|
 |
You are not a real polyglot if... | ||
Tags: Polyglot | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Solfrid Cristin Heptaglot Winner TAC 2011 & 2012 Senior Member Norway Joined 5339 days ago 4143 posts - 8864 votes  Speaks: Norwegian*, Spanish, Swedish, French, English, German, Italian Studies: Russian | Message 233 of 299 28 October 2013 at 10:52pm | IP Logged | |||||
Thank you. That is a point we tend to forget, but that is very true, and this is perhaps even a more direct parallel to the linguistic situation of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 234 of 299 28 October 2013 at 11:40pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I really find this debate quite interesting because of the interplay of so-called linguistic and and socio-political
factors. Putting aside all the rhetoric, one fundamental question is how do modes of speaking become distinct anguages and others become or remain dialects with a language family. For example, how did Afrikanns become known as Afrikaans, Norwegian Norwegian, Italian Italian, Russian Russian, Serbian Serbian,etc? There is a difference here between classification systems for scientific purposes and the naming systems that peoples give themselves. In my observation, there are two fundamental processes. Firstly, a language is associated with a ethnic or distinctive social group. Groups have names and very often these names also refer to the language that they speak. If one looks at the indigenous languages of the Americas the dozens of languages coincide with the boundaries of tribal and ethnic groups. The language name is basically an expression of distinctive identity. Here it's interesting to note that what European explorers used for names of indigenous peoples have often changed over the years as these groups have come to assert their identity. In Canada, we no longer used the words Indian to refer to the native peoples of North America and the word Eskimo has vanished from our vocabulary when referring to the people of our far north. In French, we even used to use the word "sauvages" right up to the mid-twentieth century when speaking of what we call today Native or First Nation peoples. The names and spelling of native languages have been changing. The word Eskimo is still a scientific term used in the classification systems of the so-called Eskimo-Aleut languages, but nobody would dare say today that the people of the territory named Nunavut speak Eskimo today. They would say Inuktitut. All of this is quite touchy as you can well imagine and I would strongly advise people to read up about the politics of language names before using some of the older names. THis changing of names happens everywhere. When Bombay became Mumbai or Peking Beijing it is essentially the result of a political process. The other process of course is the language naming process as part of the formation of the nation-state. I don't have to remind people here of how this works. A nation-state is born, a certain dialect rises to prominence and is codified into the standard national language. It's more complicated than that obviously, but that is the basic process. The classification systems for linguistic classification obeys a different logic. We can talk forever about degrees of mutual intelligibility or branching. That's for etymologists and philologists. For the peoples concerned it's a question of identity and national affirmation. Edited by s_allard on 29 October 2013 at 5:25am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6602 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 235 of 299 29 October 2013 at 12:38am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I'm not sure about Mumbai but with Peking/Beijing it's just about pinyin. Imagine if Americans used the similar words "transcription" for Key-eve, and then it turned out that Kyiv is a more clear and accurate way to write that.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 236 of 299 29 October 2013 at 1:44am | IP Logged | |||||
|
When it comes to pronouncing or transcribing geographical names originating from languages other than one's native language, see the following:
How Broadcasters Say "Beijing" Renaming the cities of other countries... Chung at work / Chung pri práci (critique of some Croatian linguists' analysis of how foreign names are transcribed in BCMS/SC) Slovene or Slovenian? This is different though from renaming place-names for other reasons (including because of negative associations with a previous name regardless of how much or how little outsiders could mangle the pronunciation of the new name (e.g. Saint Petersburg > Petrograd > Leningrad > Saint Petersburg; Burma > Myanmar; Panyu > Canton > Guangzhou/Kwangchow). Moreover this type of renaming isn't necessarily a slam-dunk for politics of one speech community affecting others. In the case of "Beijing/Peking", there's a linguistic angle in that "Beijing" is much closer to how the capital's name is pronounced in Mandarin (i.e. the language most widely spoken language in China) whereas "Peking" is nearer to how the name of the capital is pronounced in some provinces in southern China (i.e. areas which had contact with European merchants in the 16th and 17th centuries whose adaptation of the local version of the name spread as "Peking", "Pékin", "Пекинг"). This reflects a demographic reality rather than some decree (or rather any decree I don't know of any in this example - is merely aligning to a head count of those who speak a particular language as the native one). The change of Bombay > Mumbai seems similar to Peking > Beijing in that the second name is a closer representation of how the name is pronounced in Marathi whose speech community considers the state in which Mumbai is the capital to be its homeland. Looking for political angles in geographical renaming (especially as a means of national self-determination for a given ethnic group) seems to be a bit of stretch, and what's more is that beyond English, not all languages follow suit (perhaps because of indifference or even pointlessness?). On the suitability of "Eskimo" versus "Inuit", it seems that the pejorative sense is strongest in Canada. The matter in Alaska seems much less troublesome if this commentary from the Alaska Native Language Center is a guide. Edited by Chung on 29 October 2013 at 2:21am 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 237 of 299 29 October 2013 at 5:24am | IP Logged | |||||
|
As we discuss endlessly about how names that people use for themselves or their territories come into being or
