LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.13 (01) [A/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 13.SEP.2004 (01) * 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 Baskind <jbaskind at mac.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.12 (01) [E]

On Sep 12, 2004, at 7:57 AM, John F. wrote:

> It is
> therefore possible to make unequivocally true statements in this
> field. I
> believe that the national governments of the Republic of India, the
> People's
> Republic of China and the USA, besides many others, do not seek a
> monolingual state.

Equally true, though, that there is a significant cultural bias which
persuades many countries' citizens to use one language in preference to
others, and that this persuasion is unfortunately as effective as a
legal edict over time.

In the USA, while there is a growing movement to have Spanish declared
and used as a co-equal with English, it is ignored in the largely
English-speaking corridors of power. In States with a significant
Spanish-speaking population, the idea is often regarded as dangerous
radicalism by threatened Anglos.The ability to speak English is a
requirement for citizenship. While the use of one's own ethnic language
in America is not discouraged, it isn't very much encouraged,
officially at least, other than in ethnically described commercial
areas (Chinatown, Japantown, etc).

This is de facto, and therefore historically, official government
policy. isn't it? And the reaon that thisa list was necessary, I
believe.

South Africa today has eleven "official" languages, but the previous
official language, Afrikaans, has been relegated (temporarily, I hope)
to the 'scrapheap of history", in favour of English, which is now used
almost exclusively for official purposes, despite the fact that
arguably more than half the South African population know Afrikaans a
lot better than English.

(On the other hand, Afrikaans is stretching its wings in South Africa,
freed (only my opinion), from the stultifying restrictions of having to
function as the official language, with august committees deciding on
EU-like standardizations, but that's another discussion. (Dis nie
bedoel as "flamebait" nie, hoor, maar as enigiemand hierin belangstel,
sou ek graag bietjie verder gesels).

This site might be interesting, in this regard. http://www.litnet.co.za.

----------

From: Mark Brenchley <lagrandefenetre at hotmail.com>
Subject: "Language politics" 2004.09.12 (01) [E]

>From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
>Subject: Language politics
>
>Mark Brenchley seems to have missed my point about Henry V. Considering
>just
>"foutre", it seems obvious that the audience (or a good number of them)
>must
>have understood it. But how? Was it an odd word that passed into English
>(so
>that one can meaningfully say that it was part of the London vernacular) or
>was there a lot of French about? Of course the whole scene is basically in

>French but I had assumed that the actors could have put it over: maybe
>Alice
>slipped in a few extra English words. But it's hard to see how the
>following
>could have been understood without a reasonable knowledge of Fr:

No, I don't think I did, pointing out that the strongly cosmopolitan
atmosphere of Elizabethan London would have meant a high degree of
vocabulary swapping - there would have been quite a bit of French, Italian,
Spanish, Portugese (among others) all floating about. It should not have
been forgotten, however, that the joke may have been completely missed and
fallen flat on its face.

Mark Brenchley
LaGrandeFenetre at hotmail.com

----------

From: Mike <botas at club-internet.fr>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.12 (01) [E]

Hi all,

John wrote:

"Mike: It is unequivocally true that the majority of people in Wales speak
English. It is also true that the majority of people in Wales do not speak
Welsh. It is unequivocally true that the Government and the majority of
people in the Irish Republic do not seek a monolingual state. It is
therefore possible to make unequivocally true statements in this field. I
believe that the national governments of the Republic of India, the People's
Republic of China and the USA, besides many others, do not seek a
monolingual state."

John, thanks for straightening me out.
I unequivocally agree with you.
Cheers, Mike Wintzer

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