LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.24 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 24.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: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (06) [E]

Ron wrote:
> > And who would
> > follow that, given the proverbial stubbornness of Lower Saxons?
>
> Indeed!  I'm often reminded of that.  "I disagree because I can. And I
> *like* it!"  I wonder if this started off with resistence against the
> _Hoogduytschen_.  Whatever came from the towns, cities, landlords, offices
> and any kind of authority was _geel_ ("yellow," i.e., German proper), and
> the first thing you do, before even knowing what it is, is reject it,
argue
> against it even before you yourself know how you really feel about it.
Oh,
> yes!  I grew up with it plenty, and, yes, I run into it often even now in
> certain arenas.  (My wife holds the erraneous belief that I belong to the
> same camp, but we all know she must be wrong, and we reject and deny any
> such thing. Right?)

Yep, that just about describes them. And among those, my ancestors must have
stood out, because the name Kahn was derived from "gagen", meaning "against
it". And yes, I do find myself in the role of devil's advocate a lot - not
because I wish to provoke, but rather out of an honest desire for balance.
If there are certain arguments against something, and nobody else brings
them up, then I will, just so all sides will be heard. And when something is
being stated, I do indeed automatically seek arguments against it - not
necessarily because I really am against it (I might, as a matter of fact,
even be all for it), but because I believe that all aspects of a matter
should be considered. I am, after all, first and foremost a scientist;
moreover, I believe in the Jewish tradition of "klären" (weighing a matter
after regarding it from every possible side).

As to the "muddled picture and more nebulous language boundaries in people's
minds": add to that the large number of refugees from East Prussia,
Mecklenburg, and Pomerania who settled in Southern Lower Saxony after the
war (this area was basically right across the border, so many stayed as soon
as they had reached the west, seeing no point in going any further). It
feels like, when I was growing up, at least one quarter of the older ladies
I knew seemed to speak with heavy East Prussian dialects.

> _Kum_ (<kumm>) for singular imperative 'come!' is, technically speaking,
> incorrect but has made such inroads that in many dialects it is now
> considered correct.

There you go again. If this is how people speak locally - and, as I
mentioned, every village sports a sign in the local variety - why would you
want to tell them that the way they are speaking or writing is "all wrong"?
Maybe it is in your Küstenplatt up north, but here, I've never heard
anything different. Also, some of the villages I mentioned are in northern
Hesse, and I have seen varieties like "Kum" or "Kuom" as well.

> These days few people are aware of all this.  This goes to show you.
> Moribundy and morbidity do indeed abound.

Yes, they do. So why call it a "button-pushing attempt" when I raise the
question if it wouldn't be better to let some languages die in peace - mind
you, not erasing all traces of them, but enjoying what is left behind for
posterity, and then moving on - instead of flogging a dead horse for
decades, with much wasted effort and emotion? And how can we explain that
some dialects or minority languages are thriving and proudly spoken (even if
they sound comical to non-speakers, such as Suebian, and therefore are not
highly regarded by outsiders), while others are denied and carefully hidden
from strangers, in different regions of the same nation? By the way, I find
it most amazing that a major, very influential language such as Latin could
die out, just like that, after spawning a number of offspring, in a matter
of centuries (although one could argue that it is still being kept on a
respirator by the Catholic church).

Gary wrote:
> When people start to speak another language, or listen
> to a language or dialect they're not very used to, but
> can recognise, they tend to use the closest sounds
> from their own dialects. This is why I still find it
> very difficult distinguishing ü and u in German,
> because to me they both sound like possible English
> pronunciations of our oo in boot for example, even
> though I know they're very different and can
> distinguish them if I really concentrate, in the same
> way Germans always call me Gerry (with a hard G but
> with an /e/) and spell my name thus, because they find
> it hard to distinguish between /e/ and /æ/.

I have noticed that my American husband, raised in California, who has lived
in Germany for almost six years now, still does not really hear a difference
between "o" and "ö", or "u" and "ü" (and it's usually just a matter of luck
which one he hits when he speaks). He can pronounce them separately when
asked (open wide and say üüüüh!), but even that doesn't help much. Even
pointing out the importance of this distinction in certain words, like
"schwül" (close, sweltry, as in weather) and "schwul" (homosexual), or
"füttern" (to feed) and "futtern" (to eat, munch) does not help one bit - he
will still happily inform me, every other day or so, that he has just "eaten
the cats".

It is the same with me in English, though, a language in which I have been
fluent for several decades, and used it on a daily basis for the last twenty
years or more. Just like you mentioned, when I get tired, my mind will no
longer make an automatic distinction between English "had" or "head", or
"bad" and "bed", for example; I then have to make a conscious effort to
pronounce those right, because somewhere in my head there's this little
voice that tells me they're all the same anyway.

