LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 23.JUL.2000 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 23.JUL.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: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
 Subject: LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" LOWLANDS-L, 19.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

 Criostoir wrote:

>Please give me your thoughts on the matter as
>Lowlanders - I would be interested to hear how Lowland
>cultures have been affected by the above.

As I have always understood it, Lowland Scots - and this is very much true
of Shetlanders - pride themselves on their hospitality towards incomers,
and are very critical of the Welsh especially, and to some extent of the
Gaels, for their attitudes to outsiders. I have heard Scots complain
bitterly of the Welsh attitudes to Scottish holidaymakers in Wales;
Inverness is often cited as an unfriendly city by Aberdonians (mind you, so
is Aberdeen by Glaswegians), and I've lost count of the number of times
people have told me that they've come into a pub where everyone was
speaking English and everyone has immediately switched to Gaelic or Welsh.
It is true that there is considerable resentment of English incomers -
known locally as 'White Settlers' - in the Aberdeenshire area, but this
does not tend to extend either to holidaymakers or to people who come in to
do ordinary jobs - it is mostly directed at the 'Green Wellie' types who
sell flats in London and buy up estates in Scotland with the proceeds. (In
the Highlands there seems to be a different situation, in that almost every
shop seems - though no doubt this is a biased perception - to be owned by
English people - this is not the case in the North East).

Most of this is probably myth, but myth is significant. In Shetland, I
would say that the hospitality myth is more powerful than the Shetland
identity myth - or, to put it another way, the emphasis on Shetland
hospitality is a more important aspect of the Shetland perception of
Shetland identity than the characteristics - such as language - which make
Shetland different.

>I recall vaguely reading something on the
>establishment of a literary standard for West Frisian,
>where elements were chosen on the basis of difference
>from Dutch. Is this correct? If so, it sounds a good
idea.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. In my opinion, much damage has been
done to written Scots by emphasising aspects which are perceived as 'not
English' - in other words, defining Scots in terms of English. One very
influential Scots enthusiasts has even recently written that, in a sense,
Scots only exists insofar as it is different from English. The practical
result of this is that non-English elements are preferred and English
cognate ones eliminated, giving rise to a type of Scots with which natural
Scots speakers cannot identify.

For example, one Scots orthography proposal puts great emphasis on
distinguishing the 'Scots' diphthong [@i] in spelling from the 'English'
diphthong [ai] - e.g. 'dyke' from 'five' [faiv]. But (a) as both these
diphthongs occur in Scots they are both Scots; (b) as they are
distinguished in speech by the Scottish Vowel Length Rule they are
non-phonemic and thus do not require orthographic distinction, and (c) both
diphthongs occur in Scottish Standard English as well as Scots. The
argument is based on anti-English paranoia coupled with a total ignorance
of phonology. Conversely, the same writer criticises as parochial the use
of AA rather than AW in words like 'caa' (call), 'faa' (fall) which have
final 'L in English, ignoring the fact that the final 'L existed in older
Scots as well. Worst of all, it is recommended that the 'English' element
of the vocabulary (e.g. funny) be spelt with a different system from the
'Scots' element (e.g. canny). The 'different from English' criterion leads
to a ragbag of conventions which are determined by quasi-political ideology
rather than either practicality or precedent.

Lexically, it is one thing to use Scots forms like 'lassie' or 'quine' and
'ken' rather than 'girl' and 'know', because these represent natural Scots
usage. It is another to deliberately avoid using 'English' words like
'write' just because a 'Scots' equivalent like 'scrieve' happens to exist,
ignoring the fact that Scots speakers do not use it in this way. This leads
to an artificial type of Scots which not only no one speaks (this is to
some extent inevitable of any written language), but no one can speak.

" I've yet to meet
an English person who doesn't denigrate Lallans as
'aberrant English' and I think most English -
imperialist as they are (generalisation but
nonetheless valid) - would find it laughable if you
were to refer to Lallans as a separate language with
its own literature and writing culture. "

It's not what English people think that matters. It's the fact that this is
what most Scots people think.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: Roger Thijs [Roger.Thijs at village.uunet.be]
Subject: language politics

Shouldn't we reposition ourself as regard to regional languages rather as
linguists (or linguistically interested people, I'm an engineer actually)
rather than as political promotors.