evolve, it might be interesting to look at the current controversy over the name of a football team, the Washington Redskins. Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia entry: "The Washington Redskins name controversy involves the name and logo of the Washington Redskins which has been a source of controversy between its owners, certain Native American groups, fans, and the United States government. Some Native American groups insist that the term redskin is a racial epithet, and as such, it perpetuates demeaning stereotypes of Native Americans. Numerous civil rights, educational, athletic, and academic organizations consider any use of native names/symbols by non-native sports teams to be a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping which should be eliminated.[1] Others believe that the name is honoring the achievements and virtues of Native Americans, and that it is not intended in a negative manner. Former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke said "I admire the Redskins name. I think it stands for bravery, courage, and a stalwart spirit and I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to use it." These differing opinions have led to controversy, protests and legislative action. Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Origin and Meaning 2 Controversy 2.1 Popular Opinion 2.2 Protests 2.3 Support by Native Americans for retaining the name 3 Stadium move 4 Legal action 5 Other Redskins 6 References in the media 6.1 Publications 6.2 Writers / Commentators 6.3 Support for the name 7 Current status 8 Further reading 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References History[edit] The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach Lone Star Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."[2] Dietz's true heritage has been questioned by some scholars. There is also the fact that, in 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. The name Redskins was chosen by Marshall. The Washington Redskins name and logo, which is a picture of an Native American, was officially registered in 1967." What is interesting here is that there are two sides: those who believe that the name Redskins is pejorative and those who believe that it honours the achievements of Native Americans. Notice how in 1933 the word Indian was used at least twice whereas in the current article it has been completely replaced by Native American. One could argue that Indian and Native American refer to the same reality and theat there's no reason to discontinue using the word. I won't even bother arguing the point. I simply advise readers not to call Native Americans Indians. But the problem of course is the word "Redskins." Some people find it offensive. Others don't mind. I tend to think that in today's environment most people find the word pejorative. I believe that the name will be changed when the owners of the team gets tired of having to deal with this problem and people start boycotting the team. But the bigger lesson here is that one has to be careful when using the names of peoples and languages when one is not familiar with the geopolitical situation. I have already mentioned how the word French-Canadian or especially in French canadien-français has become derogatory. Do not use this term when referring to the people of Quebec. In Canada - I can't speak for Alaska - the word Eskimo has disappeared from contemporary usage. As in the US the word "Indian" has become pejorative and is only used by the government because of the language of certain laws. What is also interesting is that the names of various native groups are being rewritten or completely replaced. The Montagnais, formerly known by their French name, have recovered their ancestral name, the Innu. Here is an official government guide to Canada's aboriginal languages (I never got the link to work) http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98- 314-x/98-314-x2011003_3-eng.cfm If you go to the site, you will notice that the word Eskimo is not mentioned once. Also note the following text: "Alternate Aboriginal language names: Some Aboriginal languages are known by or are referred to by more than one name. For example, Tlicho is also known as Dogrib and Nootka as Nuu-chah-nulth. Alternate names come from a variety of sources. These sources may include for example, speakers having more than one name for their language, neighbouring groups may use different names for the language, or names have been assigned by people outside the language group before the name used by the speakers was known." I draw your attention to the last line "names have been assigned by people outside the language group before the name used by the speakers was known." This is very tactly said. In fact, what we are seeing is that those terms of the colonial era are being rewritten or even replaced by terms that are considered more respectful and authentic. There is even a project to revive a language that has been not been spoken in over a century. Here is an excellent article on the battle to revitalize these endangered languages I know some people pooh pooh the importance of the change of place names and language names. Inuktituk and Eskimo, it's all the same. Negro, Afro-American, African-American, coloured, what's the big deal? Beijing, Peking, it's just a question of spelling, Why do the Indians bother renaming their cities even today? Basically, what we are seeing is that in all the countries with a colonial or an oppresive past there has been a movement to change names of places, peoples and languages to better reflect current sensitivities in these matters. I think most people here at HTLAL are quite sensitive about these matters because they are aware of how language learning materials can age because they do not reflect certain societal changes. One could argue that the grammar and phonology of a language like English or French have not changed fundametally in 50 years, but I would still recommend caution when using old materials because certain culltural references have changed. To come back to our by now infamous Balkan examples, I don't see anything fundamentally different from what we see everywhere. The question isn't what linguistic science says or what an outsider like me thinks the countries concerned should use for the names of their language. The question is what do the speakers want? All this rhetoric about the science of linguistic taxonomy and mutual intelligibility is just to smoke screen to hide the fact that some people want to deny to some the same rights they recognize for others. If the Bosnians say that their language is Bosnian, who am I to object on the grounds that it can't be because linguistics says that the language is really Serbo-Croat or BCSM/SC? Why can't they call it Bosnian, just like the Serbs who called their language Serbian and not Serbo-Croat? I believe in the right of peoples to determine how they want their language to be called. If a country decides that one of their languages is Afrikaans and not South African Dutch, then so be it. Another country is comfortable with American English and not just American, that's fine too. Where I live there is a group of people who believe that the language of Quebec is not French (the language of France) but Québécois. There are dictionaries and books on Québécois. There is even a famous translation of Shakespeare's Hamlet into Québécois. It goes without saying that the people who believe in a Québécois language are fervent supporters of the cause of national independence for Quebec. Edited by s_allard on 29 October 2013 at 5:38am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Solfrid Cristin Heptaglot Winner TAC 2011 & 2012 Senior Member Norway Joined 5339 days ago 4143 posts - 8864 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, Spanish, Swedish, French, English, German, Italian Studies: Russian | Message 238 of 299 29 October 2013 at 6:56am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I am not sure that I am willing to sacrifice linguistics at the altar of political correctness.
