LL-L "Language Maintenance" 2007.08.08 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  08 August 2007 - Volume 04

=========================================================================

From: Mike Wintzer <k9mw at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language Maintenance" 2007.08.08 (03) [E]

Ron the following sums it up nicely, you wrote:

Where are the borderlines between "pragmatism" and "pessimism" on the one
hand and between "idealism" and "(pipe-)dreaming" on the other hand?  I'm
pretty sure the borderlines lie in the eyes of the beholder.

Thanks for your words of wisdom, Ron.
Mike Wintzer

----------

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language Maintenance" 2007.08.08 (03) [E]

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com <mailto:sassisch at yahoo.com>>
- Show quoted text -
> Subject: Language maintenance
>
> Hi, Mike! You wrote:
>
> But then I take exception to your condoning pragmatism as opposed
> to idealism. Why are we LowLanders? Speaking for myself, but I
> suspect also for the majority of us: Out of idealism.
>
> I'm not quite sure what your meaning is here.  First of all, by
> "Lowlanders" do you mean members of this organization or heirs of
> Lowlands heritage?
>
> If you mean the latter, of course it's a matter of life's
> circumstances, does not include many of our members and thus has
> nothing to do with pragmatism or idealism.  So I assume you mean the
> former.  While you did leave it up to individualism, den duyvel syn
> afkaat puts it to you that probably most are here first and foremost
> because they are interested which in itself doesn't have anything to
> do with pragmatism or idealism either.  Furthermore, going by Marcus'
> theoretical scheme, and also going by past exchanges on the List, I
> would say that we have a mixture of "pragmatists" and "idealists," yet
> all of them are interested.
>
> I suppose it boils down to this:
>
> All of us are keen on being observers ("students"), but not all of us
> are keen on being activists.
>
> This might go a long way in explaining the occasional frustration,
> irritation and crossed wires. Don't you think?
>
> Nevertheless, just as we as individuals of various backgrounds from
> all over the world can interact harmoniously and cordially within our
> association, I am sure that the same can be said of "pragmatists" and
> "idealists" among us, just as long as we accept and respect these
> differences and the resulting reactions to various issues.
>
> I feel that Marcus' scheme holds water in a general way. I would like
> to add, though, that it is of course very simplified, because there
> are degrees involved here.
>
> Let's assume, for instance, that I am an idealist in the sense of
> believing that Low Saxon can reassert itself as a secondary language
> but I find it overly optimistic (or "too idealistic") to expect that
> it can regain the status it had until the 16th or 17th century, and
> let's say that I base my "agenda" on this lowered expectation.  I'm
> not necessarily saying that this is my true attitude. However, I
> believe it would be a valid one, probably based on the belief that
> "all or nothing" is too big and too risky a step if compared with
> "something (at a time)."  Anyway, with such an attitude, would I be
> classified as an idealist or as a pragmatist?
>
> Where are the borderlines between "pragmatism" and "pessimism" on the
> one hand and between "idealism" and "(pipe-)dreaming" on the other
> hand?  I'm pretty sure the borderlines lie in the eyes of the beholder.
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron
Ron, my distinction was not pragmatists and idealists, but pragmatists
and ideologists. Of course it is true, that my distinction is a bit
black and white and in reality there are degrees between the both extremes.

But in my theory, if you believe that Low Saxon can reassert itself as a
secondary language but you don't believe that it can regain the status
it had until the 16th or 17th century, then you are more of a
ideologist. Cause you have a plan of the future. A pragmatist takes the
future as it comes. Only the ideologist does think about how future will
be. The pragmatist has the motto "Träume sind Schäume" (well, a real
pragmatist of course has no motto at all). Being an ideologist is
nothing bad with my theory. But it is a different way of thinking.

I personally do like pragmatists more, even though me is much influenced
by the ideologist school of thinking. The type of persons Jonny Meybohm
does like, this low Saxon archetypes, are all pragmatists. But on the
other side you need ideologists too. Its like with most things: you need
some ideology, but not too much or the wrong.

Marcus Buck

----------

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

Thanks, Marcus and sorry about misquoting you.

I basically agree with your assessment, also with your assessment of me.

I suppose both archetypes are needed to keep a happy medium between keeping
things moving and keeping things on track.  However, as you know, the two
extremes tend to find each other pretty darn irritating.

What tends to irritate me is that many North German "pragmatists" don't want
to see things change and are stuck back in the Romantic Movement of the 19th
century, and they disregard the fact that their heroes, such as Reuter and
Groth, were ideologists of the mover-and-shaker type, people that kept
running into lots of "pragmatists'" brick walls in their time. (Especially
Groth and his buddies in Belgium and the Netherlands were onto stuff we are
talking about here and now.) If challenged about this, the answer tends to
be, "Well, it was different then."

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070808/24e3b28b/attachment.htm>