LL-L "Language survival" 2005.03.28 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.MAR.2005 (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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language survival" 2005.03.28 (01) [E]

Is that true, do unwritten languages die out? How come there still is any
language then, although there was no writing at all before a few thousands
year ago? And in the 'civilized word' the majority of people couldn't
write before a few hundred years ago. On Earth as a whole, the majority of
people still can't write (or read). And still their languages didn't die
out. But, of course it's true that smaller languages of some special
groups of people(s) with endangered ways of life are dying out togerher
with their cultures, but that is not because they're not written, I think.

Anyway, Low Saxon has always been written to some extend but the problem
is that it's not the (an) official language of instruction, of government
or of information in its own area; High German and Standard Dutch are.
In the Netherlands and in Germany the orthographies of those national
languages are used for Low Saxon too. And LS speakers want to emphasize
the uniqueness of their particular local dialects, out of pride but also
because of this fear they will die out and must be preserved, and they
usually find it hard even to think of any form of standardization, because
it's just dialects, for local or regional use. And the own dialect of
their home towns is the best, feels right etc. at least, that's how it was.

The last fifty to hundred years or so LS and other dialects are loosing
ground to the standard national languages. That's a shame but it also lead
to a new kind of regional languages: the regiolects. A regiolect was
developped from related but different local dialects, after the speakers
got more contact with each other through work, schools, cities, cars,
trains etc but still want to maintain a characteristic regional identity
apart from the national one. And that may create more chances for some
standardization of LS orthography, too. At least that's what I hope...

Ingmar

Peter Sørensen/Paul Sweet:
"Unwritten languages appear to die out."

----------

From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language survival" 2005.03.27 (02) [E]

I disagree with the statement that unwritten languages die out.

Burushaski, for example, is a language isolate spoken in the
moutainous northwest of Kashmir, yet until very recently (1970s
perhaps) it wasn't considered a written language.

It being a language isolate means it has survived despite thousands of
years of pressure from neighbouring languages - first Dravidian, then
Indo-Aryan.

For a large part of this time, the neighbouring languages were
written. Yet Burushaski still survived intact, and has maintained a
relatively stable speaker population for centuries. It is spoken by
about 50000 people today, about the same number as spoke it 100 or 200
or even 300 years ago.

Mark

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language survival

Folks,

Maybe we could rephrase the statement in a less dramatic way by saying
"Writing improves the survival chances of a language."

There are numerous surviving ancient languages that are unwritten (or
started to be written very recently, by a small minority).  However, it
seems these are used in relative isolation, be it geographical,
ethno-cultural and/or religious.

Furthermore, it seems to me that what is needed for strength in addition
to writing is cohesion.  Low Saxon is written, has never ceased to be
written and has literature gpoing back to the Middle Ages.  However, what
is killing it aside from Dutch and German domination and conditioning is
the absence of cohesion, of unity, in most instances even of a sense of
common "language-ness."  Yes, it *is* written, but it is written in a
gezillion different ways, and many people are very inflexible about it.
Even in the absence of a common literary language, use of a common writing
*system* would strengthen inter-community communication and thus enhance
speakers' language awareness beyond their own micro-dialect-communities.
Such a system would need to improve interdialectical communication to at
least the level of mutual spoken comprehension.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

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