LL-L "Language history" 2011.04.15 (03) [EN]

Fri Apr 15 17:08:55 UTC 2011

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 15 April 2011 - Volume 03
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================

From: Mike Morgan <mwmbombay at gmail.com>

Subject: LL-L "History" 2011.04.14 (03) [EN]

From: Hellinckx Luc <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>

...

Some countries behave like fire, whatever that doesn't agree, gets burnt.
You create a lot of enemies that way. That's when you need water to put out
the fire ;=)

Ouch! I kinda have to agree with Luc... France IS getting a bit too big for
its breeches ;-)

 mwm || U C > || mike || мика  || माईक || マイク || மாய்க் (aka Dr Michael W
Morgan)
===========================================================
Senior Consultant
BA in Applied Sign Language Studies (BAASLS)
Indira Gandhi National Open Univeristy
New Delhi, India
===========================================================

"The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their
minds to be good or evil." (Hannah Arendt)

"When good people in any country cease their vigilance and struggle, then
evil men prevail." (Pearl S. Buck)

----------

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>

Subject: LL-L "History" 2011.04.14 (04) [EN]

From: R. F. Hahn
<sassisch at yahoo.com<http://uk.mc286.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sassisch@yahoo.com>>

Subject: History

Dear Lowlanders,

 .....

(This article) asserts that recent findings point toward there having been
one proto language, i.e. one ancestor of all of today’s languages.

Mind you, this is by most considered fringe science.

Ruehlen and Greenberg have been postulating this for years, with a
classification system that ultimately unites all the world language groups.

I can't see why a single proto language should be "fringe science".  Unless
you believe that different languages were created independently, Tower of
Babel fashion, I can't envisage any mechanism of language evolution that *
doesn't* involve a single proto-language.  The alternative seems to me not
just fringe science, but no science at all.

However, whether we can actually determine the family tree, and even
reconstruct parts of that language (as Ruehlen and Greenberg claim) is
another question.

Paul

Derby

England

----------

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>

Subject: LL-L Resources

Some language related articles on the BBC website:

Language universality idea tested with biology method
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700

'Oldest English words' identified
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7911645.stm

Monkeys recognise 'bad grammar'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8139322.stm

Are dying languages worth saving?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11304255

'Language gene' effects explored
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355541.stm

Regards,

Roger

----------

From: "dealangeam" <atdelange at iburst.co.za>

Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" [EN]

Dear Lowlanders,

Ron wrote:

“Personally I am not in favor of constructed languages, despite their
supposed neutrality. Esperanto and Interlingua and even Mondlango (whose
creators are Chinese) are anything but neutral; they are based on dominant
European languages. Similarly, Volapük is based primarily on German, English
and French and in addition uses sounds (/ü/, /ö/) that are difficult for
speakers of many other languages to pronounce.”

There are about twenty constructed languages intended as a lingua franca
which I know of. Whatever their good and bad features, none of them have
become a lingua franca like English or Spanish. Even English or Spanish can
not function as a lingua franca in all countries of the world. Neither will
Chinese Mandarin be bale to do it. It is as if the tower of Babel stands in
the way of this ideal.

Biological evolution (BE) is now generally accepted, except by religious
fundamentalists. Thus they have become the object of scorn of most modern
thinkers. However, one should never conflate the theory of something with
the thing itself. The theory of BE with Darwin as its founding father is not
a fundamentalist theory like the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell. The
reason is that the latter rests upon empirical, fundamental and universal
laws. These laws can be tested at any time and any place in the universe.

Some biologists have pointed out some strange properties of BE as a
phenomenon and not a theory. Since these properties cannot be derived from
the Darwinian theory, those who pointed them out have almost become outcasts
in the biological community. I will give two examples:

(1) Dollo’s observation - Nature never backtracks its steps, neither follows
the same routes twice [= irreversible].

(2) Gould’s observation - Nature changes very slowly even for long periods
of time until a rapid speciation occurs [= punctuated equilibrium]

Several linguists have tried to apply the Darwinian theory to Language
Evolution (LE). It never had any significant application. Yet LE begs for
some theory. The fact is that the “time tree of speciation” of biological
species and lingual “species” are extremely similar, The important
difference is that the biological time tree is some 2,000,000,000 years old
while the lingual time tree is only about 20,000 years old. Thus they differ
by a factor 100,000

The curious thing is that whereas Darwin’s theory of evolution applies only
to BE, both Dollo’s and Gould’s observations also apply to LE. I believe
that it is for these observations that a lingua franca (omniglot) will never
become real. Even reducing it to an omniglot for a language family will not
do.

