LL-L "Language politics" 2007.11.23 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  22 November 2007 - Volume 04
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

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

Folks,

Those of you that can't follow messages in Low Saxon and German but once in
a while get to see a snippet about it in English must be wondering what this
thread is about.

It began with a report (by Heiko, I believe) about the a program of creating
bilingual place name signs in the district of Stormarn in Germany's state of
Schleswig-Holstein. Jonny characterized this program as frivolous and
financially extravagant and argued that a few of the German and Low Saxon
names are very similar to each other, making this a silly exercise. Heiko,
on the other hand, reminded us that this is a regional program and that
picking out one or two seemingly "weak" examples to discredit it is not
fair, and he also pointed out that the estimated costs have been blown out
of all proportion and thrown out there as a red herring together with
scaremongering about evil language engineering intents by those that oppose
the effort. He further explained that a lot of research had gone into
determining the respective names in the local Low Saxon dialects. It is also
clear from this that this program has nothing to do with language planning,
which makes references to anything like "Standard Low Saxon" agendas quite
irrelevant.

The apparently "weakest" case that opponents to the program hung their hats
on was that of a place called "Lüttjensee" (["lYtj at nze:]) in German and
"Lüttensee" (["lYtnzEI]) in the local Low Saxon dialect. The idea seems to
have been that "Lüttjensee" *is* Low Saxon and is better or more original
than "Lüttensee". Marcus explained that "Lüttjensee" is *not* today's Low
Saxon name but "Lüttensee" is, that "Lüttjensee" is in fact today's
*German*name for the place. This was followed by objections saying
that
*lüttje *is indeed Low Saxon, can be found in various dialects throughout
Northern Germany, and a couple of those that wrote these objections said
they preferred it. Getting the feeling that Marcus' argument had not been
understood for conceptual reasons, I sided with Marcus' argument and
explained the concept that by importing a name or word a language makes it
its own. In other words, "Lüttjensee," even though of older Low Saxon
origin, is in fact a ("High") German name, while the Low Saxon name changed
and nowadays is "Lüttensee." In yet other words, the fact that the German
name is of Low Saxon origin does not change the fact that it is a German
name, and the respective names in the respective languages are free to take
on lives of their own (which happened in the case of Low Saxon).
Furthermore, I argued that people preferring "Lüttjensee" does not make it
Low Saxon *now*.

Let's take a couple of other examples for those that are still conceptually
challenged.

"Toronto" is an English name. Yes, it was derived from Mohawk
*Ateronto *("place
with fish weirs"). So the name "Toronto" is an English name of Mohawk
origin. Is it a Mohawk name? No! It is an *English* name.

"Milan" is an English name for a city in Italy. It goes back to Latin *
Mediolanum*. The Italian version is *Milano*. English is likely to have
imported the name from French *Milan* ([mi"lA~]), directly or indirectly
(cf. Western Lombard *Milan *[mi"lan]). So, when you say "Milan" while
speaking English, are you in fact using a French or Lombard name? No! You
are using an *English* name. The fact that it is of French and/or Lombard
origin does not change this. Theoretically, over time the name could have
changed in all of the languages involved.In many cases this does happen, and
this shows you that the versions in the different language varieties are
independent from each other.

To summarize the universally accepted concept underlying Marcus' and my
argument:

   - A word or name imported from language A to language B, though within
   a historical context a loanword, becomes a word or name in its own right in
   language B. The average speaker does not care what its origin is.
   ("Nativization")
   - After adoption in language B, the word or name may take on a life of
   its own, and the original word or name in language A (the donor language)
   may also develop independently. In other words, we have two languages and
   two words or names, even though the latter are of the same origin.
   - The recipient language (here language B) may be more conservative
   and retain the word or name as it was at the time of importation, and the
   donor language (here language A) may be less conservative and change the
   corresponding word or name. Is one "better" or "more correct" than the
   other, for instance because it is "more original" or "more unique" (*
   sic.*)? No! Such information is only relevant in diachronic,
   etymological contexts. In a synchronic context (i.e., how the
   different language varieties are *at this point in time or at another
   specific point in time*) this is totally irrelevant; we are dealing
   with separate words or names in separate language varieties. Equally
   irrelevant are personal likes and dislikes.

It is very common for people that don't understand these concepts to mix up
historical and contemporary (or diachronic and synchronic) aspects in their
arguments, and the end result is that people talk past each other.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
*

***
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071122/61f83123/attachment.htm>