LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.22 (02) [E/German]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 22.MAY.2005 (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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 varieties" 2005.05.21 (11) [E]

Ron, Gabriele, I hope I didn't cause a "civil war" here by mentioning the
possibilities or impossibilities of German as a Lowlands List Langage!
I agree with both of you at different points, though I tend to be a bit
more at your hand, Gabriele, because of arguments, and I think sometimes
at yours, Ron, because of emotions, passion and other arguments.

I can't say I really like the tone of messages like below; but maybe
that's because I'm indoctrinized too much with the Dutch "Polder-model"

Ingmar

>From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
>Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (06) [E]
>
>Ron wrote:
>> The way I understand her argument is that in her and most North Germans'
>> realities Low Saxon and German always figure in tandem, that German
cannot
>> be disregarded in their lives because it dominates everything, and most
>> people in her region understand both of them, thereby concluding that
they
>> are mutually intelligible.
>>
>> However, if we follow through with this we need to acknowledge that not
>> German but Dutch, English, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. play such
a
>> role in the realities of Low Saxon speakers outside Germany (except in
the
>> case of most Mennonites who have taken German domination along in their
>> diaspora).
>
>No, no, that's not it (or not all of it). What I was trying to say was
that
>Lower Saxon and German are indeed so similar that many if not most things
>can be translated on a one-to-one basis, and that most expressions have a
>direct equivalent in the other language - just change a few vowels here
and
>there, and Bob's your uncle (I know this is slightly exaggerated, I'm just
>trying to get the point across). To a certain extent, this could be said,
of
>course, for German and Dutch as well (although there are plenty of "false
>friends" between those two). This is not at all like your example of Turks
>who also speak German, or Germans from Russia - those languages are barely
>compatible, after all. Actually, many people just consider Platt to be
>German "pronounced the other way" (but then again, there are people who
>think this of Dutch...>grin<).
>
>And I disagree about "other" High German speakers not being able to read
>Platt, at least (understanding it takes as much practice as it would to
>understand Bavarian, Suebian or any other German dialect, which is not a
>whole lot). But then, in Ron's new proposed standardised spelling, even I
>can't read it (at least not at a glance)... and don't even want to try...
>because I regard it as an artificial and rather unnecessary attempt to
make
>Lower Saxon look more different from German than it actually is.
>
>Also, it basically reflects only one flavour of Platt, and I feel that the
>many others are being neglected through the effort of establishing a
>standard language. Again: see the discussion about Limburgs. I once
posted a
>sample of Platt from Hameln (in Southern Lower Saxony, on the Weser),
which
>is very different from the standardized form, as just one example of the
>many, many different varieties - Küstenplatt, Heidjer-Platt,
>Meckelnbörger
>Platt, Sollinger Platt being but a few, albeit very distinct examples.
>
>As I said before, throughout Lower Saxony, you can hear people speak Platt
>mixed into their High German at various degrees, on a sliding scale from 0
>to 100%, and this may vary from day to day in the same person, depending
on
>their current preference, and who they are talking to. So, while most
people
>no longer speak undiluted Platt on a daily basis, this is their way of
>keeping it alive, treating the two languages like conjoined twins (which
>they are in many respects). This is probably no different between Scots
and
>English.
>
>Mind you, I am not arguing to have German included in the list at this
point
>(this was Ron's decision, and if it were fully included now, after ten
>years, structures would shift a lot, and the face of the list would
change).
>Still, I often feel that there is a big piece missing that would be needed
>to complete the picture.
>
>"With benevolent honesty as well as with tolerance and compassion, if not
>even affection",
>Gabriele Kahn
>
>----------
>
>From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Language variety
>
>Hi, Gabriele, Lowlanders!
>
>> But then, in Ron's new proposed standardised spelling, even I
>> can't read it (at least not at a glance)...
>
>I'm pretty darn sure that's because of your mental approach (i.e.,
>German-conditioned expectations).  The way it's spelled is very similar to
>how Low Saxon was spelled before Germanization.  It is not an attempt to
>make it look different, just to arrive at phonemic representation (yes, on
>its own terms), which is where the German-based systems are deficient,
this
>being a reason for rampant mispronunciation among learners.
>
>> What I was trying to say was that
>> Lower Saxon and German are indeed so similar that many if not most
things
>> can be translated on a one-to-one basis, and that most expressions have
a
>> direct equivalent in the other language - just change a few vowels here
>> and
>> there, and Bob's your uncle (I know this is slightly exaggerated, I'm
just
>> trying to get the point across).
>
>Which would explain the incredible, unfortunate spread of _Patentplatt_ in
>Germany, a type of pseudo-Low-Saxon in which pretty much each word and
each
>sound is taken from German and transformed by means of a formula, often
>resulting in weird if not comical formations.  By and large, this is a
>different creature, though you might argue that it's within the alleged
>range.  It is a watered-down, highly Germanized version that most old-
timer
>native speakers find anywhere between comical and sad, though most of them
>are too polite to say so, just counting the blessings of people at least
>trying and not wanting to discourage them.  I have even observed how
genuine
>native speakers "scaled down" their Low Saxon when conversing with such
>deficient speakers, mostly by avoiding words and expressions that are not
>like in German.  Wasn't it our Holger Weigelt who also wrote about this
>happening in Eastern Friesland, proficient older speakers adapting to
>deficient younger folks' pseudo-speak?
>
>Just keep watching what for instance our Jonny writes in LS, and you'll
see
>that most of it can not be literally translated into German.
>
>> Mind you, I am not arguing to have German included in the list at this
>> point
>> (this was Ron's decision, and if it were fully included now, after ten
>> years, structures would shift a lot, and the face of the list would
>> change).
>
>Wrong.  It was a decision taken by the members of the List in the
beginning.
>Some of them are still with us and may be able to verify this.
>
>Regards,
>Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (11) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language variety
> > Mind you, I am not arguing to have German included in the list at this
> > point
> > (this was Ron's decision, and if it were fully included now, after ten
> > years, structures would shift a lot, and the face of the list would
> > change).
> Wrong.  It was a decision taken by the members of the List in the
beginning.
> Some of them are still with us and may be able to verify this.

