LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 27.JUL.2000 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.JUL.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" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 20.JUL.2000 (06) [E]

Henry et al.,

There are times when you really do get a lot of sense spoken on this
list!
Sometimes it is remarkable how similar our experiences are.

The "Commercial" experience is a common one. In Northern Ireland we
have had
two commercials featuring Ulster-Scots or, at least, attempts at it.
Gateway
Supermarkets ran a very good, sensible and clever series a couple of
years
ago, with the slogan "Gateway - Speaking Your Language". They were set
in
shops 100 years ago, one in English, one in Scots and one in Gaelic.
However, Fairhill Shopping Centre in Ballymena (the core of the
Ulster-Scots
area, although Ballymena itself isn't Ulster-Scots-speaking any more
because
Ulster-Scots is exclusively rural these days) made a mockery of
Ulster-Scots
with an advert followed by the slogan "it's a fair shoppin' centre in
Ballymena, hae!" (the "hae" tag being typical of Ulster-Scots speech -
and
possibly the origin of the Canadian "eh?" tag). This not only made fun
of
Ulster-Scots, but worst of all was utterly wrong!! Ulster-Scots
speakers or
people from Ballymena would never use "hae" (which is cognate with
English
"have") in that way. Such things do not help.

Furthermore, you are utterly right to defend the use of the word
"computer"
in Low Saxon. Some people here, for reasons hard to disassociate from
some
bizarre form of linguistic nationalism, seem intent not on doing
anything to
assist Ulster-Scots, but rather to invent a whole pile of words on the
basis
of one historical usage or, often, simply because they sound good. I've
heard people want to make the Ulster-Scots word for computer
"ordinator" -
why? Nobody SAYS it! Or, one the basis of the occasional historical
usage,
they want to use "bibliothek" for "leebrarie". Or "stoor-sooker" for
"vacuum
cleaner" on the basis that if it's good enough for the Scandinavians
and the
Germans, it's good enough for us!! Worst of all is the quite ridiculous
"langbletherer" for "telephone", conveniently forgetting that just
about
every European language (including Irish) using some form of
"telephone" and
that, in any case, "blether" means specifically idle chat.

What people tend to forget is that languages such as Scots and Low
Saxon
have been recognised as languages *as they are spoken now*. True,
generally
they need some for of literary or distinct political history
(preferably
both), but they were recognised for what they are *now*. Not what they
were
200 years ago. Not what they could be in 25 years' time. What they are
*now*. Unfortunately many activists seem engaged in a revivalist
movement
when what is needed is a preservation movement. And since there are
already
too few activists, this is potentially disastrous.

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

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 14.JUL.2000 (06) [E]

Colin,

> I hope you'll agree, Ian, that if you go to a country and get lost
> because you didn't learn the language, you've only yourself to blame!

That is quite correct, Colin, although I am glad to say I didn't get
lost -
I merely wondered where Trefynwy was as it didn't appear on my map!

> The spelling is Trefynwy.

The interesting (and confusing) thing was that Trefynwy was signed on
the
motorway (the M4), but then not once I got onto the primary route. I
would
prefer to see more consistency, I must say. But then, I'd like to see
more
consistency on our signposts anyway!

> I actually got to be indifferent to which language I read. There are
> only a limited number of core expressions in road signs and drivers
don't
do
> more than glance at signs anyway. I got used to just glancing at
"Ewch
i'ch
> lôn" and not bothering to read the "Get in lane" sign if I happened
to see
> the Welsh one first, and so on.

That does happen, of course. When you go to another country you get
used to
the different signs as a matter of course, including some that are
simply
untranslateable (e.g. "Keine Wendemoeglichkeit"). There are two lists
of
proposed (Ulster-)Scots equivalents for our present common British
signs -
is there such a list in Scotland?

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

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 19.JUL.2000 (02) [E]

Criostoir,

You are quite correct in your assessment that minority language
activists
fear being seen as "extreme" or "not moderate". Generally minority
languages
cannot survive without these "extremists". However, it is equally
important
not to appear extreme when it is unnecessary, and I have to say that is
all
too often the case. With respect, you illustrated this yourself in a
recent
posting:

> It is entirely correct to assert that
> Scotland is oppressed by England, particularly when
> one considers that all throughout the reign of
> Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) not once did the
> right-wing Conservative Party gain any more than 25%
> of the national vote in Socialist Scotland (typically
> Scotland always returns about 55% for Labour, 25% for
> the Scottish National Party and about 10% each for the
> Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives) - nonetheless
> Scotland got a Conservative government and its
> industry and Socialist character was made to pay for
> it.

"Oppressed"? "Socialist Scotland"? These are far too strong. It is the
nature of political union that sometimes one part of the country
doesn't get
what it wants because, to all intents and purposes, it is overruled by
another part. But, for example, the people of NE England are generally
far
poorer (81 on the EU scale where EU average = 100, compared to
Scotland's 99
in 1997) and more left wing (look at election results) that the Scots.
Furthermore, per capita public spending remains far higher in Scotland
that
NE England, as does political representation. So, is NE England also
"oppressed"?

I should add that less than 50 years ago Labour got more votes than the
Conservatives, yet the Conservatives won with a clear majority
precisedly
*because* Scotland was overrepresented in parliament, and they won
nearly
all the seats in Scotland!

> The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has been
> a step in the right direction, but the London
> Government has reserved the right to abolish the
> Scottish Parliament there - yet another example of the
> power of England to legislate on Scotland's behalf
> without consulting the Scottish people first.

What about the ability of Scottish MPs to legislate on issues relating
only
to England when their own MSPs legislate on home issues relating to
Scotland? Or the fact Scotland is vastly overrepresented in Parliament
and
in Cabinet. As I say, this is simply the nature of political union - in
much
the same way that California gets more say on federal law in the US
than
Wyoming. So it should, it's bigger!

