LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 14.MAR.2000 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 =======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.MAR.2000 (06) * 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>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk]
Subject: "Language politics"

> From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
> Subject: Language politics
>
> Ian wrote in reply to Sandy:
>
> >I must confess I don't think I agree with you with relation to your
> distinction between language and dialect.
>
> >There is a big difference between apparent approval of
> somebody's right to
> use dialect grammar and disapproval of the "incorrectness" of somebody's
> usage in a minority language.
>
> >I would argue ... that there is even a difference between
> defending "learn
> vs. teach" and attacking "infer vs. imply". If we look at the
> German, we can
> see that "lehren" and "lernen" are strikingly similar. The confusion in
> their usage in English dialects does
> not in fact derive from just mixing up the meanings, it derives from the
> confusion of the switch from infinitive in -n suffix to infinitive with
> preposition "to".<
>
> I had intended to write something along the lines of the first two
> paragraphs myself, but I don't follow  "the confusion of the switch from

True enough, but "learn/teach" was only one example I gave in illustrating
the phenomenon of using "opposites" (or whatever the linguistic term for it
may be). Others are "hearken" (for "whisper"), "listen" (for "be heard"),
"it has resorted to this" (for "it has come to this"), "trousers hanging
out" (for "shirt-tail hanging out") &c &c. I don't think they can all be
explained away by etymology or phonological similarities.

Moreover, the mention of the whole phenomenon was intended as just one
example of how people use different standards in judging different modes of
speech. It wasn't intended as the point of the discussion.

Note also that I wasn't proposing definitions of the words "dialect" and
"language", but pointing out how people seem to use those words with respect
to Scots and English (or other languages with an anologous relationship).
This was in order to provide a reformulation of the question "Is Scots a
language or a dialect?" in a more specific way in order to allow such
discussions to progress by asking the question in a form intended to
discourage both the usual presuppositions and the usual goalpost-shifting.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
http://www.fleimin.demon.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
 =======================================================================