This has been discussed before.
My thoughts on the subject:

1. Every list needs to have a scope. It is the privilege of the list owner
to limit that scope. Subscribers may come and go depending on their interest
for topics within the scope. The list is moderated, this not only protects
the scope, but also keeps garbage (and offensive stuff) out of the list.

2. Language lists may have a political aspect. Protecting Low German,
suffering from a German umbrella is, I think, explicitely or implicitely a
focus of this list.
Curiously though English (suffocating Scots) is not excluded similarely as
High German is, nor is Dutch excluded (suffocating Limburgish)..

3. This may lead to a definition of scope that some may feel unscientific.
Combining Low German with Scots falls within the scope, but Luxembourgish is
excluded.
I do remember we had some problems at the time for getting Limburgish
included.
I'm not sure:
- that when someone does a "language distance" test, that he will find that
Luxembourgish is more distant from "Low German" than English is
- whether there is a big time difference is between the High German
consonnant shifts and the development of UK-own Anglo-Saxon.

Can one state something as: the "Lowlands scope" combines the languages that
formed a unity (did they ever?) till e.g. 850, the year carefully selected
for including English & Scots but excluding High German?

4. Other languages have always had their place in the list, for as far as
usefull for comparison with languages within the scope (etymology,
borrowings, comparable political situations, foreign languages within
lowland territories etc.)

Regards,
Roger

----------

From: "Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc." <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (11) [E]

From: "Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc." <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
To: "Lowlands-L" <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
>
> This has been discussed before.
> My thoughts on the subject:

I would like to add just this:

In a language continuum it is difficult to define language borders.
With the actual definition of languages within the scope, people from
Heinsberg West fall in the scope since they use "maken", while people from
Heinsberg East fall out the scope since they use "machen" for "make".
They are aware of a couple of little differences, as e.g. maken/machen, but
they would be surprised to learn that those from Heinsberg West are invited
to participate in the list, while those of Heinsberg West are excluded,
unless they talk about the Heinsberg West variant and not about their own.
Heinsberg West may be mixed up with Scots, Heinsberg East may not.
I can imagine Germans do not understand the policy.

