LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.14 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.SEP.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: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Language varieties

John Baskind wrote:

>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.<

There is a famous statement of UK energy policy: the policy is not to have a
policy. It seems to me that the most one can say is that the US government's
language policy is not to have one. Politicians (and people in general)
don't commit themselves on contentious issues unless they can see something
in it for themselves.

The maintenance of minority languages is a complex social issue and I think
focussing too much on government attitudes isn't helpful. There is certainly
an enormous Spanish-speaking minority in the US with its own newspapers and
broadcast media through which the language is propagated. You don't have to
encourage the use of Spanish in "ethnically described commercial areas"! In
some states there is a policy of mother-tongue teaching (de jure) in all
languages for which it is practicable (de facto). Education is still
primarily the responsibility of the states rather than the Federal
government.

The Lowlands List is entertaining, provocative, infuriating, stimulating,
hospitable, multilingual, and lots of other things. Desirable it may be:
necessary it isn't.

Regarding government support for minority languages I offer the following
from "Can a Shrinking Linguistic Minority be Saved?" by Desmond Fennell in
_Minority Languages Today_, conference proceedings from 1980:

"[A]nother way of explaining why the state failed to save the Gaeltacht is
by saying that the government failed to perceive [that its contraction could
only be prevented by the people of that territory themselves]. It made no
serious attempts to persuade the people of the Gaeltacht to decide to end
this erosion. .... Instead ... it tried through its various agencies to do
the job on their behalf, and without any commitment or activity on their
part to end the linguistic erosion. A clear absurdity, when one looks at it;
but such is the modern belief in the God-like omnipotence of the state that
its faithful often believe it can do impossible things - work miracles."

Even greater omnipotence (OK, I know ...) is attributed to the Irish state
in  "Frisian-Dutch bilingual primary schools" by Kr Boelens, 1976: "Ireland
is trying very hard with the support of officialdom to reinstate Irish,
which is only vernacular speech in a few small areas in the west, in
the Gaeltacht, as the language of the entire nation."

On a different point, Mark wrote:

"Well, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Fries were recruited to man King
Alfred's Navy, since they were, unlike the English of that time, seamen.
They were warriors of note & they spoke a dialect mutually intelligable to
the English. Their only problem was unfamiliarity with keels..."

Where is this from? Is "they spoke a dialect mutually intelligable to the
English" a contemporary observation? I can only find a reference in 897 to
the fact that Alfred designed ships unlike Frisian and Danish ones.

Usual disclaimers.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

"Misinformation and disinformation are the pollutants of post-industrial
society."

----------

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2004.09.11 (02) [E]

Dear John Feather

Subject: Language varieties

> Luc wrote concerning the "birdsnest" sentence, the oldest text in
> WestVlaams:
> > . my point was that some scholars believe that the languages in Kent and
> Flanders in that particular time, were almost identical. There was a lot
of
> trading in this part of Western Europe ...<

> The inference is that trade has levelled differences between the
languages.

I would rather infer that the languages hadn't diverged enough to hamper
communication between the 'communities', iro trade or anything else

> Obvious questions are whether trade was particularly heavy between Kent
and
> Flanders (or in Kent and Flemish bottoms) and what was being traded. What
> proportion of the populations was involved? How did Frisian survive under
> the same pressures?

I don't see that either language was under pressure from the other, for any
reason.

> "Almost identical"? We know very little about OWestVlaams and there are
two
> major differences from OE in just 13 words - "olla" and "hinase"

Well, yes, but neither Luc nor, I nor, I reckon, the speakers of either
tongue, would have to make a huge conceptual jump from 'olla' to 'aella'. We
humans use fuzzy logic, no more so than when talking.

> - besides (presumably) the difference in pronunciation of "ic"
> ("ik" and "itch"). What is the evidence? What are the criteria?

Why would I (presume) anything of the sort?

