LL-L "Reviews" 2004.01.26 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.JAN.2004 (07) * 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: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: Resources (with comments)

Last week I found an interesting article (in Dutch) in an old magazine in a
secondhand bookshop in Kortrijk. It deals with the use of the procedural
language in a court case in 1695:
J. Mostin, "Lembeek had een taalconflict in 1695", p. 187-193, in "Het oude
land van Edingen en omliggende, Tijdschrift van de Gewestelijke Kring voor
Oudheidkunde, Geschiedenis en Heemkunde van Zuid-Pajottenland", Jaargang V,
Nummer 3, September 1977.
I scanned it graphically and pasted the jpg files into a pdf file. I leave
it for a couple of days on url:
http://home.tiscali-business.be/%7Etpm09245/tmp/lembeek.pdf  (2.7 Mb)

Some comments and some reflections.

1.   The issue as such looks familiar. It could have been a procedural case
around the use of the language in modern times over here.

2.   The final decision is also modern. At the time the Grote Raad (High
Court) decided the language of the witness should prevail over the language
of the public prosecutor. In 19th century Belgium we had a reversal of
logics. The Belgian constitution guaranteed freedom of language. Judges
thought that, in mixed situations, the strongest, i.e. themselves, could
take their constitutional freedom. Lawyers had done their studies in French,
so they would not be disadvantaged. The defendants were apparently too
stupid to understand things in whatever language.
Cases where defendants were allegedly condemned unfairly became fetish
symbols of the Flemish movement. The actual law on judicial procedures (of
about 1935) follows the language of the region, except for penal cases,
where defendants can apply for a transfer of jurisdiction to a region with
another language regime.

3.   The area of Halle - Edingen, where Lembeek, was part of, belonged at
the time to the basically French speaking county of Hainaut (Henegouwen),
what probably explains why the public prosecutor did not understand the
local "diets".
In this case the defendants wanted that the witnesses testified in Diets.
This was declined. And curiously, they did not go in appeal at the High
Court of the County of Hainaut in Mons (Bergen), but directly at the federal
High Court of the (Southern) Netherlands, the "Grote Raad van Mechelen". The
defendants won the case.

4.   As referred to in par. 2 above, in the 19th century defendants in
Belgium had harder times for getting their Diets language used in court
procedures in Belgium. Some of those unfair cases became symbols of the
Flemish movements. In literature one finds similar cases in Brittany
(France), where defendants were allegedly condemned unfairly, because they
did not understand the language of the procedure (French).
Question: are there similar cases where people are considered to be unfairly
(or innocently) condemned (Gaelic or Welsh defendants in a procedure in
English.) because of unwillingness of the judges to proceed in the language
of the region?

5.   Some vocabulary also changed semantically:
For the County of Flanders the Highest Court of Appeal was, till
around 1520, the Parliament of Paris. The term "Parliament" later turned to
be used exclusively for the political "Chamber of Representatives". I'm not
sure, but it may be that the reputation of the English "political"
parliament may have pushed the word for it being used for a political
assembly rather than for a High Court of Justice.(?) The English House of
Lords though still acts as Court of Appeal, I understand.
In the Southern Netherlands, at the time, the political assembly was called
the "Staten" (Staten van Vlaanderen, Staten van Henegouwen, .). It grouped
Nobility, Clergy and Bourgeoisie. These groups were called "standen". In
French as well "staten" as "standen" are translated as "états".
On federal level, the "Staten Generaal" grouped deleguees of the "Staten" of
the different countries (provinces) of the (Southern) Netherlands.
The actual Netherlands kept the terminology of "Staten Generaal" with 2
chambers.
Belgium nowadays has a federal "Parliament" with a "Senate" and a "House of
Representatives".

6.    Also the word schepen (échevin, alderman) saw it's meaning changed
from local judge in the "ancient régime" to a member of the municipal
government in modern times.

Regards,
Roger

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