Regards,
Roger

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Language varieties" [E]

> From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (06) [E]
>
> No, no, that's not it (or not all of it). What I was trying to say was
> that
> Lower Saxon and German are indeed so similar that many if not most things
> can be translated on a one-to-one basis, and that most expressions have a
> direct equivalent in the other language - just change a few vowels here
> and
> there, and Bob's your uncle (I know this is slightly exaggerated, I'm just

This is the sort of attitude that's killing Scots. I find translating
between English and Scots quite an exercise in imagination - if you know
proper Scots then finding the correct way of saying one thing in the other
language is a real challenge.

On the other hand you get Scots writers who more or less just replace each
English word with a Scots one, and "Bob's your uncle" (not an expression we
would use in Scots, and thereby hangs the challenge). But it's not Scots -
it's just a sophisticated pidgin that Scots speakers can understand because
they also know English.

I'm not the least bit surprised that Gabriel and Ingmar are irked at English
being a core language and German not. Gabriel often flaunts her tremendous
language abilities but do we ever see her Low Saxon? Ingmar presents
Middelsprake as if it could be a lingua franca for the list, but when
chllenged to make it more friendly to insular varieties, dismisses it as
merely a personal interest of his. Middelsprake is the most divisive element
I have ever seen on this list.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: Language Varieties


----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: Language Varieties

Liebe Gabriele, Reinhard, Ingmar,

Eure Beiträge habe ich alle mit Interesse und Vergnügen gelesen. Eine
Zumutung, so etwas an einem Familien-Wochenende einzuleiten :-)!

Im Folgenden meine unmaßgebliche Meinung zum Thema:

