LL-L "Tradition" 2003.11.10 (11) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.NOV.2003 (11) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
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
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Traditions" 2003.11.10 (07) [E]

At 04:59 PM 11/10/03 -0800, Ron wrote:
>However ... while it may well be true that it is an urban legend, the
posted
>presentation does not seem to prove that it is one, only *says* so.  How do
>you know it is correct?  They talk about assumptions on the part of the
>proponents but come across as doing no more than presenting opponents'
>assumptions themselves.  Perhaps we ought to take both sides' arguments
with
>grains of salt.

I think the key argument is textual, i.e. the non-existence of texts prior
to the late 19th century.  I don't know the nuts and bolts of this argument
vis a vis other folk poetry, so I can't comment.  I am more familiar with
how this is argued for the origin of things like the Mishnah or the Gospel
of John.

The poem does seem to lend itself to such an interpretation.  However, one
might also argue that Jack and Jill are a paraphase of the Gospel:  Jack =
Jesus, the hill = Calvary, etc. etc.  It's an awful lot to put on such a
simple poem, though, isn't it.

Ed

----------

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

Thanks, Ed.

I take it you understand that I have nothing invested on either side of the
debate, just feel I need to point out that debunkers don't necessarily need
to be believed simply because they profess to debunk something that is
popularly believed.

Sure.  Textual indications there may be, but not indisputable proof.  Just
because something doesn't survive in writing before a certain time doesn't
necessarily prove that it didn't exist before that time, be it written or
spoken.

> I am more familiar with
> how this is argued for the origin of things like the Mishnah or the Gospel
> of John.

I should imagine that you would be on safer ground when it comes to
religious texts, given that in Judeo-Christian-Islamic (and other)
traditions such material was so revered that it was carefully catalogued,
preserved and passed down, and relevant activities were conscientiously
recorded.  In fact, Jewish tradition prohibits destruction of religious
texts other than burial of those that are so worn as to be unusable.

Oral tradition in particular does not offer such relatively stable ground to
walk.  Bear in mind that the main safekeepers of oral literature have been
illiterate people, particularly women, and people did and do not respect
such material as much as written texts produced by "learned" males.  (With
few exceptions, even literary, visual and musical works by formally educated
women, certainly those of past times, tend to be considered less worthy and
are more likely to get lost.)   I think it is safe to assume that a very
large percentage of Lowlands and other European oral literature, including
songs and nursery rhymes, have been lost because no one bothered to record
them, no one bothered because it was oral and folkloristic, not regarded as
being "real" literature.  Had it not been for some odd birds like the Grimm
Brothers and Wilhelm Wisser, for example, we would now probably not have
access to the tales they collected from mostly elderly females in the 19th
century.

> The poem does seem to lend itself to such an interpretation.  However, one
> might also argue that Jack and Jill are a paraphase of the Gospel:  Jack =
> Jesus, the hill = Calvary, etc. etc.  It's an awful lot to put on such a
> simple poem, though, isn't it.

Indeed it is, which is also what I alluded to when I mentioned the Old
Testament "Songs of Solomon" and the Chinese _Shijing_.  Yes, your point is
well taken.  Perhaps we *are* too quick in crediting texts with having
conceiled profound meanings, and this is more easily done in oral
literature.  The problem is that in this area it is awfully hard to prove
and disprove much, that is is easier to allege than to debunk.

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