LL-L "Language maintenance" 2007.03.22 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L - 22 March 2007 - Volume 01

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

From: Peter Snepvangers <snepvangers at optushome.com.au>
Subject: LL-L "Language maintenance" 2007.03.21 (01) [E/LS]

  Beste Marcus,

(English summary below)

Du schreyvst:
 (Mit Diin Verlööv...) *English summary Marcus:*

Jonny, when you write about the aboriginal LS-speakers, who still have
an archaical originality and special syntax then this is a result of the
fact that these people hadn't much sense for any 'furor grammaticalis' and
linguistical finesse. Their language was rough and rifty, just like the
thoughts came into their tongue- no matter for grammatical correctness.
Modern people have a more rational mentality, weighing everything for being
correct or uncorrect. They always distinguish between nice or uggly, and
they sort and categorize the whole world. This wasn't important for the
'homo agriculus'; he didn't make many thoughts about this. The aboriginals
weren't so 'top-heavy', so much ruled by their heads: they didn't mind for
the sequence of the words as long as they made a recognizable sense. Or
so...

*(my answer:)*

And I guess your thoughts to be wise! I myself often made thoughts about
these 'plain' people using a 'plain' language for 'plain' matters. And this
was the way how I learned LS, with a vocabulary enabling to express
everything which is necessary for a live between wheat and water, cattle and
fruit trading. And exactly this way it is still used today; if we come to
any overblown, intellectual themes we prefer to use Standard German.
But- these oldies weren't stupid at all; they just lived in a smaller
universe with less difficile rules. They weren't forced to write down
anything, they had everything in their minds and that could be handed down
to the next generation.

Ron and others often say that it's a waste to use LS just this way, and I
think they're quite right at this point. In special Reinhard is very capable
in describing matters and relations in LS with a good and rich vocabulary.
This way he helps to keep old, nearly forgotten words, and so he should go
on!
But I for myself again and again come in trouble to accept this as part of
*my* language; in a certain way it's still strange for me. My talking and
writing still are different worlds. The first one comes out of my heart and
the second one from the 'old, stupid' head... Ok- I think I'm on the best
way to become gentler and gentler here, but I still get upset when special
people just turn back the wheel of the 'Lautverschiebung' in Standard German
and then sell it as 'original' LS. I'm sure I won't get rid of this for all
my life!

 Allerbest

Jonny Meibohm

----------

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

Moin, guys, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

As far as I am concerned, there is little "right" and "wrong" here; it's a
matter of changes, contexts and choices.  In the long run, I believe we and
the language will be the richer.

Personally I am not really in favor of either extreme: guarding "purity" as
one extreme, and starting a orgy of free-for-all innovation as the other
extreme. Like Jonny, I'm definitely am not in favor of routinely
transforming German words according to what one thinks the sound shifts are,
because we are dealing with more than just sound shifts.  (And, for the
record, some of my participation in suggesting neologisms were
tongue-in-cheek.)  Nevertheless, I see no basic problem with neologisms.
All languages have them, and all languages adapt to changes in various ways;
so why not this one?  Exempting it would be tantamount to preserving it as a
museum exhibit.  In that case why should neither touch nor use it.

I find the Low Saxon language to be full of tools that can add great power
to expressions, especially in written compositions, with a plethora of
uniquely evocative words and colorful idiomatic constructs.  It is only that
most people are not familiar with many of those because their acquaintance
with the language is very shallow and from a German vantage point.  I love
studding my wordcraft with those gems and think it would be a shame if they
fell by the wayside.  Wider use of the language and greater freedom of
literary experimentation as well genre and style expansion would go a long
way in bringing out this littled-tapped resource.  However, this
necessitates in large part more daring on the part of publishers.

I am tired of the argument that the language should stay in the village.
There have always been many townsfolk and city dwellers that use it, though
it is true that since urban supression of the language started in earnest it
has been mostly in rural corners that it has been used routinely.

As for pronouns, obviously Marcus has a point in saying that familiar du and
ji are the default second person pronouns among speakers of the language.
This is definitely so in most villages, because, as Marcus noted, there is
not much of a social scale, if any.  However, I have heard villagers
addressing "dignitaries" such as teachers, clerics and politicians with
polite Se.  It is true, though, that even in cities the use of the language
facilitates the path to being on first name basis and using familiar du and
ji, among the oldtimers at least if the speakers are roughly on the same
social level.  My point is that it is an oversimplification to say that
familiar du and ji are the only second person pronouns used in the language,
though it seems fair to me to say that they predominate and are preferred.

Polite forms used to be routinely used in Low Saxon in earlier times, namely
when people of various social backgrounds still used the language with each
other.  In my opinion, the pronominal "shrinkage" is due to social
"shrinkage."  As the language retreated from the public arena and developed
into a small-community language, and in the cities into a home, club or
closet language, its use came to be more or less confined to circles of
people that were close to each other and therefore addressed each other in
familiar modes.  This is further proven by jocular "abuse," namely by the
more ready use of epithet-like "titles" for each other (in other words,
calling each other names in jest the way Jonny and I often do).  The use of
Low Saxon allows speakers to get to this more intimate relationship more
quickly than when using German, for instance.  There is a sort of instant
sense of familiarity, which does not mean that there is a complete absence
of boundaries and respect.  (It's more like men teasingly calling each other
"old chap" or "you dirty old rascal" in somewhat  old-fashioned English, or
Australians calling someone they like "cheeky bugger" or such.)

