LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.28 (02) [E]
Lowlands-L
admin at lowlands-l.net
Sat Dec 28 20:19:50 UTC 2002
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.DEC.2002 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
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
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================
From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleemin.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.27 (07) [E]
Harlan wrote:
> Chris Ferguson wrote in his correction of my critique of earlier
statements
> about the use of double negatives in the Scots dialect, that "Scots is
> not a dialect". The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "Scots" as
"
> A distinguishing epithet of a dilalect of English spoken in the Scottish
> Lowlands.
Yes, just as 'English' is a distinguishing epithet of a dialect of Scots
spoken in many parts of the world. It just depends who's writing the
definition :)
It would be truer to say that Scots is a dialect of Northumbrian, one
of the four distinctive Anglo-Saxon dialects of Great Britain. To call
this 'English' as if it were the same thing as modern educated English
is being a bit vague.
> Perhaps from a political standpoint, Scots is a separate language,
but
As has often been pointed out, Scots is as distinct from English as
Swedish and Danish or Czech and Slovak are from each other. So
the political standpoint can't simply be waved away as if it were
unimportant in determining language status.
> a philologist would find it a form of English, in syntax, vocabulary,
He wouldn't, if he were honest and knowledgable. Judging from the
linguistics textbooks I've studied, few have any clue about Scots,
often classifying it as a dialect of English yet failing to include it in
their
discussions of English dialect. Peter Trudgill's popular introductory
books on English dialectology leave the Scots question open but
restrict their discussion to dialects of England. Even worse is David
Crystal, who concludes that Shetlandic is just English, judging from
a sample of a Shetland man speaking English (_not_ Shetlandic!).
This is like concluding that French is just English because you've
heard a Frenchman speaking English.
The problem is that while not willing to admit that Scots is outside
their domain, they still find it infeasible to treat it as an English
dialect.
> French language, colorful, poetical, and warm as it is. I love to hear it
> spoken, read it (if I could), and read it in Burn's poetry. I would not
Note that Burns poetry as normally published is highly anglicised,
partly for the English-speaking market, partly due to Burns and his
predecessors emulating the diction of English poets. Scots speakers
don't read it in the same way as an English speaker would read it.
The versions presented on my website at http://scotstext.org/ are
much improved, though still in a form liable to be read incorrectly
by English speakers (time to buy Colin Wilson's book and learn
the language properly!).
Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/
--------
From: Colin Wilson <lcwilson at btinternet.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.27 (07) [E]
At 00:37 28/12/02, Harlan Ross May wrote:
> Perhaps from a political standpoint, Scots is a separate language, but
>a philologist would find it a form of English, in syntax, vocabulary,
>structure, and derivation
In doing so, the philologist would be taking a different but equally
political standpoint. One could equally well find English to be a
form of Scots, which would be as much a political standpoint as the
other two.
A statement that "Scots and English are each a variation of the
Anglo-Saxon/Norman-French creole" would at least be fairly neutral
in the political sense.
However the suggestion that "Scots is a form/dialect of English" arises
from a posited anglocentric (i.e. politicised) world-view, which is
really for its proponents to justify rather than being for others to
refute.
Colin Wilson.
----------
From: Dan Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.27 (07) [E]
Harlan Ross May wrote:
>>Chris Ferguson wrote in his correction of my critique of
earlier statements about the use of double negatives in the
Scots dialect, that "Scots is not a dialect". The Oxford
English Dictionary defines the word "Scots" as " A distinguishing
epithet of a dilalect of English spoken in the Scottish
Lowlands.
Perhaps from a political standpoint, Scots is a separate
language, but a philologist would find it a form of English, in
syntax, vocabulary, structure, and derivation as another variation of
the Anglo-Saxon-Norman French language, colorful, poetical, and warm
as it is. I love to hear it spoken, read it (if I could), and read
it in Burn's poetry. I would not doubt that it is sprinkled
graciously with many lovable expressions, that would only be
understood by a speaker or scholar of the dialect.
Take no offense at my reply, Chris, please.