The German umlaut "ä" should, in theory, be pronounced "æ" as well, but
nobody does, it always comes out as "e". So, for example, you cannot hear a
difference between "Lerche" (lark) and "Lärche" (larch - why am I thinking
of Monty Python now?). Some people do pronounce the "ä" as "æ" when trying
to sound extra sophisticated, but that sounds rather stilted and affected,
even comical.

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Helge Tietz <helgetietz at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (06) [E]


I think I need to add a few things:

All languages have borrowed from other languages, so has, of course, Low
Saxon, but I feel almost offended when some people regard Low Saxon as an
adaption of German when my local Low Saxon dialect (which I still use with
my family) has actually a lot of Danish borrowings such as e.g "freemark"
for a stamp in contrast to "breefmark" further south. I also would like to
live in a world where nationality and background wouldn't matter but
unfortunately that is not the case and discrimination is still one of the
biggest problem on this planet and my family has experienced that often
enough when simply maintaining our traditions. My family was stauntly
anti-Nazi in the Third-Reich, we had to learn High German and regarded the
Nazi-dictatorship as a mere extreme "Preussentum" (though Preussen not to be
mixed up with the absorbed Prus in East Prussia) and what happened during
the Nazi-dictatorship confirmed our deepest suspicions about being forced
into a G! erman national state. By stating of belonging to the Danish
minority and having Low Saxon or respectively Frisian as our language of
communication in our family we sought to seperate us from something we are
not responsible for and were a victim of. Now it is 2005 and, of course,
most people living in Germany were born after 1945 and have nothing to do
with the Nazi-dictatorship but that doesn't mean that, on a sudden, we are
happily regarding ourself as German, why should we change a tradition which
proved to be correct throughout the centuries? Moreover, unemployment in
Northern Germany is up to 10% or more and in particular young people have
problems to find any job at all, those who have been raised with Low Saxon,
Danish and Frisian are the lucky ones because they can escape the slump by
migrating to Denmark or respectively Holland and Beligium since it is very
easy for a Low Saxon and Frisian speaker to learn Dutch which is not the ca!
se for monolingual High German speaker. To maintain the Low Saxon, Danish
and Frisian languages in Germany becomes more and more an economic necessity
for many people, not a romantic one. And what about Hebrew? This has become
the language of all Isrealites, there was a need to unite those Jewish
people around the world and the choice was Hebrew, according to the previous
emails that was obviously a bad choice then? Should the Latvians then give
up Latvian and take up Russian? They won't because Latvian, in contrast to
Russian, is in a Latin script and therefore it gives them huge advantages to
learn Western European languages which is of vital economic importance.
Though the prospects for Gaelic or Maori look bleak at the moment since
there seems no economic importance attached to them you never know what the
future might hold!

Groeten

Helge

----------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (05) [E]

He, you two, Gabriele and Ron,

I still hope that it's just any "dialectical", theoretical discussion you're
going on with?!
Obviously there is any stuff inside you I'm unable to follow at least.
Though- in the past I made some odd experiences with both of you and your
'siberian' resp. 'eastfalian' temperaments:-)!

Gabriele wrote:

>  Who would want
> to tell those people they now have to speak standard Platt in order to...
I'm sure: no one! As I wrote in my last mail, concerning this topic: where
are those 'Haidjers'? I miss them!
And- I repeat: I myself (my dialect) oftenly feel some kind of overweighted,
too dominately represented by the ingveonic variations of LS.  Though- if
you take a look into our European history you will find out, that near the
sea there always have been moderate people, feeling a little familiar with
each other, more open-minded for a look over their garden-fences than people
from elsewhere inside our country.
Of course- not you, Gabriele, I'd like to include into this statement- by no
means at all!

But- Ron:

> > Why would all speakers of Platt want
> > to give up their own language from "back home" in order to speak a
> > one-size-fits-all hybrid instead?
>
> Out of which hat did you pull that one? ;-)  Who ever proposed such a
> thing?
Well, Ron- sometimes, yourself being within any (loveable, but one has to
get familiar with it, grin!) 'siberian' moods for some moments you could
have made people (me included, some times ago) believe that this were your
real convincement- one system of grammar for all languages (of LS-type). And
I'm nearly sure, that this impression kept some 'Haidjers' and others away
from 'The List', although you oftenly enough declared the real background
and destination of AS.

> ... As far as I can remember I have been aware that this is a
> different language, ...
A matter of fact I am faced to every day.

