LL-L "Language politics" 2007.10.09 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  08 October 2007 - Volume 03
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2007.10.08 (02) [E]

About a Low Saxon standard etc.:
I do not think we need this. In the Netherlands there are several Low
Saxon dialects, that can differ quite a bit from eachother. There is not
one leading variety, not even one leading city or area, nor a leading
group of actors or so, from which a standard would be accepted over other
varieties. Technically, the differences are too big as well to make some
kind of intermediate LS. But, at least within the Netherlands, someone
speaking one dialect is not usually ashamed or afraid to use his own LS
variety in communicating with speakers of different varieties. And I think
that's one of the beauties of Low Saxon: it is one languages, but it has
many forms, and there is not one that is better or more civilized or so
than the others. Some languages in the world have standard forms, but most
of them even don't, LS is not so unique in this aspect. E.g. in Drenthe, a
Low Saxon speaking province in the N.O. Netherlands, Low Saxon is taught
in several towns, but the course book only in this small province with
maybe 400.000 inhabitants already has five or six varieties, according to
the local dialect or rather the regiolect in that particular area. But
that is no problem at all.
Of course, the fact that LS and other non standard languages are less and
less spoken in many western countries is a big concern, but I doubt if
that has something to do with standardisation or not. In Switzerland, for
example, every town and area has its own variety too, there is no standard
Schwytzerdütsch, and it is seldom written I think, but everybody is
speaking it all the time.
Well, that's what I wanted to say about it, as a Low Saxon speaker from
the Netherlands

---------

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

Moyen, Ingmar!

Alemannic, especially Swiss Alemannic (Schwytzerdütsch), is written quite a
bit, not only in informal communication but in published literature as well.
Bear in mind that many Northern Swiss people and also many people across the
Austrian border in Vorarlberg consider their Alemannic varieties to
constitute a language in its own right, and they separate them from Standard
German which they can use as well (usually in formal situations) and from
German non-standard varieties of Germany as well.

Even though these varieties belong to three distinct groups -- lower (low),
upper (high), and uppermost (highest), not to mention Swabian as a link to
German -- mutual intelligibility is pretty good.  Because the official view
has been that they are German dialects, a standard Alemannic variety has
been considered unnecessary under the umbrella language German.  In the very
north they tried to do the same thing: make Low Saxon a German dialect group
and use German as the "high" language for it as well (which, of course,
necessitated declaring the Low Saxon dialects left of the border a foreign
language, if not dialects of Dutch, and Dutch influences provided a
convenient hook onto which to hang that alienation coat).  As you can see,
in the case of Low Saxon this German umbrella model won't fly anymore these
days, if it ever did, not even as a parachute.

I personally don't really need a standard Low Saxon variety, because I
understand all the dialects pretty darn well, only once in a while have to
ask about the meaning of a specific word or expression.  However, I realize
that not everyone has as easy a time.  I believe that if everyone keeps
writing in their own dialects, it would be very helpful indeed to use one
method of spelling them. No, it is not the same as creating a neutral
written language! (This is a conclusion people of the more paranoid type
like to jump to or use to defend the status quo.) It is only a matter of
using the same method of spelling different dialects so as to replicate what
happens when people talk with each other. At the moment there are various
German- and Dutch-based methods flying around, usually not followed to the
"t," and are creating greater chaos than there needs to be.

As I have mentioned previously, Nynorsk (Neo-Norwegian), one of two
Norwegian languages, appears to be a fairly good model. It doesn't have a
hard-and-fast set of rules, no usiform lexicon, no standard variety as such,
though with time a written standard has begun to materialize "naturally."
You can still easily tell which area of Norway a Nynorsk writer is from.
It's easy to read other people's dialects, though, because they are all
written using the same method of spelling; there is no jumble as in Low
Saxon.

What still gets in the way in the case of Low Saxon and which has been of
decreasing importance in the case of Nynorsk is that people are hung up on
purism: they insist that a dialect must not change and that dialects must
not be mixed, that "older and purer is better."  (As Sandy explained,
language change is inevitable, and I should add that language contacts are
inevitable unless you build a wall around a speaker community.)  Get off it
already!  The Nynorsk crowd in Norway used to grapple with the same
"problems" in the beginning. It's much better these days as people have
learned that changes and mixing did not cause the world as they knew it to
explode or implode. And because they pulled their heads out of their tight,
purist backsides and learned to relax they are actually getting things done
and literature written, and they get to enjoy themselves.

Cheerio!
Reinhard/Ron

---------

From: Douglas Hinton <douglas.hinton at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2007.10.09 (01) [E/LS]

A couple years ago my wife and I were visiting Brugge as tourists and were
approached by some school girls. They spoke to us in french and asked for
directions. Before we could answer a woman spoke loudly in dutch to the
girls. "You are in Brugge now, why are you speaking french?". That gives an
indication of what language means to a country.
Wonderful country though, Belgium, and fascinating the way the language on
traffic signs changes when crossing the country.
Regards, Douglas Hinton

---------

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2007.10.09 (01) [E/LS]

Dear Sandy,

you wrote:

>  But from what I see on this list
> there's actually no real problem in communicating in Low Saxon amongst
> different dialects in writing, and the problems with the extra phonetic
> differences that make speech varieties more disparate needn't be an
> issue.

Yes- we, the list members, can communicate transborderly, but my 12years old
son could not. And for my opinion, if the situation really is not hopeless,
he and his mates should be the next generation to SPEAK Low Saxon, and I
would wish him speaking it better than his father.

 In his life he twice had taken part in any LS-sompetition. Their task: to
read textes written in LS.
I have to admit that my son isn't the very high flyer to lecture, but he won
a prize 2 years ago during his first attempt.
This year he (marginally) failed to win another prize-  but that was
foreseeable because he had asked me before the examine: "Daddy- what horrible
kind of LS is THAT?" Of course- not our one's (and I had made the mistake to
transscribe some Standard German words into 'real' LS, on the substrate of our
local dialect, and the commision took it amiss...).
Just to shorten it: I fear he'll never take part again in any of these
doubtful competitions, because he isn't any longer willing and able to close
this ditch between his father's and neighbour's language and any new-aged
wanna-be-'Platt'.
Do you want more reality?

BTW: the prices this time partly were won by children who nearly never had
come into contact with spoken, familiar, living LS.

> It seems strange to me that you argue the mutual unintelligibility of
> different Low Saxon dialects and yet complain that they're all watered
> down with words from German and Dutch. How can the different dialects of
> Low Saxon in, say, Germany be irreconcilable with each other and yet not
> worthily distinct from German?
There are two very different classes of speakers: the few still existing,
but fast dying out real natives, well trained and familiar with the language
since their youth and those Pseudo-Low-Saxons who are on a low,
watered level. Not only me did mention this in previous discussions.
But no matter which group's ability you'll take- all of them are watered to
a sorrowful level.
I'm dolorously aware of the fact that I myself am one of the water-carriers,
and this is another reasons why I use my strenghth more in collecting
(nearly) forgotten words, phrases and social and linguistic background of
the past and present than to take part in any doubtful experiments for a
dark and perhaps hopeless future.

In the words of our Paul Finlow-Bates:
> Expansion of your language doesn't strengthen your identity, it dilutes it
.

Allerbest!

Jonny Meibohm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071009/62e5789e/attachment.htm>