LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 30.JUL.2000 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 30.JUL.2000 (04) * 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: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 24.JUL.2000 (05) [E/S]

Scots friends,

Yes, I was also under the impression that the SLS had less money than the
USLS - and I know the USLS has no money!!

I should maybe take this opportunity, as it relates to this thread, to
explain the truth surrounding funding for Ulster-Scots. I have often heard
complaints from Scotland that we get far more money than they do. That has
never been the case until now (figures such as $1.6 million have been
banded about, but the money has never actually arrived).

Ulster-Scots language and culture in Ireland (as a whole) is due, under the
Belfast Agreement, to receive funding in the region of one million pounds
sterling. However, add up the fees of the eight-member board, the salaries
of 3-6 people including the Chief Executive, the unbelievable amounts spent
on "fact-finding missions" and "working lunches", and actually you have
very little left.

An agreement was reached on spending something in the region of a quarter
of a million on funding an attitudinal survey to find out how many people
in Ulster speak Scots and what they think of it. This, however, is a
complete non-starter. Firstly, how do you define Scots as opposed to
English? There are no obvious political boundaries, it is accepted even
within Scots-speaking areas that English is the language of urban centres
(you then have to define which towns are "urban centres" and where their
boundaries are), there are no immediately obvious "markers" in speech etc.
etc. Not only this, but the expertise to carry out the survey simply does
not exist. To carry it out you need a knowledge of the relevant linguistic
theories, Ulster-Scots itself and a few people in the relevant geographical
areas. Nobody has this. Essentially such a survey would come down to who
wants to be seen as an Ulster-Scots-speaker, but that is effectively a
political (or at least sociological) question, not a linguistic one, and
therefore has no merit in this case. Secondly, well, I think I've said
enough under firstly! But I think there is a warning there for our friends
in Scotland thinking of trying the same thing. You need to agree parameters
first, and then make sure if you do pay an outsider to do it, the outsider
has the relevant knowledge.

There was a survey carried out by McCann-Erickson concerning all sorts of
things in Northern Ireland recently (sadly from Ulster-Scots' point of view
Donegal, a very important area of Scots speech, was not
included).Ulster-Scots language and culture turned out to be quite popular,
and certainly was viewed as inoffensive by the vast majority questioned.
However, one does wonder if Ulster-Scots' relative popularity (in
comparison to Irish language and culture, for example) was simply because
no tax-payers' money has yet been spent on it. If this one million pounds
is spent and wasted, I would imagine the general populace will start asking
probing questions, and you can't blame them. But certainly such a survey
may help in Scotland.

Best wishes,
-------------------------
Ian James Parsley parsleyij at yahoo.com

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 28.JUL.2000 (03) [E]

(I hope this doesn't transgress rules about party politics - Ron? In
mitigation, I - who support no party and have no strong opinions on
Scottish nationalism - am simply commenting on these matters, not putting
forward a position).

Sandy wrote:

 It
>does seem to me (as I think John may also be implying, though
>I don't want to go putting words into his mouth) that many
>Scottish nationalists have an agenda in which the Scots language
>is an expendable force.

I don't think you can generalise. I would suspect that the majority of
influential Scottish Nationalists (as opposed to those who have a specific
interest in the language), such as MSPs, know almost as little about Scots
as the rest of the educated population from which they come (education
being education out of Scots). Therefore, although many will be more
sympathetic to 'Scots' in theory, they will not necessarily know much about
it, or be able to recognise it in their soup.

Certainly there are some Scots enthusiasts who seem to regard Scots as a
national flag rather than a language - a sort of poor man's Gaelic, which
you can launch forth in without learning any navigation - and this leads to
the artificialities and so on which I have mentioned before. But if there
are nationalists who regard Scots as expendable, I suspect they are not
actively involved in it.

Conversely, it can be stated categorically that the attitude of the other
three major parties towards Scots is derisory, and that without nationalist
support there would be almost no support at all. Also, as I have said
before, most Scots activists - whether or not they are Scots speakers - are
also nationalists.

Any nationalists like to comment?

John M. Tait.

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 29.JUL.2000 (03) [E]

John Feather wrote:
>
>Regarding Faroese culture I found the following in an article by Jóhan
>Hendrik W Poulsen (1980):

Would it be possible to have the reference, John?

John M. Tait.

----------

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

To go back to the original question which Criostoir asked about Frisian, my

recollection from when I heard first about this idea is that there was a
policy (whose I don't know) of forming a standard (West) Frisian by
selecting, when there were differences in use between dialects, those
elements which were less similar to Dutch. Assuming that one does not end
up
drawing heavily on dialects used by only a very few people then this seems
a
reasonable principle.

Regarding the suggested use of "ordinator" for "computer", I wondered about

the origin of the term. Latin "ordinator" ("arranger") suggests a Hollerith

punch-card machine. So possibly it's from French "ordinateur" / Spanish
"ordenador" by a curious form of re-Latinisation. But it's difficult to
think of a way of summing up the concept "computer" in a single word
starting now.

What would you call "computing"? "Ordination"? :-)

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

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