LL-L: "Language planning" LOWLANDS-L, 10.OCT.2000 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 10.OCT.2000 (05) * 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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
 =======================================================================

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Language planning" LOWLANDS-L, 08.OCT.2000 (01) [D/E/Z]

Marco wrote:

> Otherwise, I fear
> that ridicule is not far away regardless of the fact whether the
actual
> translation is acceptable to speakers linguisticly, the translation
is not
> too informal or it's not too close to the related language of power.
> Even a perfect translation might easily be rejected by both
non-speakers
> and speakers if they believe such translations are not necessary or
that they
> are overdone.

This is very true. It's a bit of what in English we might call
'chicken and egg' - you need to persuade native speakers that such
translations are necessary if their language is to develop (and, in
turn, that it has to develop in order to survive at all and, in turn,
that it is worth preserving). On the other hand, you need translations
like these for native speakers to sit up and take notice. It's a very
difficult one.

> I think the main thing here is creativity. A good translator should
have a
> very rich vocabulary, should be allergic to dictionaries (to keep
things
> more vivid) and should be experienced in 'playing' with his
language.

There speaks a VERY wise man!! In the Ulster-Scots movement we have
gone on and on about 'the need for a dictionary'. Firstly, we simply
do not possess the expertise to produce a dictionary. Secondly, it
would take 20 years, and we don't have 20 years to wait for things to
start moving. Thirdly, even if you did produce a dictionary,
paradoxically this would lead to even more bad Ulster-Scots than we
get already, because people would spend all their time delving into
dictionaries looking for words, while forgetting entirely about usage,
idiom and grammar.

When doing translations into Scots I don't use a dictionary any more
than I would in English. If I can't translate the stuff into Scots
without regular reference to one, I shouldn't be doing it in the first
place!

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

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