LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.25 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.MAR.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: 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: Roger Hondshoven <roger.hondshoven at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.25 (05) [D/E]

      Hello,

      I was struck in the text below by the sentence: "we call ourselves
Diets". I can't imagine anyone in Flemish Belgium and in the Netherlands
today who would call his language "Diets" . This an historical term denoting
the tongue spoken in the Middle Ages by the Flemish and the Dutch. To people
of my generation  Diets is, to say the least, a suspect word. It is a
(politically) "loaded" term, since it was - in the thirties and during the
second world war -  a preferential word with ultra-rightist people striving
for a Flemish secession from Belgium or for a union of Flanders and the
Netherlands in a kind of "new order". Diets is a word that has unfortunately
been abused and as such has fallen out of favour. I am under the impression
that today even right-wing people are reticent to use it. It goes without
saying that I do not want to imply anything improper in connection with the
author of the text below.

      Roger H.

      -------Original Message-------

      From: lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
      Date: Thursday, March 25, 2004 22:14:44
      To: LOWLANDS-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
      Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.25 (05) [D/E]

      From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
      Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.24 (04) [E]

      >From the Original Message -----
      From: "Lowlands-L" <lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET>
      To: <LOWLANDS-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
      Sent: 24 March 2004 10:17
      Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.03.24 (04) [E]

      Dear All:
           Alighting on the throwaway line on the Afrikaners quoted below, I
note
      that others have mentioned before that if the surviving ethnic wealth
&
      cultural variety of neighbouring races & peoples - their mere
survival - is
      any indicator, then the Afrikaner measures very well against other
      colonising races from North-Western Europe. Consider e.g. the USA,
      Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Batavia, South Molucca, etc.
           By the way, we call ourselves 'Diets'. is this pertinent? As - as
it
      were - among us Anglo-Saxons (Remember, the English were culturally
isolated
      & alienated by the Norman-French, as the Scots ((a thrawn race)) were
not).
      Even so, in the English Sailor's Argot all seamen from the NW European
      Littoral were dubbed 'Dutch' - German, Nederlands or Flemish
citizenship was
      simply not an issue. I think they were correct.
           Is this not more pertinent to our concerns with language than the
trend
      of this discussion? Let us get back to Diets!

      > I'd also like to believe that the Dutch are very tolerant. The ones
who
      > settled in South Africa must have been from a different tribe. Or
were
      > they anglo-saxons?

      Yrs Respectfully,
      M Dreyer.

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