LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.16 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 16 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: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.14 (03) [E]

 Dear Lowlanners,

let me try to answer all your welcomed postings referring to my, admittedly,
somehow 'rumbling' remarks to Sandy's and Rons suggestions about how to make
a language simpler.

*Ron:*

> However, let me remind you that it is a common misconception that grammars
of languages of "primitive" cultures are simple.
Let me ask you: What or who makes the decision whether a culture is simple
or not? A culture (and its language) always has to be seen in context with
its general living condition. All the primitive races, which in
German are much better denoted as 'Naturvölker' ('folks of nature'), aren't
really primitive at all but mostly admirable and very skilful in managing
their hemispheres.

> Because of remnants of ancestor worship, we and people of some other
cultures have been brainwashed to believe in the "ancient golden
> age" notion. "Simple" should not be automatically equated with
"primitive." If you are eloquent, you can express the same within simple
> structural frameworks as within complex ones
But if I'm not so eloquent it is easier for me to have clear, reliable rules
and patterns, without a mass of space for my personal,
subjective interpretations. And these patterns indeed are vanishing, if we
compare our modern languages with their forerunners, don't you think so?

> Similarly, the Altaic languages are not exactly grammatically simple, and
they distinguish things our grammars don't (e.g., reporting something
> with or without first-hand knowledge).
I've always thought our subjunctive (which is on the best way to get lost in
German and already quasi has been lost in Low Saxon) enables us to do the
same, but maybe the Altaic languages even do it better.

> You surely don't want to insinuate that the Chinese languages and
languages like them can be equated with "Neandertaler stammering", do > you?

Surely not! For some thousand years the right, rich and appropriate language
in their culture '*behind* the Great Wall(!)', of course. But modern history
adopts, that one of the reasons why the Neanderthal vanished in support of
Homo Sapiens has been their different communication system. This probably
occurred under the conditions of the ice age, when their common habitat
changed dramatically. And this surely didn't happen as rapidly as those
revolutionary processes which happen today to many cultures, being no longer
able to keep themselves off-side the American Way of Life.

*Sandy:*

> As you see above, I was talking about what we should discard in
> inventing a world language, not about re-inventing existing languages.
But a 'world language', this is implemented in the word itself, would
dominate the existing languages, or at least substitute them.

> I don't think Latin was any more logical than any other language, and I
> don't see how the form of the language used makes any difference to a
> society's tendency towards imperialism.
Let me substitute 'logical' by 'straight', and then we perhaps could agree
on the point. I already mentioned above: it didn't give much space for
personal interpretations. A message, instruction, information or command of
a Roman Cesar could be read by any official stationed far away, e.g on the
British Islands, without doubts or misunderstanding. This is a good basic
for imperialism, I think.

> Are you saying that complex grammar is somehow the basis of military
> power or cultural influence?
Not complex, but if clear and straight, on a high level of possibilities and
variability: yes.

>>  And, Sandy, sorry for you: I fear in cases like these you wouldn't get
>>  along with Sign Language exceptionally, but you would have to use the
>>  written word.
> I don't know what you're referring to here, could you explain further?
Well- I think for the reason of efficiency SL has to be reduced to a
certain, shortened level of elements that are really important. In the past
you already had 'outet' yourself as an advocate for simplifying languages,
so I think many of your theories have to be seen as a result of your
personal experiences. (BTW: I always see exactly the opposite occurring in
your postings!)
But- isn't this, more or less, valid for all languages? If I'd have to deal
with a very complex, intricate matter I always should prefer a
written script to any spoken word. The possibilities then are wider; a
written text, correctly using all facilities of grammar, implies more
accuracy. And it can shorten the way to the object considerably.
As you might remember, caused by your contributions I've dealt a little bit
with the unbelievable and striking possibilities of SL, but large and by
it 'just' will remain a replacement for spoken languages- with less
potentiality in comparison of people who are on the same educational level,
one group using SL, the other one spoken words. Or don't you think so?

> Expressiveness in natural
> languages doesn't arise from the logicality of the grammar, but from the
> use of metaphor, and I'd say that can be used in any language.
Idioms and metaphors are the most difficult parts for a learner of a foreign
language, and they are often longwinded.

*Ingmar:*

> Dear Jonny, but you should know there is also a NEW Latin, without gender,
> difficult verb conjungations, cases etc. and there you have that world
> language you were talking about: Interlingua.
Ingmar, I'd prefer 'Middlesprake' in this case *s*!

*Heiko:*

> Oh, no, what a mess compared to the nice, simple grammar of Esperanto.
> ...
> If anyone ever needs a planned language, Esperanto is ready. The only
drawback
> is that the major players involved (like e.g.) the Americans, do not want
a
> planned language.
I don't think this to be a special problem of the U.S.A. (whom you mean, I
guess). And just have a look into yourself: The E.U. is moving together more
and more, and suddenly the yearning for local minority languages starts to
increase.

Summa summarum: in some deep chambers of my heart there really may be "
remnants of ancestor worship,"
as Ron presumed. But I really don't want to be forced to rely exceptionless
on any language with 'castrated' grammar, and- sorry!- exactly this would be
the case if I had to manage all my daily life with Low Saxon. The structures
are too complex, meanwhile.
As a result of these coherences we will have to watch a lot of minority
languages vanish and perhaps to wait for another, complete new way of
communication- 'world-wide-webbed' *s*.

Thanks and regards to all of you!

Jonny Meibohm

----------

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

Moin, Jonny!

> However, let me remind you that it is a common misconception that grammars
of languages of "primitive" cultures are simple.
Let me ask you: What or who makes the decision whether a culture is simple
or not? A culture (and its language) always has to be seen in context with
its general living condition. All the primitive races, which in
German are much better denoted as 'Naturvölker' ('folks of nature'), aren't
really primitive at all but mostly admirable and very skilful in managing
their hemispheres.

Why ask *me* of all people? I'm the one that wrote "primitive" with
quotation marks. My personal experience is that all ethnic groups and
cultures are highly developed in their own ways, in *different* ways.

> Similarly, the Altaic languages are not exactly grammatically simple, and
they distinguish things our grammars don't (e.g., reporting something
> with or without first-hand knowledge).
I've always thought our subjunctive (which is on the best way to get lost in
German and already quasi has been lost in Low Saxon) enables us to do the
same, but maybe the Altaic languages even do it better.

It's similar, but the German subjunctive is more cumbersome. In Turkic
languages, you just change the verb suffix, and you *must* do so, or else it
comes across as if you're passing it off as first-hand knowledge, and in
this it's a bit similar to the insertion of Japanese *-n*. The German
subjunctive is only used with a sort of emphasis on hearsay, much like
English "apparently ..." and "supposed to". So these second-hand knowledge
forms predominate in the Turkic language media and non-fiction literature.
And you can use it with the first person too; e.g. Turkish ...

   İstanbul'a git*t*im.
   I went to Istanbul.

   İstanbul'a git*miş*im.
   (They say) I went to Istanbul. I'm supposed to have gone to Istanbul.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080716/01ebb3f4/attachment.htm>