LL-L "Language varieties" 2012.11.19 (03) [EN]

Tue Nov 20 01:34:17 UTC 2012

=====================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L - 19 November 2012 - 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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Dear Lowlanders,

Our Sandy wrote under "Pronouns":

I haven't started reading this book yet, but would like to discuss the idea
> of what a standard language is, especially with respect to the current
> situation in Scots. Not that the subject hasn't been done to death in the
> past; but my ideas have changed since then, so it needs doing to death
> again.
>
> The situation with Scots is that nobody agrees on how it should be
> written. There are groups that agree vaguely, but even within these groups,
> an agreement that would produce a standard form of the language isn't
> forthcoming. Indeed, it's very rare for a writer in Scots to even agree
> with himself (women writers not excluded!), and the only way I can achieve
> self-consistency without an external standard is by concordancing on a
> computer.
>
> I haven't actually explained what I would consider to be a standard form
> of a language. Maybe I could give a few examples to start.
>
> Like Catalan, a standard form of the language would make it possible to
> publish regular newspapers in the language that everyone's happy to read.
>
> Like Finnish, it would be a form that people can write consistently even
> if nobody actually speaks it.
>
> Like English, any variations would be generally understood and not
> significant enough to be worth worrying about (eg colour vs color: I know
> some people moan about this, but that's nationalism rather than
> linguistics; there can't really be a rational basis for making a fuss over
> a very limited number of insignificant differences that are agreed on
> throughout a wide publishing domain and recognisable outside that domain).
>
> With Scots, a lot of people, especially academics, think that Scots
> shouldn't be written in anything but dialectical form, possibly with some
> creatively fantastic forms thrown in.
>
> But there are also those who believe that Scots will never thrive unless a
> standard form is laid down and accepted. Unfortunately, their actions tend
> to contradict their beliefs: they'll accept taking words they don't know
> from dictionaries and learning to use them to strengthen the language, but
> they draw the line at allowing words, or even just variant pronunciations,
> to creep into what they see as standard language. Put briefly, they're
> happy to use new forms in their writing, as long as it's only augmenting
> their own dialect, not contradicting it.
>
> I think there comes a point where if a language is to survive against
> media onslaught and natural erosion, it's necessary to go fundamentalist on
> the idea of a standard form of the language, and for someone
> (lexicographers? publishers? government? - whatever works) to say that "you
> have to spell this word this way or you're not writing Scots, but a dialect
> of Scots".
>
> But Scots writers and academics, even the ones who want a standard
> language and imagine they're supporting the idea, seem much more attached
> to their own dialects, sometimes only certain aspects of their own
> dialects, than to any concrete idea of a standard language where they'd
> have to spell the way they're told. Is it worth dropping all your own
> notions about how Scots should be written, in order to ensure a future for
> Scots? Few seem to think so!
>
> In the Victorian revival of Scots, it was normal for Doric writers to
> write "wha" rather than "fa", and "no" rather than "nae". They went along
> with the accepted practice in other dialects. This would be less likely
> now, and the opposite idea, of basing standard Scots on Doric
> pronunciation, would seem almost impossible to implement.
>
> To me, this means that Scots, whether you think of it as a language or a
> set of dialects, will eventually die out. For a language to reach full
> maturity, its speakers have to stop thinking of it as their baby.
> Especially if, as with Scots speakers, that means choking it to death
> rather than letting it play with the horrible children across the street.
>
> It seems ever more likely that Scotland will gain independence in the next
> few years. I don't think this means anything in terms of the survival of
> the language, although it might put standardisation higher on the political
> agenda, which could be helpful. Nationalists tend to use the language as a
> political tool, however, some even making out that they speak it even when
> it's obvious that they don't. There seems no reason to believe they'd
> continue the charade once they'd achieved their political ends.
>
> I think that the most likely scenario is that Scots will go the way of
> Cornish. Once nobody speaks it any more, there will be a generation who
> want it back and are willing to learn it, but aren't emotionally attached
> to specific dialects. I'm thinking Scots would then fare even better than
> Cornish, considering the large amount of material the neoScots would have
> to work with, including a large corpus of literature and several
> dictionaries, two of them very large and scholastic.
>
> Of course, the Scots they devise as a standard for themselves wouldn't be
> like the Scots we know, and would be pooh-poohed (or rather "[a:xt]-ed")
> away by Scots speakers of the present time, but then so would any standard
> anybody might create for us now.
>

I concur at the very least in general from where *I* am sitting. Not only
that, but, after years of observing discussions about Scots, it once again
confirms to me that this case and the case of Low Saxon ("Low German") in
Germany are strikingly similar (if you substitute "English" with "German").
(I leave it to our members in and from the Netherlands to let us know how
they feel about Low Saxon and Limburgish used in their country.)

Yes, I have been saying this for well over a decade, even publicly wrote
about it (in print as well!). Once I even received a snail mail letter from
Scotland telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about and to mind
my own bl...y business. Last week alone I spoke in person about Scots with
two people from Scotland, one who immigrated to the USA right after World
War II, and the other a current citizen of (West Coast) Scotland visiting
Seattle. Neither of them knew what I meant by "Scots." It was only after I
said "Braid Scots ... Doric ... Ye ken?" that they caught on. OK, there may
be the element of them not being prepared for a non-Scot in America even
knowing about it. What was striking, however, is their almost identical
response with regard to Scottish English versus Scots: "I wouldn't know
where one starts and the other begins."

The differences between ("High") German and Low Saxon ("Low German") ought
to be very clear not only to trained linguists but to anyone who pays at
least some attention. However, Standard German is still widely considered
the "umbrella language," and resistance to some people's attempts to create
specific standards for Low Saxon usage and orthography tends to be fierce.
I suspect that there is an undercurrent opinion that considers the very
idea of Low Saxon "independence" treason. The same among Scots? We need to
bear in mind here that neither Low-Saxon-speaking Germans nor
Scots-speaking Scots are considered separate ethnic groups, and that the
prevailing European view remains that an ethnic group is defined by its use
of language.

I believe that the basic "problem" is that most people in the UK and in
(Northern) Germany still regard Scots and Low Saxon (of Germany)
respectively as being subset language variety groups of (Scottish) English
and of (Northern) German respectively. In other words, in their
(politically conditioned?) views Scots and Low Saxon activists' demands for
their own standards are regarded as treasonous or at least as disloyal. In
Germany, it is considered acceptable for speakers of Danish, Frisian,
Sorbian, Romany, Sinti, and of course speakers of Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic,
Hebrew, etc., to claim ethnic minority status. Not so speakers of Low
Saxon. They and their language are considered *bodenständig* ("rooted in
the soil" = "homegrown" = "autochtonous" = "native"). And this applies, by
and large, to speakers of Eastern Friesland dialects of Low Saxon as well,
even though culturally they *are* Frisian rather than German. Similarly,
there are many predominantly German-speaking Danes, Frisians, Sorbs, Poles,
Slovenes, Croats, Italians, etc., in Germany that tend to be classified as
ethnic Germans by most people. (However, German-only-speaking Roma, Sinti,
Jews, Turks, Kurds, etc., tend to remain ethnically distinct in most
people's minds. I bet the same applies to people of South Asian, West
Indian, East Asian and other backgrounds in Scotland, even if they speak
Scots or even Gaelic besides English.)

Best wishes to everyone, and happy Thanksgiving to all our Lowlanders in
and from the USA!

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/20121119/2257b870/attachment.htm>