LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 04.JAN.2001 (03) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 4 22:09:30 UTC 2001
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.JAN.2001 (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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================
From: Roger Thijs [roger.thijs at euro-support.be]
Subject: Language varieties
After the "Wallon" Assimil there are now also a (little) Assimils for
"Flemish" and "Brussels Brabantish".
1. The Flemish one:
"Assimil taalpocket Vlaams" ISBN 90-74996-40-X, small size 14 cm x 10
cm, 185 pp
by Carine Caljon.
One clearly couldn't choose what version of Flemish to take:
so the reader get's everthing in Dutch and translated in 3 versions:
- Brabantish from Antwerpen (marked a)
- West-Flemish from Brugge (marked b)
- East-Flemish from Ghent (marked g)
e.g. the verb "to be" in Dutch and in the three versions (p. 24):
nl (a) (b) (g)
ik ben ik zèng èk zien ek zaan
jij/u bent gaaj zè(t) hie zie(t) ga za(at)
hij/zij is aaj/zaaj is je/zie is ja/za ès(t)
wij zijn we zèn miender zien wuldeR zaan
jullie zijn golle zè(t) hiender zie(t) guldeR za(at)
zij zijn ze zèn ziender zien zuldeR zaan
R is a clearly pronounced French R
Remark the disappearance of the initial h in (a) "aaj" for Dutch "hij"
Remark the g/h/j inversions in Brugge West-Flemish: "jij/gij/u" becomes
"hie"; "hij" becomes "je"
2. The Brussels one
"Assimil taalpocket Brussels" ISBN 90-74996-42-6; small size 14 cm x 10
cm, 167 pp
by Francis Wanet, translated by Carine Caljon
to be (p. 30)
nl Brussels
ik ben ik zaain
jij/u bent gae zaait
hij/zij is ei/zeui es
wij zijn waaile zaain
jullie zijn gaaile zaait
zij zijn zaaile zaain
Regards,
Roger
----------
From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 04.JAN.2001 (02) [E]
A chairde,
This discussion of why Old English speakers saw
themselves as "ethnically" Anglo-Saxon despite their
possible Frisian forebears seems to me to be flogging
a sociological dead horse: it is doubtful whether any
group identified themselves beyond any local
patriotism in the England of the Dark Ages. Notions of
ethnos and of ethnic allegiance are so far as I
understand - and I as ever am most likely to be way
off the mark - 19th Century constructions based on
shared language, culture, history and so forth.
Consequently the rather dubious question of ethnicity
(which seems almost racial to me) is solved in a
simple way: is it not most likely that the
proto-English didn't care what they were, ethnically
speaking? As we have in our own century notions of
ethnos and nationhood are best communicated and imbued
via the mass media (beginning with mass literacy and
compulsory education in the late 19th Century).
Otherwise the proletarian individual has little care
of any world outside her or his own labours,
struggling simply to subsist. Within our own time we
have seen that most peoples' primary allegiances are
to their districts, then their general location, then
their country and finally - in the case of Europe -
their continent.
If that strand is not agreeable perhaps it would be
best to remind ourselves that in most cultures the
ethonym simply means "the people" i.e., Welsh "Cymry"
("compatriots"), Irish "Gaeil" ("Gaelic speakers"). I
understand that in most Native American nations the
usage is the same, i.e., Nangassett "Ninuog" ("we
people") and Inuit ("ourselves"). Consequently all
notions of nationhood in the sense and time of which
we speak are irrelevant and anachronistic; all that
matters is that the proto-English, just like the
proto-Frisians, considers themselves to be one thing:
a community.
Whether any traces of this community remain is a
matter I shall leave open to the list. An excellent
discussion as ever.
Go raibh maith agaibh,
Críostóir.
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language varieties
Thanks, Críostóir.
You wrote:
> Notions of
> ethnos and of ethnic allegiance are so far as I
> understand - and I as ever am most likely to be way
> off the mark - 19th Century constructions based on
> shared language, culture, history and so forth.
Aren't you confusing "ethnos/ethnic" with "nation/national" here? You seem to
use them almost indiscriminately. Or am I missing something?
> Consequently all
> notions of nationhood in the sense and time of which
> we speak are irrelevant and anachronistic;
As far as I am informed, the notion of ethnos existed before the notion of
nationhood as we now know it, namely a political structure that is intended to
unite people with various local and often ethnic identities. As far as I
know, it was the notion of nationhood that was the 19th-century European
construct, oftentimes in opposition to the wishes of certain ethnic groups.
