LL-L "Language survival" 2003.04.28 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.APR.2003 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
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
Archives: 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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Kenneth Rohde" <kenneth at gnu.org>
Subject: Language survival

Hi Reinhard,

I agree with much of what you say.

> Why, their organization may even belong to an alliance of
> local organizations, but most interregional associations cover little
> ground, tend to include a narrow range of dialects, perhaps as much as
> a dialect group (e.g., Drenthe, Groningen, Munsterland or Eastphalian)
> and do not or will not see the larger picture: that of the language as
> a whole.  Add to this the border between the Netherlands and Germany,
> and you get "fragmentation city."

Do you know if there have been any efforts in interregional cooperation
at any point?

I suspect it has been very hard cooperating so far. You cannot cooperate
before regional associations are created, and if you want to
cooperate you have to give up a lot of things you have worked on - and
you need to make compromises. That I think this is very hard.

> language variety, if created, does not need to be static and rigid,
> can still allow for regional color (as exemplified especially in
> Norway's Nynorsk).

Indeed.

> Most successful language and orthography standardization efforts have
> relied less on administrative decrees than on popular writers' works.
> This requires a sizeable number of writers and body of works using a
> given orthography, which requires, at least initially, willingness of
> publishers to go out on a limb.  We may become less dependent on
> publishers' willingness if we stage concerted efforts on the Web,
> provided that this medium stays around and keeps being freely
> accessible
> and increasingly utilized.  (When I started with LS on the Web it was
> still considered quite novel and even outlandish.  It certainly no
> longer is.)  This would require web publishers to form a united front
> in exposing readers to generally applicable standards.

Do you think this is something people are interested in doing? I really
wonder what the people on the Lowlands mailing lists thinks about this.

> > Right now, the dictionary of Grunnegers (Gronings) follows the
> > Norwegian example, and consists of alternative spellings as well,
> > but there are no
> > forms that are marked as main forms. This means that if I wanted to
> > translate a book to Grunnegers, then I'd first have to decide which
> > dialect I am going to write; maybe, however, I'd want to address all
> > people speaking a Grunneger dialect. If some forms would be marked
> > as main forms (and forming some kind of 'Aalgemeain Grunnegers'),
> > then I
> > could translate using these forms and address everyone. Maybe not in
> > their home dialect, but in something which might resemble it pretty
> > well.
>
> So, it a first step in the direction of creating a written standard
> variety.  Right?

I think it is - and it doesn't change anything for people writing in
their dialect - only for people who want to address people in a
broader area.

> How would you then deal with the indoctrinated need for LS in German
> to be based on German orthographic principles?

I do not see any easy way of doing this. Would it be more accepted to
use a non-German orthography if it is based on the middle-age Low Saxon
writing system?

> There is the not so minor issue of what is generally acceptable.  For
> instance, "outlandish" proposals usually do not make the cut.  This
> includes non-German-based orthographies for LS in Germany and
> non-English-based orthographies for Scots.

But if an unofficial-standard was used by a majority of the Low Saxon
speakers (for instance by promoting it on the internet) it would
probably be easier to get it accepted.

> Very well.  But will the language be around long enough to go through a
> two-step standardization process (first regional and then general)?
> Also, what if the regional standards are really divergent?  Shouldn't
> the final goal (i.e., general standard) be considered right from the
> outset so as to avoid divergence?

If the regional standards are really divergent there is not much we can
do except considering them as two different languages deriving from Low
Saxon. The only question is, if there are enough people for two
different languages to exist?

Fighting divergence is not my point - but it might be necessary for the
language to survive. Heavy standardization can be a necessary trade-off
- at least to some point.

It is very hard saying what would be the best thing to do - I honestly
don't know!

> (3) "Minority" and "regional" languages do not necessarily have to
> have a single standard variety.  If need be, more than one standard can
be
> created, such as in the case of Sorbian (or "Lusatian," a Slavonic
> language of Germany), which has two written standard varieties (Upper
> Sorbian and Lower Sorbian), although there is one overall united Sorbian
> ethnic consciousness, also Norway, which has two closely related
> standard languages without any perceived threat to national unity.

Though it is better to have only one. That way you will have more
litterature/material following the same standard, which will make the
material accessible to more people - and that way strengthen then
language.

