_, likewise _ingelsch_ ~ _engelsch_ and _Inglänner_ ~ _Englänner_ ~
_Ingelschmann_ ~ _Engelschmann_ refer to _English_ ~ _British_ and
_Englishman_ ~ _Briton_ respectively.  (However, "Scotland", "Scottish" and
"Scot" are _Schottland_, _schottsch_ and _Schott_ respectively.)  While there
would be no problem using _Grootbrittannien_, there is a problem with _Briet_
for 'British person' because for some reason it has come to mean 'hooligan' or
'antisocial element'.  (I don't know how old this usage is, but I know of its
use in a 19th-century song.)  While I and probably others avoid any ethnically
based epithets and really wish them away, it is still pretty much impossible
to use _Briet_ for _Briton_ because it can be misunderstood.  I guess
paraphrasing is called for in such cases, e.g., _een uut Grootbrittannien_
"someone from Great Britain".

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
 =======================================================================