LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.09.07 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 07 September 2008 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties"

Beste Jules,

You wrote:

I would like to hear from our Flemish and Dutch friends as well as from our
cousins in South Africa if they, by analogy are comfortable with 'High
Afrikaans' and 'Low Afrikaans'.


First time I hear these expressions "High Flemish" and "Low Flemish". I find
the terms somewhat misleading.

Take the word "nooddruft" for example (Notdurft (G)). I'm quite sure it was
a common word in former times (meaning indigence, the amount of food you
need for survival). These days, older people still use the word "noeëttref"
in the same sense. However, if you would use the word "nooddruft" as a
literary term, it would be perceived as very "stilted". So what kind of word
is "nooddruft" then? If it's written in a book, it would become "High
Flemish", but if it's pronounced like "noeëttref" in daily life, it would be
"Low Flemish".

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

PS: Was actually speaking for Brabantish, but I guess Flemish is the only
term that has been exported succesfully *s* (mainly due to French that is,
which historically speaking, always had closer ties with Flemish than with
Brabantish).

----------

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

Just as an aside, Luc ... German *Notdurft* now has the specialized meaning
"call of nature".

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2008.09.06 (07) [E]

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

> I heard of "High" and "Low" in this sense in the 1970s also. I think
> some people actually thought it was "with it" to follow that German
> trend.

I think the distinction between "high" and "low" forms of languages
would be recognisable to anyone familiar with Scots. Some writers prefer
to try to revive more distinctive forms of the language by
re-introducing archaic words, imitating older spellings, borrowing from
German, and making stuff up. I don't think this sort of Scots is
currently called "High Scots", but it could come to be, given the
trends. Which would make real Scots "Low Scots". Of course you realise
this means war  :)

Unfortunately those that prefer more fanciful forms of the language
often do so because they haven't been brought up speaking the real
language but the power language instead (in this case English), and as
far as Scots goes you can certainly see them making a hash of it.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080907/530795dc/attachment.htm>