Isn't it an academical discussion wether a dialect or a dialect group is
sufficiently different from a major koiné language to become considered as
a language, just by that distinction.

Lëtzebuergesch has it's own orthography, school grammar, dictionnary etc.,
valid for the whole territory. Low Saxon nor Limburgish do have a _common_
standard that is used uniformerly for school education, legislation, law
proceedings etc... in Hamburg in the very same version as in Kiel, in Sint
Truiden in the very same way as in Venlo. So _politically_ speaking, based
on the _social_ recognition,  on could easier state Lëtzebuergesch is a
language than one can come to a similar classification for Low Saxon or
Limburgish.

The two (official) Norwegian languages are more closely related to each
other as Hasselt Limburgish is related to Dutch or Bremer Low Saxon is
related to German. Everybody agrees though it are two separated languages:
I saw Norwegian international treaties published in both Norwegian
languages.

As long as basque languages are different from village to village, however
linguistically different they are from French, they will be considered as
dialects, since there is hardly a way to have something set up regionally.
Same holds for Limburgish. This does not "linguistically" mean basque
dialects are dialects of French, nor that Limburgish dialects are dialects
of Dutch, but it means there is no other koiné as French or Dutch. True,
people from neighbouring villages still understand each other, over a
distance of 15 miles it becomes increasingly difficult... For a fellow from

Paris, spoken Houtsiplout Walloon is as difficult to understand as basque
from a mountain village in the South. So it are all dialects for him.

What's the alternative as long as our good people do not come to strive
towards additional standardized koinés? Do they really want something more
than just keep it as language for the local bar and for carnaval? Can we
avoid them to choose the existing _standardized_  national language, or do
we have to force them to learn Esperanto, considering their dialect is
sufficiantly different from the national koiné, awaiting their koiné being
developped?

A reference (as to the political position of _Dutch_ towards _German_,
though it's not helpfull for position Low Saxon nor Limburgish) may be the
practice at the European community.

A couple of weeks ago, I got, in French version, the "Catalogue Général des

Publications 2000" of the "Office des Publications Officielles des
Communautés Européenes". 349 pp (small print over 2 columns, ISBN
92-828-9399-5)

Most publications are in different languages, not all in all languages.
Codes used in the catalogue for indication in what language a book can be
ordered:
ES espagnol
DA dannois
DE allemand
GR Grec
EN anglais
FR français
GA gaélique
IT italien
NL  néerlandais
PT portugais
FI finnois
SV suédois

Lëtzebuergesch is not in the list. May look strange, but all legislation in

the Grand-Duchy is in French, so it would be absurd for them to switch to
Lëtzebuergesch on European level, and translate into French for their own
law gazetteer.

In my copy the titles are in French, unless there is no French version; in
the latter case the order of _preference_ for listing the title of the
publication is:

anglais
allemand
espagnol
italien
portugais
néerlandais
danois
suédois
finnois
grec
other languages.

That Greec is positioned so low may have to do with avoiding printing greec

characters.

To my feeling, most important is the list of languages used in the European

parliament and wherefore simultaneous translation is organized.

So we take the European daily law gazetter:
"Journal Officiel des Communeautés européennes, série L, Législation"
(quasi quotidien)
It's available in any of these languages:
FR and DA DE EN ES FI GR IT NL PT SV
(Gaelic is not in the list)

It costs terribly much money to have all these translations done, but the
alternative would be that the countries would have to translate each by
their own (now in the "Belgisch Staatsblad", only the _titles_ of European
laws are listed, and reference is made to the European gazetteer for the
content).

Since extentions to the East are in preparation, propasals are running to
reduce the number of languages, but no agreement could be found yet for
drawing the line:

The French want just English and French, and nothing else. (with a
reïnforced position of French);
The italians do not want to be excluded;
The Dutch don't care very much,
the Flemish Belgians do what they can to defend the maintenance of Dutch
etc. etc.

In reduced ministerial committees the number of languages used is reduced,
I think it's English, French and the national language of the country the
meeting takes place.
There was a row a couple of months ago in Finland, since the Finnish did
not want to organize a translation into German for Schröder.

So, while this battle among the national koinés is just strating, it's
difficult to defend a legally reïnforced position of regional languages
without standard.

