LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.04.26 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 26.APR.2002 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.04.25 (01) [E/LS]

A couple of comments on Ole Stig's latest posting.

 But with Norwegian and Swedish it is different. They
>could easily be construed as different lgs, and indeed often are, but
>they
>are not taught in school from scratch. If taught at all, they are
>subsumed
>under Danish and taught as someting so close to Danish, that they are
>not
>really different lgs. They are also not taught to speak, only to
>understand.

The practical reasons for this are obvious. It could almost be said
that, whereas Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are languages in their own
country, each of them is regarded as a dialect in the other two
countries!

Scots, on the other hand, is also taught only passively - not to be
spoken or written, but only to be read - but in its own country. Thus it
is regarded as a dialect in its own country.

This brings me back to my original proposition - which is that, whatever
linguists, activists, or anyone might say - speech forms are, in
practical terms, regarded as languages when they have a standard written
form.
>
You could not
>call
>Greenlandic or Faroese dialects just because of their political inferior
>status.

Whereas, In English of the 1800s, AmerIndian languages were often
described as 'barbarous dialects'.

Would Faroese not have been described as a dialect before it was given
language status?

John M. Tait.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

John Magnus wrote above:

> Scots, on the other hand, is also taught only passively - not to be
> spoken or written, but only to be read - but in its own country. Thus
> it is regarded as a dialect in its own country.

This also applies in the case of Low Saxon (Low German) in Germany.

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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================