Harlan Ross May, Gulfport, Mississippi, USA<<
***
Dear Harlan Ross May,
>>The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "Scots" as "
A distinguishing epithet of a dilalect of English spoken in the
Scottish
Lowlands.<<
Indeed the question whether Scots is a "dialect" or a "language" is
political AND linguistc, and leads us to a very old discussion in
linguistics (langue/parole). I think the terminology in this case is up
to Scots people and Scots speakers themselves, and not to anyone else,
or the Oxford dictionary for that matter.
200 years ago many a Danish person would have begged to differ at the
existence of a separate Norwegian language. Nowadays there is no
question of it.
A very strong point for the "language" term regarding Scots is the fact
that it has a literary tradition of its own, both old and new, which
differs significantly in use and form from other English
dialect-writings. Oh, and many English and Scots speakers would find
Scots differing in syntax, vocabulary, and structure. Comprehension is
not a criterium for deciding whether confronted with language or dialect
>>But a philologist would find it a form of English, in syntax,
vocabulary, structure, and derivation as another variation of the
Anglo-Saxon-Norman French language<<
This may be a little nitpickety, but I object to the term
<Anglo-Saxon-Norman French> regarding both Scots and English. It´s
either Anglo-Saxon (I prefer Old English) or Norman French
(Anglo-Norman). These were two separate languages spoken predominantly
in England, and Scotland as well after the Norman Conquest. Despite the
large portion of English lexical items borrowed from both Anglo Norman
and Continental French these two above mentioned languages were never
"fused" to form another from which both English and Scots would have
been ultimately derived, as you suggested.
It is true that Scots and English are derived from Old English
(Anglo-Saxon), but whereas standard English was derived on an East Saxon
base with plenty of Mercian admixture, Scots is derived from the
Northumbrian dialects of Old English, thus is distinct from the time of
the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain.
>>colorful, poetical, and warm as it is. I love to hear it
spoken, read it (if I could), and read it in Burn's poetry. I
would not doubt that it is sprinkled graciously with many lovable
expressions, that would only be understood by a speaker or scholar of
the dialect<<
I always find cliché descriptions such as "colorful", "warm", "lovable
expressions" difficult, at best, when it comes down to comparing
languages, or dialects. I can only apply these terms to certain speakers
of a language. Since speakers of every Language have their very own way
of expressing the world as they perceive it, these descriptions apply to
any and all languages. This reminds be incredably of what I heard in the
States so often when folks commented on my Englsih "Oh, your Briddish
Accènt is so cute". Well, maybe it IS "cute", but only because it is
perceived as such by some USAmericans. Canadians, Scotsmen, (and
southerners, English I mean) already comment differently. My point is,
it has always got to do with the point of view your coming from.
Yours sincerely,
Dan
Oh, and a belated very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to come.
Nadelek lowen ha bledhen noweth da re`gas bo !
----------
From: ntl <shoogly at ntlworld.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.12.27 (07) [E]
The Oxford English dictionary may say that - but that is a hang over to the
Anglocentric system in the U.K. I have just looked up my Oxford English
dictionary -and it says "the form of English used in Scotland". This is
highly inaccurate ( I'm glad you pointed it out to me - I will bring it to
the attention of Ishbel Mac Leod - editor of the Scots National Dictionary
Association ). Scottish English is different to Scots. Scottish English is
how we speak English - with our own pronunciation, idioms etc. Whereas Scots
is a distinctive - though related - language to English -with it's separate
history, grammar, pronunciation etc, etc. To say that Scots is just a
dialect of English is a long seated fallacy - based on a system in the U.K
that wanted to obliterate any separate identity that wasn't English. Scots
is similar to English as they both derive from dialects of Old English -but
from different dialects!!! Because we were separate nations our dialects
were able to develop in their own directions. People who do not understand
Scots, will hear Scottish people speaking Scottish English - mostly for the
benefit of non Scots speakers around them - or because there is prejudice
against Scots an the use of it identifies you as being "uncouth and
uncultured"etc.- and think they are speaking Scots.