A good week ago my own son dealt with a competition called 'Plattdeutscher
Lesewettbewerb', ('LS-reading-competition'), and he run up to the 2nd rank
in his age. The first one and winner at the end was his own companion and
friend; they had made their exercises together.
My son was too nervous, because he knew me to be in the jury (in a different
group, of course) and got into any stammering.

But me- how to get clear with those textes full of mistakes, in grammar, in
vocabulary, in pronounciation? NOT divided from Upper German at all!? Whom
should I give my vote- the pure textes or the poor pupils reading the stuff
(more or less well)?

Very friendly regards to both of you

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

----------

From: James Ward <jamesward at earthlink.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (06) [E]

Hi Gabriele,

You wrote:

> To state my final, and biggest, heretic view, so I can get them over
> with all at once: why can't a language be allowed to die in peace,
> surrounded by its loved ones? Aren't most efforts to resurrect
> minority languages derived from political and nationalist agendas,
> even on a local basis? Aren't they a struggle for power, one way or
> another?

One example comes to mind that I am not quite sure fits the
power-struggle model:  Judeo-Spanish or Ladino.  The speakers of this
language are often so dispersed that I don't see any geopolitical
motivation in the efforts to keep it spoken and written.  It's pretty
much a labor of love and memory.  Surely that applies to others as
well... which is not to say I don't see your point and find it widely
applicable.

On the other hand, perhaps linguistic political / power struggles are
not necessarily a bad thing.  Not all languages die peacefully in a
loving glow.  (I'm sure I am saying the obvious!)  So often their
demise is the result of a long history of injustice.  Perhaps just
making the effort could draw attention to behaviors that we modern
humans would be much better off without.  And although "struggle"
doesn't have much of a sense of reconciliation about it, such attention
_might_ lead there eventually.  (More on this in a moment.)

> Mind you, I do love languages like anyone here on the list and don't
> want any of them them to die because of all the sadness involved, but
> how realistic is it to try and keep them alive when their time is so
> clearly over? Isn't it enough to enjoy old literature, songs and
> tales, and think fondly of what once was used as an everyday means of
> communication?

On a different level, that may indeed be enough, when we take up
languages without compulsion, to play with them and enter into
voluntary language communities engaged in learning them just because
they want to (the internet is good for this).

> Cultures change, nations change, generations change, and barely any
> language is spoken today as it was a thousand years ago.

Some change peacefully, and some are wiped out.  I think many people
here in the United States just do not think much at all about the
genocide(s) that has (have) made it possible for them to live here as
they do.  Nor do I think about it much -- so many other activities need
to be focused on, of course.  But I still think we'd be better off,
somehow, if we each studied an American Indian language, even just a
little bit, just to pay some attention.  And if more than that, so much
the better.

> Is it really that important to stem the tide? Isn't it much, much more
> important to ensure the survival of living species and environments?
> Given the fact that quite a few species of large mammals (to name just
> an example) may be extinct within the next twenty years, never to walk
> on Earth again - just how important is a small facet of human
> "culture", no matter how beloved?

Well, you will get no disagreement from me on that!  But -- linguistic
and cultural communities could also be seen as the species of the human
world, too.  Not more important than the other living beings on the
planet, and yet...  This is part of our problem now, isn't it?  So many
-- too many! -- different levels of human and planetary existence need
healing, all at the same time, and we can only hope that our disparate
efforts might somehow come together and mend them all simultaneously.
(I dream on.)

> We are just another animal, with more varied grunts than most. And an
> awfully obnoxious one most of the time (or maybe I'm just speaking for
> myself here).

Actually, you humans over there still seem to be doing pretty well.  On
this side of the pond it's about time to start boning up on our Latin.

> Just a thought, to put things into perspective.

Thanks!

James Ward

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (06) [E]


Thanks for the explanation, Gary. I knew interference from native sound
ranges was involved in some way or another, but I still do not understand
why non-Americans laugh at the American mocking of the Canadian dipthong as
[u:]. I clearly lack a sense of humour in this instance.

You write:
"You possibly go one stage further and recognise your /o:/ which is the
vowel you'd use in boat, as the Canadian vowel sounds similar to other
English accents you're used to, where it is diphthongised..."

I am interested in how my native range interferes here, because in
Nottingham English the vowel in question is pronounced very distinctively
(indeed, it is the most distinctive vowel in NE in my opinion), as [æ:] with
a flat then rising tone (very much like Cockney pronunciations of the same
vowel, actually). How might this affect how I hear the Canadian dipthong?