1. Hochdeutsch an sich ist keine Gefahr für Niederdeutsch in Deutschland. Es
sei denn (s. 2.):
2. Es ist eine besondere Plage, und es schmerzt, anzusehen, dass einige
Menschen glauben, mit ein wenig ,breiter' gesprochenem Hochdeutsch nun *die
Formel* gefunden zu haben- sie sind die wahre, größere Gefahr, weit mehr als
,echtes', korrektes Hochdeutsch. Das Forum für jedermannes Radebrechen,
'Wikiplatt', macht Platt platt und mich zuweilen rasend! Es werden täglich
,Dokumente' in unsäglicher, verstümmelnder Sprachperversität verfasst, deren
zu erwartender  Einfluss auf kommende Generationen leider sehr traurig
macht.
3. Es ist ebenfalls traurig, aber niemandes Schuld, dass die
süd-niedersächsischen und mecklenburgischen Formen des Niederdeutschen fast
gar nicht auf LL-L vertreten sind. Zuweilen habe ich das Gefühl, dass die
Übermacht der ingväonischen Varianten unsere ,Haidjer' mutlos macht?! Eine
klarere Abgrenzung zwischen den einzelnen, deutschen LS-Varianten wäre m. E.
zuweilen wünschenswert. Dies könnte die zu Recht gewünschte, auch aus
linguitischer Sicht unbedingt erforderliche Vielfalt der nieder'deutschen'
Dialekte fördern und erhalten und manch einem den Mut geben, sich dem Forum
anzuschließen.
4. Die ,Algemeyne Schryvwys' drückt in der Tat manche phonetischen Probleme
besser aus als die ans Hochdeutsche/Niederländische angelehnten
Schreibweisen. Ich glaube allerdings kaum, dass sie sich auf breiter Front
durchsetzen wird- insbesondere nicht bei jenen Menschen, die weder an
linguistischen Ursprüngen interessiert noch mit ,echtem', eben dem
Altsächsischen und Mittelsächsischen nahestehendem Vokabular vertraut sind.
Über die vielbeschworenen Gefahren einer künstlichen Uniformierung der
LS-Varianten ist viel geschrieben und diskutiert worden. Die hansische
Schreibweise war bereits in ihrer Blütezeit ein Artificium, diente
ursprünglich vor allem ausschließlich der  besseren  Lesbarkeit
schriftlicher Verträge. Ihre internationale Verbreitung durch die Hanse war
eher ein Nebenschauplatz- zu Hause sprach man weiterhin in heimischer
Mundart. Vielleicht war es, so gesehen, sogar ein Glück für unser
Niederdeutsch, dass Luthersches Hochdeutsch zur Ablösung erschien?
5. Es wurmt häufig, dass man sich als ,Schultüten-Engländer' an manchen
geistreichen, interessanten oder humorvollen Dialogen kaum beteiligen kann,
oder dass man leicht ins Fettnäpfchen tritt.. Das Neddersassische als
Schriftsprache eignet sich ebenfalls nicht unbedingt für feinsinnige,
zweideutig-eindeutige Formulierungen- dafür ist die Sprache zu archaisch und
zu wenig an unsere urbanen, globalisierenden  Verhältnisse angepasst. Aber-
deshalb ins Hochdeutsche zu verfallen traut man sich häufig nicht; ich
selbst empfinde es fast als Verrat an der Sache.
Anders bei Englisch- dieses Medium brauchen wir am Ende doch alle als Lingua
franca, denn:
6. Hilfe für Niederdeutsch, besser: Niedersassisch, ist in den benachbarten,
außer-deutschen Regionen zuweilen besser zu erhalten als in Deutschland- zum
Beispiel ist der sprach-substantielle Unterschied zwischen unserem
,Küstenplatt' auf der einen und dem Neddersaksisch der Nordniederländer
(zuweilen möchte ich sogar Scots hinzufügen) auf der anderen Seite oftmals
geringer als der zum stark westfälisch-fränkisch geprägten Süd-West-'Platt'.
Da nehmen wir dann ja auch hochdeutsche Hilfe in Anspruch. Ich selbst muss
gestehen, dass ich immer noch ein wenig Probleme mit Afrikaans habe und oft
englische Ergänzungen/Übersetzungen  sehr schätze.
7. Nationalistisch geprägte Borniertheiten werden wir hier nicht beseitigen
können- das wird sich spätestens dann von selbst erledigt haben, wenn der
letzte native Sprecher aus dem 'einfachen Volke' gestorben ist und unsere
Sprache(n) nur noch in speziellen, eher intellektuel geprägten 'Zirkeln'
gesprochen werden wird. Mit Glück wird dann aber vielleicht die Zeit
anbrechen, Niederdeutsch 'vom Grunde auf' lernen zu müssen, wie jede andere
Fremdsprache. Nicht jeder Hans und Franz wird sich daran beteiligen.
Wir können nur schreiben, schreiben und dokumentieren, und in der sicheren
Annahme, dass die LL-L-'Schatzkammern' (mit vielen, gesprochenen
'Zaunkönigen') kommenden Generationen zur Verfügung stehen werden, ein
bisschen weniger besorgt sein um den Erhalt unseres uralten, allen
gemeinschaftlich gehörenden Kulturgutes Sprache.

In diesem Sinne verzeiht mir Hochdeutsch (keine schöne Sprache, aber sehr
nützlich!) und

seid alle herzlich gegrüßt

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

PS: A real wren has it's nest in my garage....

----------

From: Thomas Byro <greenherring at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (06) [E]

In the mid 1970's, my friend Ken DuPuy had just come back from a year
of combat in Vietnam and set about studying to obtain his doctorate in
Phylosophy.  He is a Puerto Rican New Yorker of Hueguenot descent..
His native languages are English and Spanish.  One day he said to me
that there are two languages that you must master to get your
doctorate in Philosophy and he asked me what languages they are?  I
guessed that classical Greek would be one but I couldn't guess what
the other language was.  He said," I will give you a hint.  It is not
English and not Spanish."  I gave up and he said that it is
Hochdeutsch.  He said that so much work had been done in Phylosophy in
that language and it is a language of such precision and power that
it's mastery is required.

I think that Hochdeutsch has aquired a lead that can never be overcome
by the lowlands languages.  The language has been enriched by  so many
worldclass figures in Phylosophy, mathematics, chemistry, physics,
etc.  Many of these individuals were lowlanders themselves but, as far
as I know, they published their work in Hochdeutsch, enriching that
langauge, and thus failed to enrich their native languages..