4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 239 of 299 29 October 2013 at 7:12am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I think that the exchange has diverged excessively from the original point on what constitutes a polyglot or not.
From what I can see, no one really objects to renaming to suit political circumstances or not (even if the lack of objection is grudging). Where it becomes contestable is whether the change in nomenclature presents problems for a potential learner be it in the form of outdated/politically-incorrect content, or more practically whether there are any usable resources at all in addition to the point that I made earlier about whether or not the new nomenclature indeed indicates new languages compelling outsiders to learn them all lest they come off as consistently ungrammatical to others who also used to speak the officially common language. For BCMS/SC, the linguistic guts didn't change in 1991 even though the names did; the linguistically incoherent but politically coherent motivation of prescriptivists hasn't helped either. For Afrikaans, it seems that the bureaucracy caught up to linguistic reality of divergence and the noticeable loss in "grammaticality" and intelligibility from the point of view of those speaking the "mother language". I'll be damned though if I have to convince myself that bureaucratic approval was needed to validate phenomena that's been inducing linguistic divergence. In addition and as it relates to BCMS/SC, the risk of a foreign learner offending a native speaker is quite low (apart from dealing with thin-skinned purists), despite the insinuation to the contrary by resorting to examples of the trickiness with "French-Canadian" or instances of pejorative ethnonyms devised and propagated by people other members of the affected ethnic group/tribe/speech community. For discussions pertaining to BCMS/SC and the relative non-issue of the symbolism for foreigners see the following: Croatian/Serbian Speaking Croatian to a Serb - Diplomacy Q "Serbo-Croatian" and its descendants The second thing is that meandering into feelings of the speech community is a diversion and politicizes language-learning to a point of being a distraction. Whether someone uses "Northern Lappish" for "Northern Saami" means jack to me. How about giving me some learning material so that I can get down to work? Agreeing to renaming the offended parties in the name of some nebulous idea of ethnic affirmation of distinctiveness doesn't necessarily improve the status of the language for the learner. For example, as far as I know most of the Uralic languages in Russia now conventionally go by names closer to their native appellations (e.g. Cheremis is now Mari (or rather Meadow Mari and Hill Mari), Tavgi is now Nganasan) on the politically-correct logic that the previous names were foreign and/or pejorative and so it would help the self-esteem of these people by renaming their native languages. It's just paying lip-service but working on the symbolic is often just that. Beneath the lofty pronouncements and politically-correct babble, these languages aren't exactly thriving (see here and here for examples of the real problems facing Uralic minority languages). But I guess that all is well because the nomenclature has changed, right?. Come on... Things could have been similar with the Saamic languages, but unlike stopping at a mutually-agreed change in nomenclature there's a solid effort from the local administration AND the relevant speech communities to do the spade work. What counts more than harping on the symbolic is fieldwork, revitalization, and educating children in any Saamic language (e.g. "language nests" in for schoolchildren). This kind of work also leads easily to the production (as well as use) of learning materials that will boost the viability of these languages. I as a geek of Uralic languages have already got benefit from this effort as visible in my modest collection of material in Inari Saami and Northern Saami (it also made me smile to know that a British scholar in 2010 submitted and successfully defended his doctoral thesis which was a descriptive grammar of Skolt Saami). This output means a lot more than some bureaucrat or politician manipulating nomenclature. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5435 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 240 of 299 29 October 2013 at 7:20am | IP Logged | |||||
|
But it's not a question of sacrificing linguistics. It's a question of respect and changing mores. Just recently I've
noticed that the word "gypsy" has been replaced by "Roma" in English newspapers when referring to the nomadic peoples of Europe. The French use the great expression "gens du voyage." Issues of political correctness aside, this is an important question for all multilinguists and polyglots. When you are at a distance from a language you may not be totally au courant the latest uses of words for things like the names of places or people. Just the other day in my own language I heard reference to the new name of an old neighbourhood right here in Montreal. This is an area that has been undergoing some major social changes and the new inhabitants want to get rid of the old name that was associated with poverty and working class. So a new name was invented and is spreading quickly. What should I do? Continue using the old name and show my age and disdain for political correctness or join the trend? 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
