LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.16 (04) [EN-NDS]

[Lowlands-L List]

===============================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 16 February 2010 - Volume 04
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: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.02.16 (03) [EN-NDS]

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


Nu, wou dünket ju dat? Is dat nig förwaar en grunt, et us nig tou swår to
maken met de benöimge van den Nidderdüüdsk-Nidderlandsken dialektkontinuum?
Wan to'ner tiit, dau platdüüdsk no åldagsprauk was, auk de Flaamsken un
Nidderlandsken eere sprauk "Nederduits" nöimt hewwet. (Ås je auk de
Ousterriiker nin problem hewwet eere sprauke Düüdsk of
Buawendüüdsk/Haugdüüdsk to nöimen?)
___________________________________________

What do you think about that? Wouldn't that be a reason, not to be too
scrupulous / complicated in the term for the Low-German-Netherlandish
dialect continuum? As to times, when Low German still had been everyday
speech, Flemings and the Dutch called there language "Low German". (Like as
the Austrians have no problem calling their language German or
Upper-/High-German?
_________________________________________



Things change.
70 years ago Austrians happily joined Germany and felt good under the label
German. They still feel okay with labeling their language German, but don't
dare to call their nationality German. They would strongly refuse that. And
the Dutch nowadays refuse to be labeled "German" too. Sentiments like that
are of limited relevance for linguistic terms, but if you want to establish
terms you cannot neglect it.
On the other side, at least in German "Niederdeutsch" already is an
established term for anything not affected by the High German sound shift.
So there actually is no reason to "search" for a term.
And to add my personal opinion: Dutch and Saxon share several common
features not shared by German. But I don't think, that there is much reason
to think of it as a genetic unit that needs a name of its own. It's just a
common lack, nothing that would be a base for a new Aldietse Beweging (C. J.
Hansen's Aldietse Beweging actually was an Alnederdietse Beweging, <
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldietse_Beweging>). The genetic relation of
Dutch and Saxon is not closer than the relation of Saxon and German.

Marcus Buck

•

==============================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/20100216/ef8b6e33/attachment.htm>