LL-L "Language comprehension" 2008.07.13 (01) [E]

Sun Jul 13 16:21:45 UTC 2008

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

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com

 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

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

 ========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 13 July 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
 ========================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2008.07.06 (02) [E/LS/French]

> From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.07.05 (07) [E]
>
> from heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk
>
> This may be a new thread - I'm not quite sure!
>
> Reading Mike Winzer's contribution re the French language..
>
> I read this morning in an old National Geo that the Icelandic language
> has barely changed in the last 1000 years to such an extent that
> modern day icelanders can still read the old sagas with ease.
>
> Why is this? What has happened in Iceland that the language has not
> diversified, changed, 'dialectised itself '? How come after 1000 years
> the language has seen so little change? And is Icelandic a unique
> example of a language that has remained 'intact'?

I haven't actually studied that many languages in my life but a
phenomenon I've noticed is that I'm often impressed by the depth and
breadth of other people's language knowledge until they start to talk
about a language I know, at which point all their wisdom seems to go out
the window and I begin to wonder if they also talk such rubbish when
they're on about the languages I don't know!

Much the same thing is said about Welsh - that modern Welsh people can
read older Welsh poetry with ease. Welsh speakers I've asked about this
are divided on the subject. Some say they can read the older poets, some
say they can't. With those who say they can, it's also important to try
and find out if they actually read poetry, or whether they're just
repeating the "common knowledge" about the language.

There are a couple of things that I think Welsh and Icelandic have in
common that tend to lead to such beliefs. One thing is that the
orthography of the languages haven't changed much, so that the older and
newer forms appear very much the same on the page, especially to
language learners. Another is that language phenomena in these languages
tend to be judged relative to certain other languages - Welsh to English
and Icelandic to other modern Scandinavian languages, eg "Welsh speakers
can read Old Welsh much more easily than English speakers can read
Chaucer". This isn't the same thing as being able to read it "with
ease".

Another thing to throw into the mix here is that people's ability to
read language varieties varies widely. Some modern English speakers
can't remember ever having had to learn to read Shakespeare, while
others can't read Shakespeare at all. That seems very strange to me but
I do know people who can't read either Shakespeare or the King James
Bible because of the form of the language.

So to get at the truth of things, you really need to know things like
what the writer's knowledge of the language is like, and to what extent
he actually researched his subjects on their ability to read the older
books. But I suspect this is something he just got by hearsay!

Icelandic does have different dialects. I think that sometimes the use
of what to English speakers are archaic characters in written Icelandic
can lead to other incorrect assertions about the language. For example,
the ridiculous assertion that Icelandic orthography is highly regular
with respect to expressing the sound of the spoken language has been
made on this very list!

Modern Welsh does seem to me to be a lot closer to older Welsh writings
(eg 12th Century) than Modern Icelandic is to Old Norse. Or perhaps I
just found Old Norse harder for some reason - we don't seem to have the
scientific apparatus to make objective assessments of this sort of
thing.

I do think, though, that to say "the Icelandic language has barely
changed in the last 1000 years" doesn't demonstrate familiarity with the
real situation. "Dear Sir, It is with regret that I find I must cancel
my subscription to your magazine..."  :)

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

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

Thanks, Sandy! I couldn't have said it better even if I had tried my
darndest.

I think cases like these ought to remind us that it behooves us to be wary
of one-line pronouncements of that ilk. They tend to be simplifications with
some sorts of agendas, and the questions "Relative to what?" and "Says who?"
ought to be asked.

A lot of nonsense has been said about Icelandic, especially about its
"timelessness" and its "purity." Furthermore, Icelanders *grow up* with
exposure to the old sagas, which in itself helps to read them. Even in the
absence of actual language study, exposure is a learning process. I can read
a whole bunch of languages that I never studied, simply because I've been
exposed to them, they are similar to languages I know, and exposure
experience teaches you to find the "key" relatively quickly.

And, yes, and Icelandic spelling does not lead to correct pronunciation if
you approach it "cold."

I have a feeling that people are simply enamored with the "romantic" notion
of "an isolated archaic language in today's world" as well as with the
"purity" thing.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080713/33679a78/attachment.htm>