If an American engineer moves to Lübeck, what language package can one
offer for him to study the regional language. What language will he have to

speak? Will the Lübecker workforece require him to speak Lübecker Platt?

I think we have to admit many of our regional languages have a week
political position. I don't think having them recognized for being listed
among Cockney slang or gipsy language variants will help very much to
reïnforce their position. (I think in the French parliament one listed
about 80 regional languages; obviously this approach is downgading the
major regional languages)

In Belgian Limburg we see a lot of publications about the dialect published

by "heemkundige kringen" (circles of local history). These people want to
record in writing (eventually on CD-ROM) what's in a process of being lost.

It may be better as nothing to _preserve_ passively (in books and on CD) at

least some tracks for common memory.
As written in 1398 by an historian (Jacques de Hemricourt, Miroir des
Nobles de Hasbaye; Hesbaye/Haspengouw is covering the South of Belgian
Limburg and the Nort-West of Liège):
Veriteis est que ly plus noble et ly plus necessaire choise qui soit à
créatures humaines, ultra ses v sens corporeis, ch'est memoire.

Regards,
Roger

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language maintenance

Ron wrote:

>there were kids who's cultural heritage was not Northern or even German,
and many people probably thought they shouldn't be bothered with those
"Platt" things. <

Isn't there a real problem here? In Britain it is generally accepted public

policy (not necessarily implemented uniformly, etc, etc, but wait to see
where I'm going) that minority cultures should be supported as a way of
improving the self-esteem of their members. In line with this there is
public support for the use of minority languages through cultural
activities, besides publication of information materials in minority
languages (though the latter might be considered practical rather than
cultural). How should a Scottish local authority or the Scottish Parliament

prioritise support for autochthonous and non-autochthonous languages? On
what basis are they going to decide? It could be that teaching Bengali or
Cantonese in primary schools is by some reasonable argument more important
than teaching Scots. At the same time, if Bengali- or Cantonese-speaking
parents take a slightly different line from the "so-called" liberal
establishment and believe that the most important thing that their children

can learn in school is English, how can one justify teaching Scots to them?

Not only do curricula get overcrowded but there is a danger that teaching
Scots may be seen as a means of imposing the culture of the white majority
on minorities.

It may be that the languages I have chosen are not optimal for my argument
so substitute X, Y and Z if it helps you to think about the issues. Maybe
Turkish in Hansestadt Hamburg would do as well.

When offering opinions rather than simply asking questions I tend to agree
with Henry when he says:
>My point is, we have to stop waiting on them to take action, and take
action
ourselves. Nobody will work for free in your garden, you shall have to work

it yourself. It's your garden, not theirs...<

But then, my minority language is not one under threat in ways which excite

any great passions in me. I have to believe that its eventual (by which I
mean ultimate, not possible) extinction is a matter of evolutionary
inevitably.

Regarding "Schiet", etc, I distinguish the Swedish use as an intensifier
from both the LS uses, which convey either a negative (Ron) or positive
(Henry) sense. "Skitbra" is "very good", "skitdålig" is "very bad". The
usage is exactly parallel with the use of E "very", "terribly",
"frightfully", "awfully" and the dialect (Estuary English, Jamaican, etc)
"well", as in "He was well angry."

Please note that I was not in fact the originator of most of the quotes
attributed to me by Henry.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" (was "Plautdietsch",     "Mutual
comprehension", "Language politics") LOWLANDS-L,    20.JUL.2000 (03) [E/S]

Ron wrote:

>I am sure our Limburgish- and Scots-speaking friends are used to similar
>attitudes.

Scots is valued by the Scottish literary establishment precisely _because_
it is rude. This is why so much attention is now paid to the varieties
which are spoken in big cities, primarily by people who are perceived as
being 'rude' (because all respectable people - including presumably the
literary critics who favour this viewpoint, and even some of the writers of
the aforesaid varieties - speak only standard English.) What is remarkable
is that this characterisation of Scots, which is palpably incompatible with
an increase of status because lack of status is intrinsic to its
conception, is embraced by some of those who ostensibly are in favour of
increasing its status. Imagine how many parents are going to agree to their
children being taught a language which is deliberately identified with the
speech of vandals and drug addicts.

John M. Tait.

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