For example, take the omniglot “Folkspraak” for all Germanic languages.
After studying some of it, finding it easy to learn, it surprised me that it
never took favour among Germanic speaking peoples.

I think the solution to communicate in any two languages. is way by of
translation through IT evolution. Meet and extend evolution by evolution.
Should it become acutely important, it will take some 20 years to become
available on cell phones of a complexity like the Black Berry. A nice name
for them would be “omniglot phones”. This name can be translated into
Afrikaans by “volkspraak fone”

Best wishes

At de Lange.

----------

From: "dealangeam" <atdelange at iburst.co.za>

Subject: LL_L "Language varieties" [EN]

Dear Lowlanders,

I have a question which occupied my mind since the 1980's.

Why did Low-Saxon (Nieder-Deutsch) diversified since the 1000's without
maintaining one dialect as the common standard?

I can propose several reasons, but none of them seems to be a fundamental
reason.

Here in South Africa the Bantu languages diversified into two branches: the
Sotho languages and the Nguni languages with Sotho and Zulu slowly emerging
since the 1850's as some common standard of each branch. The branching was
caused by the Great Drakensberg Mountain range some thousand kilometers long
from north to south.. The Sotho languages occur in the western, inland side
of it and the Nguni languages to the eastern, coastal side of it. In other
words, the divisor was a geographical feature restricting movement of people
across it.

What was the divisor between the Netherlands and German dialects of
Low-Saxon? Geographical, political or another reason? When did it began to
happen?

The Dutchfication of the western dialects and the Germanfication of the
eastern dialects of Low-Saxon worries me. Is it really the case? It seems to
me as if people drift towards Dutch or German in the absence of a common
standard of Low-Saxon. Might it be the translation of the Bible into
Hollands or German? What will the consequence be after a century or two? The
extinction of speaking any Low-Saxon dialect? That will be horrible.

It seems that my mother tongue Afrikaans will suffer the same fate. Since
the 1900's most Afrikaans people resisted English Anglisation. It was a
passion because of the vile conduct of the British empire in Southern
Africa. The Afrikaners (from North European descent) resisted it like a
disease. But because or Apartheid (1948-1990) in which Afrikaans became the
major language of communication, they had no guts to resist this Anglisation
after 1994 when the New South Africa was created.

Trying to resist this Anglisation is considered as keeping Apartheid alive.
As if any language itself can cause a vile political system. But should it
be the case, then it means that we are slaves of the language we “prefer” to
speak rather having any choice. Is this really the case?

I am convinced that Afrikaans had two parents - Hollands and Low- Saxon. But
i am not a professional linguist. Most of the recognised linguists consider
Afrikaans as a stabilised creole of Dutch. The reason for my passion in the
lowland languages is a “coffee tabel book” which i studied in 1967. The
focus was on the region of Hait-Habo close to the Danish border. That night
the pictures spoke to me like a text book. I have not experienced it before
and only once afterwards. Pictures talking?

Best wishes

At de Lange

----------

From: R. F. Hahn
<sassisch at yahoo.com<http://uk.mc286.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sassisch@yahoo.com>>

Subject: Language history

Hi, At!

I assume you are specifically referring to Low Saxon, whose ancestor is Old
Saxon. (“Low German” is ambiguous in that it denotes a *branch* of
languages: Low Saxon and Low Frankish, and in Germany the label *
Plattdeutsch* or *Niederdeutsch* is used for any Low Saxon and Low Frankish
variety that happens to be use on German soil.)

On the Netherlands side of the border, Low Saxon dialects came to be
overshadowed and colored by the nationally predominant Dutch language. Until
recently being considered “dialect,” the Low Saxon language was excluded
from formal education.

On the German side of the border, the language, which had lost its
predominance with the demise of the Hanseatic Trading League and came under
dominance of German-speaking power that had moved in from the south, also
came to be labeled “dialect,” was excluded from formal education and took on
more and more German color.

By denying it language status, the two national powers prevented maintenance
of linguistic and ethnic Low Saxon consciousness and cohesion, and this
includes the creation of a standard variety and a standard orthography.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

Seattle, USA

=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
===============================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20110415/9ce5bd26/attachment.htm>