> I asked: > - If the languages were very close how do we know that the text
> is not in Kentish? <
> Mark Dreyer replied: > Well, 'hinase' is a giveaway, & . the double 'U'
for
> 'W', instead of the 'ween' rune, as an insular Anglo-Saxon would write -.
> Nice try, but the transliteration of Oswulf's charter (Kentish, ca 805)
> contains both "w" and "uu", presumably reflecting the two forms in the
> original,

It more likely reflects the easy habit of the scribe. English spelling was
only standardised - could only be standardised - after the publication of
Johnson's Dictionary. But I beware of using 'presumably' in an argument.

> as well as "tuegen" for "twegen". The Early Northumbrian texts, also
> in _Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader_, all have "uu" and/or "u" but not "w".

I bow acknowledgement, closing with the objection that I have drawn our
attention to before, on the conservatism of those 'Northern' English (I know
Kent isn't 'North'). If I was wrong about the _ Anglo Saxon_ orthography,
you might bear in kindly mind I am still gobstruck by the magnificant
Insular Half-Uncial script!

> Mark wrote: >Regarding that sentence, let me try something.
> >Old Flemish
> 'hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan hinase hi(c) (e)de thu uu(at)
> (u)nbida(n) (uu)e nu.'
> Old English
> "hebben aella fugolas nesta onginnan buton ic end thu hwaet abidan we nu."
> & just for fun, Afrikaans
> (Het alle voëls beginne nes buitens ek en jy, waarvoor wag ons nou?)
> >'u', 'uu', 'v', 'w' & 'f' in the different orthographies make the words
> appear to differ more than is in fact the case. See how close they are!<
>
> You can find images of the text on the internet. The transcriptions of the
> word taken to mean "await" are very odd. For Mark's "(u)nbida(n)" I have
> seen "umbidan". But in the best image I've found (at www.xs4all.nl) it
looks
> like "anbadan" with no doubt at all about the second "a".
>
>  My OE is rusty but if the first word is the indic pl of "habban" (have)
> then the normalised WSaxon form is "habbath". But could it be a
subjunctive
> indicating "if"? ("Hebben" is the subjunctive of "hebban" [raise, lift]
but
> perhaps the vowel was different in WVlaams). I think "aella" should be
> "ealla",

My Sweet's Student's Dictionary of AS has it as 'habban' too. I should have
spotted the hebban, related to the ME 'heave' & the Afrikaans 'hef'.  Sweet
spells 'aella' with the macron 'ae' (which I can't type).

> and "ic end thu" "me and the" (or "inc" if the dual is appropriate
> here) - dative after "buton". But perhaps Mark is more of a scholar than
he
> admits and these are Kentish forms.

Flatterer! I stand by the 'ic end thu', & concede the 'inc', but then the
line would sound 'lomp'.

Scansion might be an issue. A more concise or alternatively lucid phrase
might have sounded clumsy. As regards received understanding, the scribe was
translating a Latin epigram:
"Abent omnes volucres nidos inceptos nisi ego et tu quid expectamus nu(nc)."
>>From this the discoverers extrapolated, & almost certainly
influenced (& influences)  a) their & our understanding of the grammar, & b)
their & our extrapolation
of the missing text.

I have seen a picture of this text myself, & read an analysis in Nederlands
on the same. I will only differ with you on the 'anbi(a)dan', as some
interpreted it. But the same study was an analysis of the work of some 5
scholars. The weight of their learning is against you. But Hell, I wish they
shot it under UV for the boffins to study!

> Though Mark sees close similarities between Afrikaans and all old
varieties
> of English (I am impressed by his ability to make sense of the peace
treaty
> of 886, which established the Danelaw).

If I remember aright, it was the one previous to that, which he broke, or
his leigemen did in spite of the treaty.

it is interesting that there are 5
> major differences between his Afrikaans and OE.

Yes, but I too, for scansion's sake used words & construction that carried
better rhythm. A clumsy transliteration would be more apparently similar but
cruder. I followed the other route (a poem should not necessarily meeeen,
but beeee. Ahem!)

Apologies for the tardy response, I've been off on the farm, far from my
books.
By the way: This to John Feathers - What about those phrases you wanted me
to translate (without peeking)? I await the headsman's axe...

Yrs,
Mark.

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