LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.13 (01) [EN]

Sat Feb 13 18:05:12 UTC 2010

===============================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 13 February 2010 - Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===============================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.12 (05) [EN]

 From: "Joachim Kreimer-de Fries"
<soz-red at jpberlin.de<http://uk.mc264.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=soz-red@jpberlin.de>
>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.13 (01)

Quite right, beste Reggenhart, they are using the wording "plat" in the
original sense, the "plate taal", the open minded and folks language....

---
I'd never given much thought to the origin of the word "plat"; I'd always
assumed it was somehow related to "flat", i.e. it described the lands the
language(s) came from - just as "lowlands" does.

Paul

----------

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
 Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.12 (05) [EN]

From: "Joachim Kreimer-de Fries" <soz-red at jpberlin.de <mailto:
soz-red at jpberlin.de>>

    Aside from dialectical differences, those on the Netherlandsâ€™ side
>    of the border have been Dutch-influenced and are written with
>    Dutch orthographic principles, while those east of the border have
>    been German-influenced and are written with German orthographic
>    principles.
>
> The orthgraphy is the main difference, in my perception.
>
>  Orthography is the one main difference that is omnipresent in all texts
and is a main obstacle in mutual understanding, but the other sources of
differences are important too: There are dialectal differences which usually
don't match the national border, but which separate eastern Nedersaksisch
(and German Low Saxon) from western Nedersaksisch. E.g. 'diep' instead of
'deep', 'boek' instead of 'book'. Then there are phonetic adaptations like
the switch from short 'u' to 'o' in words like 'grund'->'grond' or
'up'->'op', which is clearly Dutch-induced (everywhere along the German side
of the border 'up' is used according to DIWA-maps, while everywhere along
the Dutch side of the border 'op' is used according to MAND-maps). Then
there are adoptions of words and grammatical constructions from the
respective Dachsprache. These differences are still growing every days and
on both sides of the border. E.g. the Low Saxon word 'schrÃ¶en/schroien' is
almost forgotten in German Low Saxon, cause it's not supported by any German
cognate. But in Dutch it has the cognate 'schroeien'. So we are drifting
apart. Our common lexical base is eroded, cause we are not aware of its
existance and we falsely assume or exaggerate the common lexical base with
the respective Dachsprache leading to divisive loans and the sacking of
non-standard supported common words like 'schroien'.
 I hereby admit, that I have a hard time understanding Dutch Low Saxon,
especially when spoken (so ruling out orthography as the main reason). That
somehow contradicts my expressed belief, that Low Saxon is one language. But
the fact, that my ability to understand improves when the speaking person is
older and if the recording is older, indicates, that intensified Dutch
influence makes the language harder to understand. I guess prosody is
involved in this too.
 The language gap at the national border is very young. It definitely can be
overcome if the speakers actively try to avoid recent Dachsprachen-induced
innovations.
 My favorite example for this is Texas German. Texas German is/was the
German spoken by a community of 19th century German immigrants in Texas.
It's no dialect, it's standard German, but since the 19th century it was
influenced by English and it has many English loans, English-influenced
intonation, reduced lexicon etc. pp. Exactly the same type of changes that
have happened in Low Saxon under German and Dutch influence. Texas German is
still German, there's absolutely nothing that would justify calling it a
language of its own or an English dialect (similar to how it happens with
Low Saxon being classified as Dutch and German dialects with the
Dachsprachen argument). Low Saxon is just like Texas German, except that
_all parts_ of the whole language area have different foreign Dachsprachen
instead of just a small language island. So the difference between German
and Dutch Low Saxon is like the difference between English-influenced Texas
German and imaginary Spanish-influenced Mexico German. They may have a hard
time talking to each other, but if they focus on using German words instead
of English or Spanish loans, then they will be able to understand each
other.

 Quite right, therefore (not at last because Westfalia beeing part of the
> original Saxon language area) I doubt, that the compromizing proposal "Low
> Saxon"/"NiedersÃ¤chsisch" has more chance of being accepted than *the more
> radical speaking of "Saxon, sasseske, hd. sÃ¤chsische Language".* Might be -
> as compromize - speaking (in standard DE) of* 'Sassisch/Sassesk'* to avoid
> the misunderstanding/confusing with the East-Middel-German langage variety
> of the former Markgrafschaft MeiÃŸen (today federal Land miscalled "Saxony")
> is also a solution. - In an italian speaking circle this week I had no
> understanding problem speeking of my interest field as of "lingua sassone",
> though.
>

It's a real pity that our language does not even have a commonly accepted
name. It would make it so much more easy to educate people about it.
 There's no realistic chance to aquire the "rights" to the word "sÃ¤chsisch".
It's tightly tied to the dialect of the Dresden-Leipzig-Chemnitz area.
Neither the inhabitants of the Land Sachsen nor the general German-speaking
public would be willing to give up that name. The Low Saxons would end up in
a "name war" with the Upper Saxons if they tried to take away their
designation. Think about Macedonia-Greece. If anybody wants to fight for Low
Saxon, there are much more fruitful fights (TV, schools, public offices
etc.) than the fight about the name "sÃ¤chsisch". It would be much more easy
to establish the uncontested name "sassisch" as a general designation for
the language. The linguistic entity connected with the term "sÃ¤chsisch" has
a rather negative image in German general public. I think this negative
image is wrong and insane, but it exists nevertheless. In polls about the
most liked and disliked dialects Germans _always_ elect "SÃ¤chsisch" as the
most unpopular and as the least popular dialect. The term "sassisch" in
contrast is clean and not connected with any prejudgments.
 So if we want to establish a general term, "sassisch" would be my choice.
But now the "but": "PlattdÃ¼Ã¼tsch" is the established term for the language
on the German side of the border. Everybody knows what is meant by
"PlattdÃ¼Ã¼tsch" or "Plattdeutsch", every speaker of the language fully
accepts the name. It's highly unlikely that anybody would switch from a
fully established name to a complete neologism (well, the term "sassisch" is
in fact no neologism, but to the general public it feels the same, cause
nobody knows it). I don't think the term "sassisch" would gain any more
currency than the term "nedderdÃ¼Ã¼tsch" nowadays. That means, it's used in
some written and official contexts, but you can never hear any native utter
the word "nedderdÃ¼Ã¼tsch" ever.

 In an italian speaking circle this week I had no understanding problem
> speeking of my interest field as of "lingua sassone", though.
>
 I guess, there are two possibilites: Either these people were not
interested in linguistics and are not able to tell apart Lower and Upper
Saxon anyways. Or they are interested in linguistics and history and they
know about the Old Saxons, so the could understand what you are talking
about. If you try the same in Germany speaking to the general public, using
either "sÃ¤chsisch" or "sassisch", in both cases this would lead to major
misunderstandings or people not understanding at all.

Marcus Buck

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.11 (01) [EN]

 > From: jmtait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.10 (01) [EN]
>
> Sandy wrote:
>
> Perhaps parents and others are less likely to correct things if the
> grammar is clear due to being used in other parts of the conjugation,
> but an even stronger consideration is that children (at least children
> who aren't lonely) don't pick up the bulk of their language from their
> parents, they pick it up from other children. Once something is rife
> amongst children the parents are going to have a hard time correcting
> it.
>
> So I wonder where the changes came from originally, then? (If it makes
> sense to speak about changes being 'original'...?!)

 Children do make a lot of mistakes involving regularisation, don't they?

 So since we're talking about regularisation, it might be a matter of
 which mistakes persist, but they're always available in the language
 pool.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

•

==============================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/20100213/db7bdabd/attachment.htm>