LL-L "Names" 2007.12.23 (01) [E]

Sun Dec 23 19:11:22 UTC 2007

L O W L A N D S - L  -  23 December 2007 - Volume 01
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2007.12.22 (03) [E]

From: Heiko Evermann <privat at evermann.de>

Subject: LL-L "Names" 2007.12.22 (02) [E]

Hi Ingmar,
> In the German part of the language area the one and only popular term
> for the whole language is /plattdüütsch. Neddersass'sch /and
> /Nedderdüütsch/ are only used by educated speakers.
Plattdüütsch is also an affectionate name for the language, so the
Plattdüütsch speakers use "Plattdüütsch" only.

> The denominators High and Low rather have to do
> with geographical features, High German, including Middle German,
> generally spoken in the hills and highlands, and Low German in the even
> plains of Northern Germany and the Netherlands/Belgium...
Not quite, at least not in German. There is "Niederdeutsch", "Mitteldeutsch"
and "Oberdeutsch" when it comes to the geographical area. But the
distinction
"Niederdeutsch" vs. "Hochdeutsch" usually means the distinction between
"dialect" vs. official language. I think that is an important reason why
Plattdüütsch speakers do like to use the name "Niederdeutsch".

Hartlich Gröten,

Heiko

I always understood that the linguistic, as opposed to popular, use of "High
German" was as Ingmar explained: it emerged in the geographically higher
areas.  We obviously recognise that on this list - it is the "Lowlands List"
after all, despite some versions being spoken in the Appalachians or the
Rockies!

Confusion emerges with the use of "high" as a social or cultural term. I
understand Swiss and Austrian speakers call Standard German "Hochdeutsch",
even though they are obviously geographically higher than Germany.
This occurs in several languages: I believe the Danish-based standard in
Norway was referred to as "high speech" before independence, and I've heard
people in South Africa call Dutch (i.e. the Netherlands language)  "high
Dutch", as distinct from Afrikaans which they obviously regarded as somehow
"low" or "common".

Paul  Finlow-Bates

----------

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

Hi, Paul!

According to some people, the qualifier "High" and "Low" do refer to levels
rather than to terrain, hence also to levels of prestige and legitimacy.

I also have come across the name *Hochchinesisch *("High Chinese") with
reference to Standard Mandarin in recently published German works.

In Low Saxon, *platt* can also mean 'plain', 'straightforward', 'ordinary,'
'common,' and the like, besides 'flat' which in certain contexts is
synonymous with "rural," as also in Afrikaans *platteland* for
"countryside," even where it isn't flat.

The use of "Lowlands" instead of "Low" would makes things clearer.

Quite a few Americans have asked me if Yiddish is a type of Low German, and
two days ago someone of Alemannic Mennonite descent tried to tell me that
his ancestors spoke Yiddish, a case of the same confusion about non-standard
forms of German being assumed to be "Low" and in extension, unaware of its
etymology, that "Yiddish" is just another (perhaps more "clued-in"?)
alternative name. This is not entirely unreasonable, considering that
sometimes the name *Platt *is used in the German-speaking world to refer to
non-Low-Saxon and non-Low-Franconian varieties as well, and in Dutch *plat *is
often used to refer to any non-standard Dutch variety. This makes the use of
the term very vague and in my opinion unsuitable for serious language
naming.

If the non-Saxon, mostly Central-German-speaking area/state of Germany
hadn't usurped the name, things would be much easier: the language we're
talking about would simply be called "Saxon."  Since it isn't, and in most
people's opinions can't be, retroactive name changes occurred: "Old Saxon" (
*Altsächsisch*) became "Old Low German" (*Altniederdeutsch*), and what ought
to be "Middle Saxon" (*Mittelsächsisch*) hence is "Middle Low German" (*
Mittelniederdeutsch*). However, amongst themselves (i.e., out of earshot of
the supposedly simple-minded masses and in publications meant to be only for
their peers' eyes) German-speaking academics will still talk about "Old
Saxon" (*Altsächsisch*), because they know better but publicly use the
politically correct names.

While there appears to be a good reason for talking about "Low(er)
Frankish/Franconian "Middle/Central Frankish/Franconian" and "Upper/High
Frankish/Franconian," there is no reason to talk about "Low(er)" Saxon" and
"Upper Saxon" within a genealogical context, since the Saxon varieties of
the Lowlands are not directly related to those of the state of Saxony and
the latter aren't actually Saxon at all.

Things become even more confusing in that on the popular level in Germany
Low Franconian dialects that happened to "land" on the German side of the
borders are included in *Plattdeutsch* but *none *of the language varieties
used on Belgium and the Netherlands.

Happy Christmas to all of you that celebrate it!

Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Names"

Beste Ingmar,

You wrote:
> But about what R said about the references to German: I don't think this
> was just because they WANTED it to be German, because Dutch was called by
> the Dutch themselves "Nederduits" too, next to "Nederlands", until far
> into the 19th century. The denominators High and Low rather have to do
> with geographical features, High German, including Middle German,
> generally spoken in the hills and highlands, and Low German in the even
> plains of Northern Germany and the Netherlands/Belgium...

True. Besides, if Saxons themselves call their language "plattdüütsch"
("düütsch"! ~ German!), why on earth would anyone deem it to be non-German?

> I think the term "Low German" or "Niederdeutsch" can still be useful, not
> as a synonym for Low Saxon, but for the group of dialects of Low Saxon,
> Frisian and Low Franconian in Germany... What this Low German group
> languages/dialects have in common, opposed to Middle and High German, is e
> a the lack of the High German consonant shift, the lack of diphthongues
> (long i and long u etc) and a couple of Ingvaeonic characteristics...

Of course. If Saxon doesn't view itself as a German dialect (but rather
as a separate language at the same level as standard German), then
Franconian can't be a German dialect either, because it didn't (fully)
participate in all the High German consonant shifts. This would lead to
a situation in which you would either have to conclude that people in
Frankfurt are not talking German (quite untrue) or that there must be a
sharp divide between Low and High Franconian (wrong, the Rheinischer
Fächer look more like a terrace stretched out over a vast distance of
more than 400 km between Stuttgart on the one hand and Brussels or
Nijmegen on the other):

http://www.euro-support.be/langbel/mapger2.htm

Of course, this is a sheer linguistical observation, not a political one.

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

PS: Brabantish has no lack of diphtongues...quite the contrary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071223/99806417/attachment.htm>