LL-L "Language politics" 2002.05.03 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 03.MAY.2002 (08) * 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: erek gass <egass at caribline.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2002.05.03 (06) [E]

Thanks for sharing this.  The French have a particularly poor record.
Given their long track record of trying to suppress Breton, Basque, and
the various Southern France languages, it is amazing how many have
survived.

----------

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

Erek, you wrote above:

> Thanks for sharing this.

You are entirely welcome.  I am glad you appreciate it.

> The French have a particularly poor record.

This may be so, and I know what you mean.  However, not to put too fine
a point on it, I would suggest saying "France" or "the French
government" rather than "the French," because the latter, albeit not
intended to do so, may lead to unwarranted generalizations in some
people's minds.  There are large numbers of French people who would be
quite happy to afford the country's linguistic minorities certain
protective rights, and many French people, including non-minority
citizens, are supportive of the minority language movements.  We ought
not forget that also in European countries whose governments have
already officially recognized their minority and regional languages
there are factions and individuals (including local officials) that
remain unsupportive of and counteractive to such rights.  My point is
that there are pro and con in all countries and that the
political/administrative scales can tip one way or another.  In France
it appears to be a matter of interpretation of the constitution.

In the same bulletin there is a fascinating article that I could not
share because it is not relevant to our forum.  In a nutshell, it
describes the ordeal of a Mr. Sotiris Bletsas, a member of Greece's
Arumanian (Vlach) minority.  He had been sentenced to 15 months
imprisonment and a fine of 5000 drachmas for spreading "false
information on minority languages in Greece" (an EU member state) and
also of causing disorder by claiming that a number of named minority
languages are spoken in Greece (this "spreading" being in the form of
sharing the EBLUL's brochure _Unity in Diversity_).  Ten months later
(December 18, 2001), the Court of Appeals in Athens found him not guilty
and admitted that these languages (Arumanian, Pomak, Macedonian,
Arvanite Albanian, and Turkish) are indeed used in the country.

As you can see, this language rights stuff tends to get pretty heated in
Europe and in some cases lands people in hot water, just for as much as
*saying* that minority languages exist.  However, even many of these
types of dark clouds eventually turn out to have silver linings, and in
this case the landmark verdict appears to have opened an important door
for Greece's minorities.  The struggle continues, also in our Lowlands
area.  For example, will a question about the use of Scots be included
in the next Scottish census after the government's refusal to include it
in the last one?  Will Belgium ratify the European Language Charter?
Will Northern Germany's state governments put their money where their
mouths are by actually *doing* something (i.e., the *promised* things)
to implement the ratified European Language Charter with regard to Low
Saxon ("Low German")?  What about recognition of Zeelandic (Zeêuws) in
the Netherlands and the Taalunie's stance?  I quote our own Marco
Evenhuis (February 14, 2002):

<quote>
The secretary of state was advised by the Taalunie not to recognize
Zeelandic. The Taalunie even finds that the recognition of Limburgish
and
Low Saxon should never have happened.  The Taalunie however, does not
base
its argumentation on the relevant European Charter for Minority and
Regional Languages. It made its own definition of language, regional
language and dialect. And we all know how tricky that is...
The Taalunie is afraid for the loss of speakers of Dutch and in that way
loss of prestige of Dutch within the EU. They argue that every official
speaker of Zeelandic means that Dutch looses one speaker. And we all
know
that that can't be true, since almost all speakers of Zeelandic are
bilingual and perfectly fluent in Dutch.
</quote>

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