Go raibh maith agatsa,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Glenn Simpson <westwylam at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.05.23 (06) [E]

Dear all

Noticed the timeless debate on what is a language,
dialect, accent etc and saw Northumbrian mentioned.
Personally I dont get myself tied up in knots on this
question because as folks mentioned, language
definition is often politically and historically
determined.  No probs with German being included as
such but as Ron says you'll then have to include the
Scandanavian languages (Finnish excepted of course),

I wouldn't see Northumbrian as a transitional
language/dialect from standard English to Scots,
rather something linked directly to both. Indeed Scots
is of course derived from old Northumbrian, so I tend
to see modern 'English Northumbrian' and Scots more as
related dialects of the same language, although
clearly I've already entered the political arena by
making this point, which will no doubt stir up some
controversy.

To me languages and dialects occur when mutual
comprehensibility becomes difficult-to-impossible, on
a sort of sliding scale. So most standard English
speaker could easily understand English spoken in a
Northumbrian accent but start to lose
comprehensibility as dialect was introduced. If I
spoke in pitmatic (mining dialect) few standard
English speakers outside North East England would have
a clue about what was being said  - so when does a
dialect become a language?

As long as language activists can make a rational and
reasonable case about their languages/dialects,
include them - let's not get too hung up on it I
reckon.

Gan Canny,
Glenn Simpson

----------

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

Gabriele (above):

> > _Kum_ (<kumm>) for singular imperative 'come!' is, technically speaking,
> > incorrect but has made such inroads that in many dialects it is now
> > considered correct.
>
> There you go again. If this is how people speak locally - and, as I
> mentioned, every village sports a sign in the local variety - why would
> you
> want to tell them that the way they are speaking or writing is "all
> wrong"?

Linguistics 101 teaches you that everything is correct within a common
standard.  That goes without saying.   But what I actually said was that it
*started off* as a Germanism (which at the time introduced a grammar
violation) but has since then been grammaticalized in certain dialects.
This was to illustrate that there is historical layering of Germanization
that is continuing, that this may be stronger in peripheral areas and in
particularly those areas may be blurring the divide between the two
languages in people's minds.

James (above):

> One example comes to mind that I am not quite sure fits the
> power-struggle model:  Judeo-Spanish or Ladino.  The speakers of this
> language are often so dispersed that I don't see any geopolitical
> motivation in the efforts to keep it spoken and written.  It's pretty
> much a labor of love and memory.  Surely that applies to others as
> well... which is not to say I don't see your point and find it widely
> applicable.

This is pretty much what I have been gathering, have been having a hard time
getting good Ladino material from the Web, for instance.  A few weeks ago I
spoke with someone who is a descendant of one of the Sephardi families that
were among the main founders of Seattle's famous Pike Street Market.  He
told me that the local Sephardi community isn't all that small but is
"quiet" and is overshadowed by the Askenazi ones, but that there are still
some Ladino speakers around the area, though few or none under fifty or so.
Apparently, the largest remaining Ladino-speaking community in the US is in
and around New York City, and it too is dwindling.

Incidentally, Ladino used to be the dominant Jewish language in the
Netherlands and Northern Germany until the end of the 17th century (when
Western-Yiddish- and German-speaking Ashkenazim moved up north from the
south in larger numbers).  This was because of refugees from the Iberian
Inquisition having found relatively safe havens in non-church-dominated,
commerce-oriented and thus relatively tolerant Amsterdam, Emden, Hamburg and
Altona (then separate), later forming a Hamburg offshoot in Copenhagen.
Most of them came from Portugal, though of those many had previously fled to
Portugal from Spain.  The Hamburg community at least (which is as much as I
know) was proficient in both Ladino and Portuguese, also kept studying
"real" Spanish for generations, and its members must have known Low Saxon as
well, later switched to German.

Back to language survival.  Yiddish is another example.  In the span of a
few years, it's speaker number was drastically reduced (by millions) because
of the Nazi Holocaust.  Then those who emigrated to Israel found that
Yiddish wasn't exactly well accepted there (at least not until recently),
being made out to be a symbol of the "shtetl mentality," as one ardent
Zionist explained it to me, "those that went to the slaughter like sheep."
I had to buy Yiddish newspapers practically under the counter in the 1970s,
and one vendor lectured me (in Hebrew) about them being unsuitable for young
people.  So the language had two big strikes against it.  It continued its
mostly closeted life in Israel, but few young people learned it.  Main
centers remained in North and South America, also in the Soviet Union,
though in the latter it was dangerous to use it in anything but
government-sponsored publications (many of them in Cyrillic script).
Yiddish was, and to a much lesser degree still is, the carrier of a great
culture and a glorious literary tradition.  It is now becoming an endangered
language, younger people using it primarily if they belong to an enthusiast
minority.  Should we just say, "So be it," let "them" win, and move on?

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