LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.14 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.SEP.2002 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 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 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 scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language change"

> From: Leslie Decker <leslie at VOLNY.CZ>
> Subject: LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.13 (13) [E]
>
> Regarding the word 'data,' to me it's an uncountable noun, like
> 'information' or 'milk.'  I don't use a plural with it.

I've noticed that computer programmers of my aquaintance
often use "data" as an uncountable noun and "datums" as a
countable noun. This arises because they sometimes need to
speak/write about a single piece of data, which they will
refer to as a "datum". Then if they have a few more of these
they naturally get referred to as "datums", as opposed to
"data" which, as you say, is uncountable.

It looks like apparent "confusion" isn't necessarily
uneducated or unthinking, and can actually serve to
enrich the language.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: erek gass <egass at caribline.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.14 (04) [E]

By the way, Teddy Roosevelt came out in favour of split infinitives, "as if"
has long since fallen prey to "like' in both speech and writing, and several
years ago several of the nation's leading literati denounced "whom".  Yet
one of the curiosities of recent English in America is the revival of the
subjunctive "be" after "whether" (sometimes even after "unless"!).

Leslie's points are well taken (much as I'd like to see the grammatical
niceties "hang in there".  But the revival of the subjunctive may mean that
there is some hope for such grammatical standards.

One thing IS a certainty.  We all DO seem to understand, and that is, after
all, the real purpose of language.

----------

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.14 (04) [E]

Beste leeglanners,

Language does change indeed, and the driving forces are not always the most
"logical" ones for sure.
One of the characteristics of a coined word that seems to be a fair
predictor for succes is "size", in my opinion. The longer the term, the less
likely it will survive.

Now this is where I'd like to ponder a minute or two on : "native
Americans".

1) Who are they ? Can some South Americans or Canadians also be native
Americans ?
2) Is the term acknowledged by the native American population ? Has there
been an agreement with native American folks to use this term in official
documents ? Do native Americans use the word in everyday speech when they
refer to themselves ?
3) Aren't most (or all ?) of the American presidents native Americans
because they were born (~ native !) in the USA ?
4) How do I translate this in other languages ? In Dutch for example ?
...

I have no intention at all to question the necessity and usefulness of the
term, yet I think that it's too long to become a "world hit".
In Brabantish for example, we have always spoken of :

"ne rus"... even during "soviet-times" when it was probably not
appropriate...these days, it's "legal" again, I think *s*...
"nen eskimo"...even if today other words have been proposed to denote people
living in arctic regions...
"ne neger"...

despite the "political uncorrectness".

All I want to say is that those who are responsible of designing names
should think twice before they launch something new : it'd better be short
(and easy to pronounce), or their creation will soon become corrupt (or
hollow).
Please realise that adequate (international) namegiving, taking phonetic and
psychological constraints highly into account, can also help to minimise
"loss of identity"; something that's becoming more and more prevalent these
days for a lot of people.

Greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

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

Luc,

I'm sure you'll get some more informed and informative feedback to the above
(especially from our "native Americans"), but here's mine for the time
being.

> Now this is where I'd like to ponder a minute or two on : "native
> Americans".

That would be spelled "Native Americans" (as a name).  In  my opinion, your
spelling would refer to anyone born in the Americas, although in reality it
is not or rarely used.  Of course the two are pronounced identically, which
is probably why "native American" is not really used.

> 1) Who are they ? Can some South Americans or Canadians also be native
> Americans ?

Any ("pre-Columbian") aboriginals of the Americas, all countries included.

I believe that the term "Native American" has trickled "down" from the
worlds of anthropology, demography, administration, etc.  I also understand
that it is meant to be a catch-all term for all aboriginal Americans,
including the categories (each consisting of numerous nations) traditionally
referred to as "Indians," "Eskimos," "Aleutians" and, more recently,
"Hawai'ians."  In US administration, for example, the category of "Native
American" has literally hundreds of subgroups.

> 2) Is the term acknowledged by the native American population

By some it is, and by others it is not.  It tends to be accepted within
unity-types of contexts, including all of the above-mentioned categories.
Some groups or individuals of the "Indian" category prefer to be referred to
as "Indian," if not specifically by their actual ethnic names.  Sherman
Alexie, a Spokane writer and film-maker and quite a comic, pokes fun at the
name "Native American," calling himself "Indian," probably for shock value
among "educated" "non-Indian" audiences ad interviewers eager to come across
as politically correct.  This name can not be used in reference to the other
above-mentioned categories.  As far as I know, "Red Indian" is no longer to
be used.

> "nen eskimo"...even if today other words have been proposed to denote
people
> iving in arctic regions...

"Eskimo" is *definitely* out.  You need to refer to the various ethnicities
(e.g., Inuit, Inupiak, Yupik), and collectively you may want to call them
something like "Arctic nations/aboriginals" (which, however, is also
problematic because it could include "Indians" of the Arctic regions).  Some
people argue that these broad categories are for the bird anyway, hailing
from eras of racial categorization.

> 3) Aren't most (or all ?) of the American presidents native Americans
> because they were born (~ native !) in the USA ?

That would be "U.S. natives," "native-born Americans," as far as I know.

> 4) How do I translate this in other languages ? In Dutch for example ?

"Amerikaanse inboorlingen"?  German "amerikanische Ureinwohner"?

> "ne neger"...
>
> despite the "political uncorrectness".

Whatever fun one might want to poke at "political correctness" (oftentimes
as an excuse), I strongly caution against using this name, most definitely
in English, and most definitely in the presence of Africans or people of
(part) African descent.  I have discussed this with a number of Americans of
African descent.  All of them felt extremely uncomfortable with the
equivalents in other European languages as well, and they would not accept
the argument that in those languages it does not inherently carry the same
negative connotation.  No matter if they hear or read the Danish, Dutch or
German equivalent, the association and connotations are simply too hurtful
to most.  I am not sure how British people of African descent feel about it.

Perhaps it's simply time to drop all of these broad labels.  Isn't it
sufficient to refer to specific ethnicities and nationalities?  Once you
start going down the road of physical ("racial")characteristics, it sure
becomes a bumby and very uncomfortable ride.

Kumpelmenten,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.14 (04) [E]

Dear Pamela,
if that seems extraordinary to you, then you must be either very young or
very unaware of the possibilities life holds for you, or both! :-)

I have always thought of myself as a PERSON, no more or no less, and since,
in German as in English, a non-specific person is, or at least used to be,
mostly indicated by "he" - as Neal pointed out - so that's me alright. And
what red-blooded girl would not rather identify with Tom Sawyer rather than
Becky Thatcher??

My gender is of no importance whatsoever (except for in the choice of my
love interests, which is of no relevance in this forum). And there are
plenty more like me, both male and female, at least in my corner of the
world. How very odd to find that extraordinary...
Unless I can put a last-minute linguistic twist on this, I digress... but so
did you... ;-)

Gabriele Kahn

==================================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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================