It is historically or philologically as accurate and as fair to call English
a dialect of Scots as Scots a dialect of English - using the criterion and
the argument put forward for declaring Scots a dialect of English - because
both of them are of them both being descendents of Old English. The major
points to remember are:
1) Scots and English are descended of different dialects of Old English -it
is possible that these were different dialects even before the Anglo Saxons
first came to these Isles - and were still in the are of what is now north
west Germany /East Netherlands / Southern Denmark - remembering that the
Anglo Saxons came in two waves of the Angles and the Saxons.
2) Both languages had separate historical paths - each going their own
separate ways.
3) Each had separate and distinctive influences on them ( part of point 2
above ).
Just because two languages have a similar origin does not mean it is
therefore justified to call on a dialect of the other -otherwise why don't
we call Norwegian a dialect of Danish ( both of which are in fact closer to
each other than Scots and English are to each other ), Frisian a dialect of
Dutch - or Portuguese a dialect of Castilian Spanish - etc????
It should be pointed out that Scots is recognized as a distinct and separate
language by the European Union - it is just some of the English ( and
Scottish!! ) Establishment that has a problem with the point!!!
I am sure there are other folk here better qualified than me to clarify
this point for you but should you need any further information on the Scots
language perhaps you could look at: Andy Eagle's excellent "Wir ain Leid"
at: http://www.scots-online.org/grammar/ or the Scots language society's web
site at: http://www.lallans.co.uk/
Yours
Chris Ferguson
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties
Sandy wrote (above):
> The problem is that while not willing to admit that Scots is outside
> their domain, they still find it infeasible to treat it as an English
> dialect.
Colin wrote (above):
> However the suggestion that "Scots is a form/dialect of English" arises
> from a posited anglocentric (i.e. politicised) world-view, which is
> really for its proponents to justify rather than being for others to
> refute.
Dan wrote (above):
> A very strong point for the "language" term regarding Scots is the fact
> that it has a literary tradition of its own, both old and new, which
> differs significantly in use and form from other English
> dialect-writings. Oh, and many English and Scots speakers would find
> Scots differing in syntax, vocabulary, and structure. Comprehension is
> not a criterium for deciding whether confronted with language or dialect
Chris wrote (above):
> 2) Both languages had separate historical paths - each going their own
> separate ways.
>
> 3) Each had separate and distinctive influences on them ( part of point 2
> above ).
These highlights, and pretty much everything else said above, incidentally
apply to the case of Lowlands Saxon (Low German) as well -- substituting
"English" with "German" (in the Netherlands with "Dutch") and "(Old)
Northumbrian" with "Old Saxon". If what are now Northern Germany and the
eastern provinces of the Netherlands had by a different turn of events ended
up a separate country, *before* German/Dutch imposition, no one would
nowadays question its status as a separate language.
Chris further wrote :
> It should be pointed out that Scots is recognized as a distinct and
separate
> language by the European Union - it is just some of the English ( and
> Scottish!! ) Establishment that has a problem with the point!!!
Again, this applies to LS. EU recognition alone is not the magic bullet.
In fact, this political decision is considered a great inconvenience and
threat to many who are in power, as well as to the many who find it
difficult to deal with change or with questioning the status quo in general.
The academic establishment is not going to change its texts overnight, keeps
teaching the old German- and Dutch-centered dialectological schemes in
relative ivory tower seclusion, while administrative officials do their
parts in halting the development, usually by ignoring the new regulations
under the pretext of insufficient resources. The Nederlandse Taalunie has
already come out to say that recognizing Lowlands Saxon in the Netherlands
was a grave mistake (namely an opening of the floodgates that pose a threat
to the Dutch language) and that recognition of other regional languages
(such as Zeelandic) should be denied.
Dan further wrote:
> I always find cliché descriptions such as "colorful", "warm", "lovable
> expressions" difficult, at best, when it comes down to comparing
> languages, or dialects.
I completely concur. Even if not intended as such, many native speakers and
others will find such descriptions patronizing, not only because of the
inherent stereotyping but also because such descriptions more often than not
go with or imply non-recognition of language status or imply inferior
language status (e.g., "that cute little language of yours," as someone once
referred to Lowlands Saxon (Low German) in my presence).
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
==================================END===================================
* 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>.
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list