Still, I see no reason why the lowlands languages should not be able
to cooexist with Hochdeutsch.  My daughter lives in Basel and speaks
to her friends in the local dialect, even though everyone is familiar
with standard Hochdeutsch.  My cousin Horst (a native Plattdeutsch
speaker from the Lueneburger Heide) lives in Berchtesgaden and speaks
the local dialect.  Local dialects seem to be thriving in southern
Germany.  I cannot understand why lowlands languages do not seem to be
able to thrive equally well in the north.

Tom Byro

----------

From: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (11) [E]

To All & Singular:

Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.21 (06) [E]

I move that the more dedicated readers devise a strategy & program & take
turns to prick Ron, Gabriele & Ingmar (expecially these three) in their
softer spots.

Look what happened with this string! I have seldom enjoyed one so
thoroughly.

Off the subject, now: Would any of you agree with me that intelligibility
can go in one direction between languages easier than in another? I can't
explain it,  but it seemed to me, for example, that I had an unfair
advantage from my Afrikaans following German dialects, except Schweitz (but
utterly), until about Luxembourg, then they were up to speed with me.

Another point, & I will pass it by: Language borders are fuzzy, & this is
part of their attraction. I liked to think that German had the same part to
play with Lowlands dialects that for example French had on English, & in
this I believe I differ with Tolkien. French immeasurably enriched English.
It would be a pity if any of the Lowlands languages were swamped under this
heap of foison plenty, but there it is. I recall being approached by Spanish
student, a sharp guy if not too fluent in English, for a polite exposition
of apartheid. Now this is difficult, but I had done my homework, & I did so,
& bearing in mind his home tongue, favouring words & constructions of
Romance origin. He saw immediately what I had done, & remarked on it, thus
drawing my attention. I went away & tried the same trick but avoiding the
Romance influence. It wasn't hard to do, & that English looked very Germanic
indeed. It also looked, though of course it didn't sound, quite Scots.

Ingmar, Ron, if a Lowlands language in the German sphere of influence can do
that: Intelligibly communicate to a German with German punctilio, &
alternatively in its own community with its native directness, then it has
lost nothing.

Yrs,
Mark.

----------

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

Folks,

Thank you, everyone, for sharing your thoughts on the issue.  Much has been
said, so I will really do my best to add only concise notes for
clarification.

I cannot speak for Ingmar and Gabriele, but for my part I can say that there
is no real battle going on here, certainly no civil war (unless I'm totally
deluding myself), and I am not just saying this for diplomatic reasons.  I
very much appreciate Ingmar's and Gabriele's thoughts, appreciate even more
their candour.  I'd much rather they express their feelings and thoughts
than hold back and have their future communication be tainted by any sort of
resentment.  I do not mean to sound condescending and patronizing when I say
that I very much value them as our fellow-listers, that I feel there is room
among us for their predominantly emotionally based opinions, and that I am
quite fond of both of them as people.  So we don't see eye to eye on certain
issues.  Big deal!  What kind of *discussion* forum would it be where
everyone agreed with everyone else?

Even though this entails repetition, I need to restate certain points in
case they got drowned by my notorious verbosity -- and feel free, everyone,
to say it with me in unison in hopes that it will eventually sink in.

(1) Both genealogically and typologically, Low Saxon and German belong to
two different language branches.
German, together with Yiddish, Pennsylvania German, etc., belongs to the
"High German" branch.  (Some varieties belong to what I consider a "contact
range," "Middle German," through which numerous isoglosses run,
Luxembourgish belonging to it closer on the German side.)  Low Saxon, Dutch,
Zeelandic, the Low Franconian varieties of Germany, etc., belong to the "Low
German" branch.  Low Saxon represents the Saxon subbranch, while the others
represent the Franconian (Frankish) subbranch of this "Low German" branch.
Both genealogically and typologically, then, Low Saxon has an inherent
affinity with what we call the "Lowlands" languages, while German has not,
although it has developed contact varieties associated with the Lowlands
(which are of particular interest to us).

