LL-L "Language survival" 2004.03.18 (08) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 19.MAR.2004 (08) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: Mike <botas at club-internet.fr>
Subject: LL-L "Language survival" 2004.03.18 (02) [E]

Criostóir wrote:
>
> Ultimately, if a language does drop out of everyday use and become
dormant,
> it can be raised up anew at any time, providing has been recorded
> sufficiently.
>
With all respect, Criostóir, I suspect that this is wishful thinking. In the
best of cases what you can reconstruct is the skeleton of a language because
that is what you can record, but the gist, the flavor, the perfume of a
language will be gone forever with its last speaker. What you resurrect is
something else. It shares vocabulary and grammar with its ancester, but not
the soul.
Tschüß, Mike Wintzer

----------

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

Hi, Críostóir, Mike, Lowlanders!

I'll chime in here, if you don't mind, perhaps in a moderating or mitigating
capicity (or so I'd like to think).

Perhaps neither of you is totally right or wrong, if there *is* a right and
a wrong here.  Or, better to say, both of you make valid points.

Críostóir, you wisely added the phrases "particularly if there is an
unbroken line of second language speakers (e.g., Hebrew, Cornish, Manx)" and
"providing has been recorded sufficiently."  Unfortunately, both of these
things are easier said than done, given that even second-language
proficiency has been discouraged traditionally (at least by way of
withholding support), and given also that most of the recording activities,
or at least those that are of use to the average person, relied mostly on
private initiatives and private funding, many a project fizzling out on a
publisher's desk.  However, this is a different matter, not to distract from
your point.

Mike, in my opinion, you too made a valid point in saying that resurrected
languages are not the same as the originals on which they are supposed to be
based.  Even though you did not say so with so many words, I add to this
that a resurrected language may be a fairly far cry from the original even
if there *is* a lot of recording.  Let me play the devil's advocate and ask,
"So what?"

Assuming that, for whatever reason, a given population embraces the idea of
resurrecting and reviving its ancestral language, should it really be so
important that the exact "flavor" of the "original" is there?  Would the
absence of this "flavor" or the presence of a new "flavor" make this revived
language worthless or less worthy?   Probably only if reviving the very same
"flavor" were the main purpose of the exercise.  I can envisage no scenario
in the real world in which this would be the case.  Usually the main purpose
of reviving languages is to create links with one's ancestral heritage, both
symbolically and practically (e.g., to preserve and continue a literary
tradition and to assure easier access to ancestral literature).

I would like to go even one step farther by saying that putting enormous
effort into reviving what some people consider to be the ancestral "flavor"
would be likely to lead to overly artificial creations.  Surely the purpose
of the exercise should not be to go back in time but to reclaim a part of
one's heritage and make it fit today's and tomorrow's needs.  Inevitably,
the history of suppression, oppression, decline and demise will have left
their traces in this supposedly resuscitated "construct."  And well they
should, as far as I am concerned.  Why *would* you want to try to pretend
that nothing happened between then and now?  Suppression, oppression,
decline and demise are parts of that history, as are "foreign" domination
and influences.  German and Dutch domination on Lowlands Saxon (Low German)
are a fact and can and should not be magically washed away, nor should
French and Standard Dutch influences on Flemish and Zeelandic, English
influences on Scots, etc.  They are parts of those histories.

Take the case of Hebrew, which Críostóir mentioned.  In many ways, Modern
Hebrew is a far cry from biblical and liturgical Hebrew, even from
scholar-specific conversational Hebrew used occasionally in international
settings in pre-modern times.  So what?  Does it make it worthless and
useless?  I don't think so, and I dare say neither do millions of speakers
(including many native speakers) in Israel and around the world.  Modern
Hebrew is perfectly well adapted to and suited for all spheres of life here
and now.  At the same time there is a strong, albeit it not perfect, link
between it and the ancestral versions.  What more would you want?  Today's
Israelis and other Hebrew speakers are aware and justly proud of their
ancient heritage.  But I hardly think that it worries a lot among them that
their version does not have the same "flavor" as biblical and liturgical
Hebrew.  Centuries of diaspora all over the world have left their marks on
Modern Hebrew, or, better to say, are imported flavors, which should come as
a surprise to no one.  After all, the act of resurrection was relatively
brief.  The processes of reviving and reinvigorating that followed
resurrection were left in large part to the actual users of the language and
thus took place in a fairly "organic" sort of way, planned neologisms often
being abandoned in favor of "organically grown" ones.  Hence, there is a
multitude of influences from the languages of the world.  That's the reality
and the history of its speakers and their ancestors.  Why should it *not* be
there to add new flavors and perfumes?  (Sure, for various reasons I
personally would have liked Modern Hebrew to have been influenced more by
Arabic, its Semitic sister language, than by North European languages.
However, predominance of Eurocentrist and "anti-Orientalist" sentiments and
powers are a reality, besides the fact that millions of European immigrants
simply would have had a very hard time acquiring the true Semitic
pronunciation that Ancient Hebrew had.  However, this is my personal
feelings and should not be seen as subtracting from my argument.)

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