LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.09.29 (04) [DE-EN-NDS]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 29 September 2009 - Volume 04
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" 2009.09.28 (02) [EN]

> 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.

True enough.

> 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

What I'm saying is that saying that Hebrew &c was "never really dead"
doesn't mean that much because the idea of "dead" when applied to
languages isn't that well defined.

Normally I would consider a language living or dead in terms of language
learners' attitudes and methodology.

Do learners in general aspire to achieve the pronunciation of people who
have spoken the language from infancy and never had to learn it
consciously? Then the language is living.

Or do learners in general not worry too much about pronunciation because
they consider their own guess to be as good as anybody's? Then the
language is dead. At least, they're studying it as a dead language.

Thus mediaeval Latin could be considered a dead language, because
pronunciation varied according to what was available in the speakers'
living language and nobody could in good conscience say that their own
pronunciation was correct, the way they might have done if they had been
able to mix with actual Romans with a solid line of language descent.

Even though a language can be "dead and gone" and come back again, like
Cornish, I think the language can truly become living again according to
the above definition. Although it would be futile to pretend that the
new pronunciation was the same as the old, there can nevertheless be a
new pronunciation that learners care about because it's how people who
are now speaking it from infancy speak it. Conversely a language can be
spoken all over the place by certain groups without being a living
language.

I'm talking about pronunciation but you could probably make similar
arguments with respect to grammar, idiom and vocabulary.

But the important thing here is that if you want to describe how things
are and were with the status of Hebrew and so on you need a better
taxonomy than just "dead or not". I was questioning the usefulness of
the opinion that Hebrew was "never dead". Cornish speakers often say the
same thing about Cornish, because the term "dead" isn't well defined for
languages.

> 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

I see that although there are only two speakers, it still splits into
two dialects!

----------

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

Thanks, Sandy.

About Ozee Tilp ...

I see that although there are only two speakers, it still splits into
two dialects!

True. Or are they two idiolects? After all, no two persons speak the "same"
language variety identically. So we all use idiolects, which in a way are
"dialects for one".  ;-)

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

----------

From: Jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
 Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2009.09.29 (02) [DE-NDS]

 Marcus schrieb

vieles, mit dem ich einverstanden bin, aber auch:

Jüst lüttje un faken bruukt Wöör ännert sik faken. Plattdüütsch hett "oder"
för hoochdüütsch "oder". Dat Woord gellt överall. Blot de Dialekten in de
Nedderlannen un an de nedderlandsche Grenz hebbt "of" (jüstso as
Nedderlandsch). Wenn wi trüchkiekt, denn harr Plattdüütsch fröher en ganz
Reeg Formen ("edder", "eller", "efte", ...) de all utstorven sünd un för de
hoochdüütsche Form Platz maakt hebbt.

So lange ICH noch lebe und sprechen kann, ist "edder(s)", "eller(s)"
mitnichten ausgestorben ;-) - man muss nur die Disziplin aufbringen, es auch
zu nutzen. Mit anderen Worten - es gehört definitiv noch zum aktiven
Wortschatz des heutigen Platt.

 Bi ... "obwohl" liggt dat wohrschienlich an Lüüd, de Platt snacken wüllt,
aver sik de Sätz in'n Geist hoochdüütsch trechmaakt. De Gedanken laat sik
ahn Problem ok Plattdüütsch utdrücken.

Ist das gebräuchliche "obschounst", "ofschounst" für HD "obwohl" kein Platt?
Könnte in der Tat so sein, aber klingt wenigstens nicht sooo... Hochdeutsch
;-).

Ein anders Beispiel ist "*âns*" - kaum jemand kann noch damit umgehen, weder
- in der Bedeutung des subjunktiven "wenn": "*Ä€ns* du mii ne' helpst, help
ikk Dii ouk 'ne."

- noch in der Bedeutung des adverbialen "sonst": "Eeet fein Diin’n Teller
leddig, *âns* kriigt wii monnen Regen!"
Ist aber auch vertrackt, vor allem hier: "*Ä€ns *Du nich Diin'n Groynkohl
frittst', *âns* Du ouk keen Kümmel krisst'!" (Wandspruch in einem Esslokal
im Oldenburger Land)

(BTW, Marcus - Deine Beiträge sind auf Grund ihrer 'Optik' für mich äußerst
mühselig zu lesen, weil Du das Wort "Absatz" anscheinend auch im
Hochdeutschen nicht kennst ;-)!)

 Allerbest!

Jonny Meibohm
Lower Saxony, Germany

----------

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

Ja, ja, de lütten Wöör ... Wenn se jüm ähr hoochdüütschen Gägenstücken nich
liek sünd, denn kinnt de mehrsten Tweedspraakler jüm nich, bruukt
hoogdüütsche Wöör un bringt jüm annere Minschen bi. Kann wäsen, se meent,
för lütte Wöör bruukst nich in Wööböker naslagen.

ofschoonst => obwohl
liekers => dennoch
mehrst => meist
mehrsttieds, mehrsdeels => meistens
wo, woans, wodennig => wie
waar, wonäven, wonääm => wo
baven => oben
meist => fast

Un dat gifft noch vääl mehr vun düssen Kraam.

För "ans" geiht ook "anners", un daar kümmt dat je ook vun af.

"Süst" för *sonst* kannst man bloots in'n Sinn vun "Wat hebbt ji *süst *noch?".
Anners (!) seggt 'n "Maak dat Finster dicht! *Anners *(~ *ans*) kaamt de Müggen
rin."

Grötens,
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/20090929/7a6b1394/attachment.htm>