LL-L "Language politics" 2004.10.09 (02) [E]

Sat Oct 9 18:12:41 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.OCT.2004 (02) * 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: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.10.08 (04) [E]

Hi, Tom & All

Subject: Standard Language & Language Standards.

> The reference to "standard" in language is sometimes mentioned as a
> ready reckoner or benchmark for use or misuse.

I don't know, but my reading indicates that the French Acadamy has no
significant control over the French Language of French speakers, for all
it's efforts; consider 'le weekend, le picnic, le parking &c.' & an index of
prohibited terms is not a reliable indicator of inception into the language.
The same must inevitably apply to all 'Language Academies' with a
prescriptive brief.

The best that can be done is to record & annotate by date the inception of a
word as & when (& where) it comes into use, as the OED does. It is an
on-going process, as language is a dynamic process.

This gives a picture, if it can be retrieved, of the English Language in any
given dialect-group at any given period: Useful information.

The best the 'Standards Academy' approach can do is to dictate to us what we
'should' be saying, while we ignore it. At neither end of this transaction
can any useful work be done, or even any useful information be derived.

Vivat OED!

Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: Tom Maguire <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.10.08 (05) [E]

>>From  Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais <goidel.glas at gmail.com>

>French isn't so clear cut. Yes, you have l'Académie française, but
>there is in Québec also l'Office québécoise de la langue française.
>Using them both you can get pretty "pure" French =). E.g., in Québec
>they say "On parque dans le stationnement" for "I park in the parking
>lot" but in France they say "On gare dans le parking". If you combine
>them, you can get "On gare dans le stationnement" and it's very much a
>French phrase.

Hello All,

It is true that I had completely forgotten the Quebec reference. The
pronunciation of French there and much of the vocabulary is markedly
different from the (Northern France) French standard. Does this mean
there is another standard there?  I have met several French Canadians in
France. I was very surprised at one woman who restricted her
conversation because she said she didn't have a French accent.

The reference to "pure" French really hits the nail on the head. Having
lived in several countries I have stopped believing in the lingustic
"purity" I imagined there existed when a learner of the languages. Maybe
"standard" is useful for learners but it quickly develops into notions
of superior and inferior.

I concede that this thread is not strictly about Lowlands languages but
languages in general. For me it ties in with what may be the Lallands
dialect's future quandry of  whether to create a standard or not. The
problem of language standard seems to me to be that if you create a
standard then it is a reference for 'outsiders' but you will surely
trample on the toes of some 'insiders' who, invariably, will differ from
the standard, particulary in pronunciation. Another problem is the one
mentioned by Bill Wigham who rightly points out the uselesness of a
legal bulwark against a tidal wave of incoming words, accompanied by
their culture.

Regards,

Tom

--
Carpe Diem.
-Visit Nlp in Education  http://www.xtec.es/~jmaguire
-Join Nlp-Education  mailto:nlp-education-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

----------

From: Jo Thys <Jo.Thijs1 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.10.08 (05) [E]

> From: Bill Wigham <redbilly2 at earthlink.net>
> Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.10.08 (04) [E]

> Guardians of language should not, I
> believe, seek to shut out foreign words which enrich the language in
> question.  That could, if taken to the farthest extreme, put Mr. Roget out
> of business.

Beste Bill,

I couldn't disagree more on this. New words usually don't fit in te
grammitcal or fonetic pattern of a languae. In Dutch there's the horrible
'jus d'orange' often pronounced as 'ju doranje' while the original word
"sap" is easily used to form compound words (like appelsap). In Dutch
however jus (gravy) is also used but rather to describe 'meat juice' (cfr.
een sappige biefstuk). With jus d'orange a semantic border is crossed, which
in the long run could make 'sap' disappear -since they both denote the same
thing. In English the use of 'sap' seems resticted compared to Dutch and
German. Apart from that in Dutch 'appelsien' is used for an orange and to me
it seems a loss for language (diversity) to replace this word with is more
frequently used counterpart. However, there are no rational arguments to
shut out foreign words nor to embrace them. Often those words are not so
'foreign' as they seem since the French -seems me- woudn't have a problem
with 'compteur' for 'computer' (<Latin. comptare) except that they used the
word already for another thing nor  English speakers would not  had
understand a word like 'coordanitor' or 'ordinator' for an 'ordinnateur'.
The greatest diversity could be reached by letting each language produce its
own names for new things and fenomena. Only then there's room for the
beauties in a language like appelflap ('apple turnover') or 'kaasschaaf'.
But here also, no rational argument can be given. Don't become too tolerant,
Bill.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jo Thys

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