(2) English and Scots developed from a mix of predominantly Lowlandic
immigrant (invader) languages (assuming that Anglish was very much akin to
Old Saxon).
Even though Old English came to be infused with Scandinavian and later with
French, and even though this and other factors have in today's terms
obscured mutual intelligibility, English and Scots have in typological terms
remained fundamentally Lowlandic.

(3) The "non-national" Lowlands languages are being overshadowed by other
languages, "power languages."
In Germany, this role is being played by German, which began to encroach on
the area after the demise of the Hanseatic Trading League that had been the
catalyst for Saxon language stability and spread.  As we said before, German
belongs to a different branch, outside the Lowlands range.  In the
Netherlands and Belgium, non-power Lowlands languages are being overshadowed
by Standard Dutch, which happens to be a Lowlands language.  The non-power
languages of Britain and Ireland, as well as Afrikaans in Southern Africa,
are being dominated by English, which also happens to dominate on a global
level these days.  English also happens to be a Lowlands language, thus
falls into our focus category.  (We would do well not to allow widespread
villification of English as a "language killer" detract from the fact that
it belongs to our area of interest and is entitled to equal attention and
respect as a language.)

(4) Real or perceived positions of power and subjugation, although
discussed, do not determine which language varieties are and are not
included in the "core."
This list does not devote itself to minority languages only. It deals with
all of the languages within this genealogical and typological range.

(5) Lowlands-L offers and alternative and additional approach.
Forums dealing with Germanic, West Germanic, English, German, etc. are a
dime a dozen.  They are suitable for folks that want to either deal with the
entire group or want to deal with a specific language.  In the case of most
German language interest groups, this tends to accommodate people that do
not recognize Low Saxon as a separate language (or want to have it both
ways) or find it immoral, disloyal or threatening to discuss Low Saxon in
the (official) absence of German.  So far, Lowlands-L is unique in that it
offers an alternative and additional approach: an opportunity to view Low
Saxon within the context of its closest genealogical and typological
relatives, irrespective of political boundaries and the insular traditional
view of Low Saxon as a German appendage and afterthought (much like Scots is
seen in relation to English).  This alternative approach requires of the
participants that they at least try to bend their minds around the
proposition that Low Saxon is a language in its own right and is not
confined to Germany and the German domain.  In itself, there is nothing
disrespectful or perfidious in this approach, certainly if viewed from an
open and dispassionate standpoint.  Furthermore, such an *alternative and
additional* viewpoint can in no way be detrimental to the language and to
those that deal with it.  I would go as far as proposing that it could only
have a beneficial effect in that it enhances awareness or vision of Low
Saxon as an independent language, thereby bringing together its speakers and
enthusiast from all countries and thus strengthening its survival chances.

(6) Any language may be discussed on Lowlands-L as long as it is relevant to
the Lowlands focus.
German is probably the most frequently mentioned "non-core" language in our
forum, and no one has ever objected to this, unless there is absolutely no
relevance to the focus, which has occurred very rarely.  German is followed
in terms of prededental frequency by North Germanic, Gothic and Yiddish.
Among non-Germanic languages, French, Spanish and Slavonic are most often
mentioned, in part because of their longstanding contacts and power
relations with Lowlands languages.  In fact, *any* language, irrespective of
genealogy, may be and has been dicussed as long as there is some sort of
relevance to the focus.

So this wasn't all that succinct now ... Sorry.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: Jonny, as far as I am concerned, the AS writing system is merely an
exercise as well as an auxiliary means of making Low Saxon more
understandable to the speakers of its closest relatives by using a more
neutral and phonologically more accurate representation.  I'm under no
illusion that people other than a few openminded ones will embrace it, least
of all in Germany.  (Fat chance!)

P.P.S.: Jonny, congratulations on the wrens in your garage!  You must be the
chosen one amongst us if this is a sign.  (I might have to come up with a
special titular decoration for you, o Chosen One.)  But you'd better batten
the hatches in case there's a lion on the prowl in your neighborhood.

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