> Sandy's quote about English law being universal may
> have been hyperbole, but it was a hyperbole born out
> of frustration, colonisation and a relationship
> enacted in 1707 against the wishes of the Scottish
> nation.

It was the *Scottish* Parliament and the Scottish Parliament only which
voted itself out of existence in 1707, and since this Parliament was
supposed representing the Scottish nation, I fail to see how the Union
could
have been against the wishes of the Scottish nation. The Scottish
Parliament
had managed to bankrupt itself on a colonial misadventure and needed
England
to bail it out. Furthermore, it is quite simply outrageous to suggest
Scotland as a whole was colonised by England. Anybody who has looked at
maps
of Australasia, North America or Southern Africa will see Scottish
placenames dotted all over them. Scotland's history has been one of
assisting in the colonisation of other nations, not suffering its own.

My point is that questionable, or occasionally quite ludicrous,
interpretations of history do nothing to further a minority culture's
or
language's cause outside a group already dedicated to its survival. And
if a
minority language doesn't appeal to people outside its present
activists, it
is, by very definition (under the word "minority") doomed to failure. A
lot
of minority language activists fail to help themselves, and some of
what you
write, with respect, shows this quite obviously. In the context of
Irish,
for example, I have every sympathy with the assumption that you must be
some
mad IRA terrorist because you speak it - I come across the same thing
when I
voice my support for it. But then you use the term "Six Counties" to
refer
to an entity known officially, and to all moderates here, as "Northern
Ireland". The term "Six Counties" immediately identifies your political
sympathies, and, in the context of Ireland, it will then inevitably be
assumed that your knowledge of Irish is intrinsically linked to your
politics. Those who do not share your political views are then
immediately
turned *away* from Irish, rather than being sympathetic towards it.

Best regards,
----------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

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

Dear Lowlanders,

I have received private email messages from two subscribers who expressed
displeasure with the way some political opinions have been voiced in this
thread and in one or two threads that preceded it.  These persons found some
of it offensive or at least annoying, and one of them feels disturbed by
repeated unsubstantiated, supposedly agenda-guided claims.

As I have said on previous occasions, I am both the moderator and a
subscriber, and I do not see myself as a censor, though I do filter out
posting submissions that are clearly irrelevant to LL-L, do not follow the
prescribed format, are clearly socially offensive, or are simply bogus (all of
which happens rarely).  However, I do agree that a certain measure of
moderation is called for, both moderation (as in "self-restraint") on the part
of those who participate in discussions, and moderation (as in "presiding" or
"controlling") on my part.  Also called for are tolerance and compassion.

Ours is an exceptionally diverse group, diverse with regard to ethnicity,
nationality, culture, language, beliefs and opinions, to name but a few.
There are also a large age spread (16-81 at last count) and types and levels
of formal education, differences in experience and maturity, not to mention
diversity of social norms.  Some of us, though keenly interested in our own or
other groups' cultural and linguistic heritage, consider ourselves global
citizens first and foremost and thus do not feel personally put down by
negative remarks about our countries or regions of origin.  Others identify
themselves primarily with certain groups, regions or nations and may feel
personally attacked even by a slightly critical remark about these groups,
regions or nations.  And many of us are somewhere between these two extremes.
Some of our respective groups, regions or nations have been in conflict
situations with each other, and a few among us may feel that some of these
conflicts are continuing.

What this means is (1) that you must bear this in mind while you compose your
posting submissions and (2) that you must bear this in mind when you read
other people's postings.

It is all right to express indignation about what is or is not happening in
political or administrative areas with regard to language and culture.  It is
also all right to discuss these issues more broadly -- but briefly! -- in the
light of political or historical developments in general, since linguistic,
cultural and ethnic politics are parts of larger pictures.  However, it is not
all right to go on and on about non-linguistic and non-cultural politics,
certainly not about party politics, and to present entire histories
deliberately tinted by the colors we personally choose to fly.  While many of
us have been guilty, at one time or another, of making casual remarks that
come across as unsubstantiated or dubious claims, it is important that we at
least endeavor to limit our arguments to that which is or can be
substantiated.

At the same time, when reading other people's postings we have to be able to
cut them some slack, have to allow for the afore-mentioned differences.
Postings should be written with care, but no one should have to constantly
look over their shoulder.  We must not assume that everyone else is as
enlightened, experienced, erudite and mature as we think ourselves as being.
We should try to avoid making assumptions about each other.  We should not
allow ourselves to get into generalized antagonistic modes of thinking of and
arguing with someone whose political affiliation we suspect and dislike.  If
you feel that someone is way off base, let them know, not by "screaming" at
them but by putting them in their place by means of corrections or repartees
that are at the very least polite, preferably friendly.  If you feel that
someone's claims can not be substantiated, go ahead and ask them to
substantiate them, hoping that this will prompt them to catch on to the
expected standards on this list.

Not all situations are very clear-cut.  There are large gray areas, and it is
in these gray areas that tact, self-restraint and compassion are called for.
I do not want to be the one who calls the shots, dictating what is and what is
not offensive to everyone.  My assumption is that, though a very diverse one
it is, this is a group of adults that can sort most of this out among
themselves.

Lowlands-L is not beholden to any ethnicity, region or nation.  Instead, I
like to think of it as a piece of neutral soil on which we are privileged to
gather, to enjoy each other's company, to exchange information, and to debate,
to debate not for the purpose of perpetuating existing or imagined divisions
but for the purpose of learning from each other and discovering what makes
each one of us special and what we all have in common.  Debates may sometimes
become very heated, but this place, a place of learning, peace and mutual
appreciation, will never be allowed to become a battleground.

Friendly 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
 =======================================================================