> If we decided to write Lowlands
> Saxon (Low German) -- which is the closest genealogical relative of
> Dutch, Zeelandic/West Flemish and Afrikaans -- according to Dutch
> orthographic principles (which is not necessarily what I am advocating),
> my prediction is that it would not create any such threat either,
> although, at least in Northern Germany, LS speakers are no longer
> considered a separate (Saxon) ethnicity but are seen as ethnic
> Germans.
> Using similar orthographic principles for Dutch and LS would, however,
> facilitate mutual written comprehension between the two languages and
> also between them and the other mentioned languages.

Mutual written comprehension between the different dialects in Germany,
The Netherlands, etc would really help the language. It will also call
for higher quality of Low Saxon literature.

Would it be possible to try defining a standard writing system by taking
the middle-age spelling and make it more accessible to Germans and Dutch
people - for instance by modifying it to use the things common in German
and Dutch today, like 'ie', 'ei' etc?

Cheers, Kenneth

----------

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

Hi, Kenneth!

I'm currently too busy to respond to the above in detail, hope to do so
soon, though, and hope others will.  In the meantime, please take a look
at the following pages of mine:

"Nu is de Welt platt!" (a list of organizations):
http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/plattewelt.htm

De Tuunkrüper (The Wren):
http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/ls-story.html

At the latter, under "Alternative," "Neo-Hanseatic" is my experiment
with a medieval-based system.  Perhaps it answers some of your
questions.  A change: I now no longer use double symbols for word-final
long vowels, and this makes it look more acceptable to more I think.  (I
just haven't gotten around to changing it there.)  Note that <y> for
"ie" coincides with Dutch <ij> and Afrikaans <y> (which is
etymologically consistent though now phonetically divergent), and that
<y> as a glide in diphthongs might help German speakers to remember that
<ey> /ei/ does not stand for /ai/ as <ei> does in German, though in some
LS dialects this <ey> *is* pronounced [ai].  In other words, <ey> stands
for [ei] or [ai], depending on the dialect; <öy> stands for [öi] or
[oi], depending on the dialect.

Regards.
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: mike keach <mike at keach.net>
Subject:LOWLANDS-L Digest - 26 Apr 2003 to 27 Apr 2003 (#2003-113)

From: "Ian James Parsley" Wrote:
Subject: Language survival

(SNIP)

>"Firstly, you do have to ask whether a 'standard' is
>actually necessary. Languages with an oral tradition
>may not need one - Swiss German managed perfectly well
>without."

Hello, everyone:

Coming out of Lurkdom to chime in on this since it is close to my heart.
My reply to Ian is: "Genau!" And, from valley to valley to valley. As
you
know, this language/dialect bit is a very strong 'clanish/tribal'
mechanism, if you will, for the purpose (p'raps not consiously) of
maintaining Identity for the particular group that uses it. I have found
it in the Berner Oberland: Lauterbrunnen Valley vs. Thun, and in
particular the Romansch area in the southeast corner: Blank stares greet
members of one valley from the next one a few kilometers away, the
differences being so great.

It's marvelous, really, that this sort of societal seperation via
language still exists within so small an area. Following this thought,
I'd like to drop into the pool this bit of local info: When I moved to
Baltimore, Maryland, I was intrigued by the local dialect used by a
particular area of the city. I later learned that what one was hearing
was the closest thing one could to the tongue of the 17th and 18th
century in the colonies. Witness: "Dane ee aishen!" (as in: Where are
you
going this weekend? "Down to the ocean!") "Eee qweert t'earl." (as in:
What did your car need? "A quart of oil.") And, differences can be heard
from block to block to block. The dialect a mere mile or two across the
Chesapeake Bay, an entirely different form is found as it is from island
to island to island.

I think one of the points at which Ian was aiming was that a
standardised
national language is fine, but for tribal/clan/societal reasons,
regional
dialects will prevail for sometime for quite Human reasons. As Shaw
rightly points out, as long as English is spoken, there is little chance
that the Yorkshireman will fail to have his ears insulted the moment a
Cornish gent opens up his mouth, and there's nothing for it, opening up
the problem with whatever that gibberish is that we Americans speak! HA!

Well, then. I've butted in far too much. I very much enjoy this group
and
hope I haven't seemed too forward.

Mike in Tampa (a small burg located in a state regionally called:
Flahridah . . .)

================================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.
======================================================================