LL-L "Language politics" 2007.11.19 (03) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  19 November 2007 - Volume 02
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Karl-Heinz Lorenz <Karl-Heinz.Lorenz at gmx.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2007.11.16 (07) [E/LS/German]

Marcus schreev,
> Tüdelkraam dat. Lütjensee is hoochdüütsch, dor bitt de Muus keen Enn
> vun
> af. Dat de Naam ut dat Plattdüütsche stammt ännert dor nix an.
>
Dear Marcus (and Heiko), I (and I suppose also Jonny) didn't want to offend
you. But for me (and probably also for Jonny) the thing is quite crazy.

You say, "lütje-" is High-German, because it's used in High-German context
etc. The fact that its origin is Low German doesn't change that. Ok, yes I
know these arguments, that minorities have to kind of regain their
topographic names (which were sort of stolen by the majority languages) by
creating their own versions, proper versions of the names.

Ok, alright, but nevertheless for me it seems that "lütje-" is more unique
than "lütten-".

It is this small "-je" or "-tje", you now, an additional diminutive, quite
an unique thing in LG/LS. We don't have that in Standard German, not at all,
never heard of "kleinlein", "kleinchen" or so. So Lütjensee is
"Klein-Kleinsee", Lüttensee is only "Kleinsee". That's a loss, isn't it?

The "je" or "tje" diminutive seem to me a rare thing in LS, I suppose a
Nederlandism (or Low-Franconism) and/or Ripoarism, so in any case a
Franconism.

(In Allemannic varieties there is "klele", that would be "kleinlein" in
Standard German. Maybe in central German dialects there is something like
"klein[s]chen" or "lüt[s]chen".  Ripuarian has "-je", besides "-che" and
"-elche": , see: http://ksh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminutiv . But most
frequently we find "-je", "-tje" etc. in Low-Franconian/Dutch!)

Why must this unique Nederlandism in "Lütjensee" be aborted for a alegdedly
proper version i.e. "Lüttensee" with the argument it's a Germanism? That
doesn't fit to the Lowlands approach of this list!

Un wenn
> de Oort nu op Platt hüdigendaags Lüttensee heet, denn schall disse Naam
> ünnerdükert warrn, denn he is ja man blot een Bookstaven wied weg vun
> dat Hoochdüütsche?
> not distinct enough to coexist, oder wat?

Ok, you say you want to make LG/LS visible. Ok, ok. But there is also one
thing you can't deny: The names are that close, that most people would get
the picture, that LG an HG are nearly the same. Do you want this kind of
visibility that will provoke people saying: "Also Plattdeutsch ist halt eben
doch nur ein Dialekt und keine eigene Sprache!"

You mentioned the article:
http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2007/11/07/813579.html

So it should be: (Bad) Oldesloe/Oschloe/Oslo/Olslo/Olschlo

Regards
Karl-Heinz

----------

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

Karl-Heinz,

This is not about what is "more unique." It's about a consistently
implemented regional program and about public reclamation or "re-owning" of
regional heritage.

You can't pick out one or two examples and on that basis dismiss the entire
program and the general intent. "Lüttjensee" is *not* the same as
"Lüttensee" (apart from the fact that in the latter "-see" is pronounced not
as in German but like English "zay"), and it's not about which one you find
nicer or "more unique." "Close enough" doesn't equal "the same," nor does it
make one override the other, nor does it say anything about the status of
the languages involved. If people decide on the basis of this one example
that we're not dealing with two languages, well, then they aren't exactly
open-minded and what you call "deep thinkers," are they? I don't think we
need to worry about them. It's like arriving in Aragon, Spain, seeing a sign
with the place names "Benabarre - Benavarri - Benabarri" and on this basis
declare that Castilian, Catalan and Aranese Occitan are really just dialects
of the same language and that displaying them all on signs is a waste of
time and money. Or you could go to Scotland, see (if you could) a sign with
"Aberdeen - Aiberdeen - Obar Dheathain" and decide that Scots (in second
place here) should have been omitted. Or you could go to Carinthia (*
Kärnten/Koroška*) in Austria and make a similar pronouncement about
Slovenian *Podgrad* appearing next to "German" *Pugrad* on the sign at the
village entrance. (Those guys that have been removing bilingual signs in the
area would be happy about that.)

To be sure, the vast majority of North German place names is derived from
Low Saxon. Most of the names are mixtures of translations and "phonetic"
adaptations of past times. Especially in the translation department, there
are numerous errors based on misunderstandings, as Jonny has pointed out on
several occasions.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071119/6c1c5136/attachment.htm>