> Within our own time we
> have seen that most peoples' primary allegiances are
> to their districts, then their general location, then
> their country and finally - in the case of Europe -
> their continent.
I do not agree that ethnicity was and is a newish idea and was and is largely
irrelevant to Europeans and other people. If this were so, why is there and
has for a long time been so much ethnic conflict? Why have some ethnic
minorities always been apart and usually discriminated against?
You may be right within the context of an ethnic > national group that is
dominant within a given country these days. However, the outcome would most
likely be quite different if you did your survey among dominated, i.e.,
minority/minoritized, groups; e.g., Danes, Frisians and Sorbs in Germany, not
to mention Rom, Jews and Turks -- or take Kurds in the various countries.
These are not new notions. The Old Saxons were not really a nation as such
but a loose conglomeration of tribes. They had local headmen, but the idea of
a supremely ruling king, thus of nationhood, was alien and apparently
distasteful to them. When they tried to stave off Charlemagne and his
Frankish-dominated "unification" attempts, they did so more or less together,
i.e., as a concerted Saxon effort. Was it coincidence that they had a pretty
much purely Saxon alliance, or might this be because they had a sense of
common ethnicity. (Or was it merely the convenience of speaking more or less
the same language?)
> Consequently the rather dubious question of ethnicity
> (which seems almost racial to me)
I can't follow that, but that may be a personal thing, since I personally do
not believe in "race" (in the physical sense) but believe that a sense of
ethnicity (i.e., linguistic and/or cultural identity) is and always has been a
powerful force throughout history -- and I am not saying that this is good or
bad. I do not see ethnicity as anything inherent but as a type of
conditioning, and in many cases it is exchangeable (e.g., Western Slavs
gradually adopting (or being forced to adopt) German ethnicity in the wake of
German domination, North Germans loosing their Saxon and Frisian identities to
become
Germans, or some bilingual Germans in Schleswig choosing to join the Danish
ethnic minority (especially after WW II)).
You are probably right in saying that we should not assume that the early
Germanic settlers/invaders in Britain had a sense of ethnicity. However,
conversely, we should not assume either that they did *not* have such a sense
of ethnicity. As far as I am concerned, the self-reference "Saxon" etc., and
naming newly claimed regions of domination "Saxon" etc. are pretty darn sure
signs of identifying oneself as "Saxon."
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
P.S.:
> - in the case of Europe -
> their continent.
or "make-believe continent" (not surrounded by water) as a part of Eurasia
----------
From: Roger Thijs [roger.thijs at euro-support.be]
Subject: LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 04.JAN.2001 (02) [E]
> From: Edwin Michael Alexander [edsells at idirect.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 04.JAN.2001 (01) [E]
> This has always puzzled me, too. And why are the Franks never brought
into
> the mix? There is good evidence for Frankish settlement in Kent,
Sussex,
> and Hampshire in the 6th and 7th centuries as there is evidence that
> Frankish kings claimed Kent as their dominion during this period
> ....I think there is another questionable assumption here that these
various
> groups of Frisians, Saxons, etc. really considered themselves so
> separate. Was this the case?
I presume in name-giving other factors than just linguistic ones play.
In 1853 the big Dutch-French dictionnary by van de Velde was still
titled:
"Volledig Nederduitsch-Fransch Woordenboek"
(In Belgian Commission spelling)
For "Nederduitsch" we find:
NEDERDUITSCH, bv, Bas-allemand, Flamand, Néerlandais, Hollandais. &
Z. n.o. (-e tael). Bas-allemand, Néerlandais, Flamand, Hollandais, m.
For "Nederlandsch" we do not find any connection to the language:
NEDERLANDSCH, bv, Des Pays-Bas, Néerlandais, Hollandais, Belge.
(Nederlands though has been used as name for the language before, e.g.:
in 1550: Nederlãdsche Spellijnghe... duer Joas Lambrecht, lettersteker,
... gheprentt te Ghend...)
"Nederduits" apparently was the most usual name in 1853.
And in the 18-seventies it becomes suddenly predominantly "Nederlands"
The reason may be the same as why the "Pan-Low-German" movement
practically died in 1870. Benelux people where shocked by the Prussian
invasion of France and the pan-germanic philosophy Prussia was inbedded
in.
Can this explain how names of peoples and their languages may vary,
without this having anything to do with linguistics?
Regards,
Roger
==================================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
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list