LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.09 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.SEP.2004 (06) * 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: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language politics

Roger Verhiest wrote:

>It has been and will always been the goal of political power to create
uni-lingual states - the linguistic border between the Netherlands and
Germany is a fine example : on both sides of the state border one will find
dialects which are very related ; people from over the border can perfectly
converse with each other in their dialects - but as soon as they begin to
speak the "common" language ie German and Dutch they don't understand each
other anymore.<

It seems to me that the first statement is unequivocally untrue. There was
no thought of monolingualism in England for around three centuries after the
Norman conquest, for example. The nobs spoke first Norman French, then
Anglo-Norman and after that French. The Church used Latin. Hoi polloi used
English. C L Barber writes in "The Story of Language": "In 1362 the king's
speech at the opening of Parliament was made in English, and in the same
year an Act was passed making English the official language of the law
courts instead of French, though their records were to be kept in Latin."
Most of the great empires of history have not aimed at monolingualism, even
though the language of the conquerors may have been used exclusively for
administration and communication.

I'm not sure what the situation along the border between the Netherlands and
Germany is supposed to be evidence of. One might reasonably believe that
there are always going to be political borders which don't correspond to
linguistic boundaries. If states had and successfully exercised the power to
create monolingualism this situation would not exist.

Nothing in this posting is to be taken as supporting any particular form of
government or national linguistic policy.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

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