Anyway, this was today's 75 cents worth from the windbag.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron


Beste Johnny, Reinhard and Lowlanderen,
I am not qualified at all to give 2 cents worth here, but what the heck,
thats never stopped me digging a hole and falling into it before. After
reading much of what Johnny has written about Low Saxon I feel for him and
his understanding of the historical context of his language. All this talk
of agricultural users or regional users, and the idea that the speakers are
somehow dumb or poorer intellectually is just so bloody typically elitist
European. The speaker is made to feel inferior because this is what the
elitist German or Dutch want you to feel in order for the language to not be
taken seriously and be a real threat to the "approved" national language.
People need to be Proud and Loud. The oldies Johnny knows probably
do Naturally... speak in a more colloqial manner because this is how it is
(or was). German would have been used on official occassions the same as
Latin would have been used centuries earlier. It is only elitist fools who
are probably too stupid to have a grasp on LS and felt self conscious of
their lack of ability to be able to fluently converse in this language who
trivialised it. I cannot see why LS would also not have been spoken in this
colloqial manner during the Hanse period. There is nothing to be embarrassed
or apologetic about how LS is or was spoken. This tactic is used all the
time to make people conform to what the government wants you to be (or
speak). Take the current Dutch push for making the Nederlands more "modern".
The way I see it Johnny's is the real LS and Reinhard's is an evolved form
of it (modern) similar to how Aussie is an evolved form of English, but
still English. When I was a little nipper we would sit at the kitchen table
and always listen to the ABC (government tv) news. It was delivered in a
forced English accent. We used to think the newsreader was a right old
wanker as he had to put on a silly forced accent as if he was not proud to
be an Aussie and speak the way all people of all classes spoke in Australia.
I agree with Reinhard when he says LS allows speakers to get to an intimate
or familiar relationship when speaking it which is just not there in the
same sense in speaking German or Dutch. Language is flexible enough to be
pulled and punched and stretched in many different directions and what is
right or wrong is really only in the ear of the listener not the speaker.
The speaker says it how they want, and that is how it should be. The written
aspect and all the rules that involves is for the word scientists and I do
not mean that in an offensive manner. (time to crawl out of that hole
now???).
Cheers,
Peter Snepvangers
snepvangers at optushome.com.au
Sydney

----------

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

Hi, Pete!

Thanks for the more than 2 cents' worth!  (No, disclaimers needed. Everybody
on the List gets to "chirp" in.)

Everything you said makes total sense to me.  But I would like to add, or
repeat, what I believe lies at the bottom of it all.  No, it ain't
"Europe-bashing," just observations from life memories and from history
reading.

As far as I can tell, it is only now that Europe has started to grow out of
the old mode of thinking, has truly, though still haltingly, begun to
abandon the old ideal of one country coinciding with one ethnicity, one
religion and one language -- in other words, the ideal of "country =
tribe."

Until recently, minorities were considered flies in the ointment, much like
resident foreigners.  If they could not be treated like foreigners because
their ancestry was somewhere else, no matter how long ago (such as Jews
before grudgingly granting them citizenship), then they had to be made into
members of the tribe.  An important part of this was making them use the
same language as the tribe, not only in public but altogether, and this was
considered an essential part of acculturation.  The easiest way of
accomplishing this was to outlaw their languages (which still happened in
the recent past, and Australia and North America took this one step farther
in the early part of the 20th century by sending indigenous children away
from their people to English-only boarding schools).  The surest albeit
slower way is to ban their languages from schools.  Of great advantage to
this cause is it if a minority language is fairly closely related to the
Kultursprache of the country/tribe.  In this case you can declare that it is
merely a dialect (group) of the Kultursprache, and "dialect" comes with the
flags "local color" and "inferior."  Not only do you then not have to
provide it with special consideration and funding, but you also instill in
the speakers themselves what amounts to a linguistic inferiority complex, a
shame complex, so that eventually the speakers themselves will participate
in the process of eliminating the language, such as elders not teaching it
to the offspring, and youngsters at some point in their lives refusing to
continue using the language even in their homes.  (After all, teenagers want
to be like their perceived peers.)

Mind you, this is by no means unique to Low Saxon.  Other examples of
"dialects," past and present, abound, such as Occitan, Catalan and
Franco-Provençal
in France, Scots in Scotland, Darlecalian, Jamtlandish and Scanian in
Sweden, Catalan, Valencian, Balearic and Galician in Spain, Aragonese,
Kashubian in Poland ...

By, the way, I'm not totally sure I use a "more evolved" version of LS.  I
always try to stick with what the language itself has to offer, but I also
try to use it by dealing with a greater variety of subject matter and
contexts, and I am by no means alone there.  Furthermore, unless, as a
writer, you stick to narrative in everyday spoken style, you inevitably
"play" with the language in what is known as "language art," especially in
poetry.  After all, like visual art forms, poetry is supposed to afford you
the freedom of exploring and experimenting, of allowing the words to sound
and interact in ways ordinary speech modes are unable to do.  All languages
allow for this.  If they don't it is that they have been artificially
restrained and thus limited, and this is a sure sign of impending language
death.

Kumpelmenten,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070322/1c5091d9/attachment.htm>