LL-L "Language politics" 2009.09.28 (02) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 28 September 2009 - Volume 02
lowlands at lowlands-l.net - http://lowlands-l.net/
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================
From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2009.09.27 (02) [EN]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language politics
>
> A remarkable example of this is the reinstatement of Hebrew as an
> everyday language. Contrary to popular belief, Hebrew was never
> "dead," was not only used for liturgy. It was and is an international

But remembering that "dead" isn't a clearly defined term when applied to
languages.
Despite the tendency to use the head count of speakers to measure the
wellness of a language, I'm not sure that numbers really matter as long
as there are two native speakers to converse in the language or (pulse
slowing a bit) two scholars who can converse in what they know of the
language or (vital signs fading fast) a sheet or two of paper in
continuous prose or (fetch the trolley!) poetry.
There's a sense in which Hebrew and Latin were dead, in that the people
who spoke it only did so out of particular motivation and without that
motivation they would simply be using whatever living language was to
hand locally. If not dead, they were at least on life support.
I think Cornish demonstrates very well that even without life support, a
language can be revived from paper.
While Esperanto and Klingon seem to show that a language doesn't even
have to exist to be brought to life: put it on paper and if there's
motivation it will rise like a golem.
Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

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

Those are certainly points worth noting, Sandy, though most people would
play the numbers game, especially when it comes to pursuading others to come
on board and to communicate to politicians of a sense of urgency.

So what you are saying then is that liturgical languages that are used only
out of specific motivation are in a certain sense dead. This would also
apply to Sanskrit, Pali, Ge'ez (Old Ethiopic), Coptic (Modern Egyptian) and
Old Church Slavonic then, to name but a few. Classical Chinese (which is
quite different from any Modern Chinese language) is still written and read
(and I use it myself), is hardly ever spoken other than in certain types of
recitation. Would *it* be considered "dead in a sense"? And Anglo-Norman is
only used in snippets in British legal, administrative and royal contexts. I
don't think anyone writes or speak it outside that.

As for constructed languages, Ozee Tilp is an interesting example:
http://www.lowlands-l.net/anniversary/ozee-tilp.php
There are two fluent speakers, the rest of the family as well as some
friends picking up the language over time:
http://www.lowlands-l.net/anniversary/ozee-tilp-info.php

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

==============================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/20090928/664d2af9/attachment.htm>