minorized languages in Europe:
Nov 6th, 2000, 01:57 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm presently reading "The Isles" Norman Davies' history of the United Kingdom and Great Britain. I highly recommend it to anyone contemplating a visit to the Isles. Davies makes some interesting comments about the evolution of language in Britain, prompted by the question of why Germanic invasions of Gaul did not kill off the Gallo-Roman language that subsequently became Francais, but did destroy the Celto-Roman language in Britain. He opposes the idea of total ethnic cleansing of the Celto-Romans by Germanic invaders or the idea that 6th century invasions by Saxons, Jutes, Friesians and Angles simply overwhelmed the resident population. He makes a couple of points of interest: over the course of many centuries the Germanics' agrarian settlement practices eventually surrounded and overwhelmed the native culture; Germanics were apparently less susceptible to a bubonic plague that decimated the Celto-Romans; the introduction of Christianity and literacy standardized the dissimilar languages of the Saxons, Jutes, Friesians and Angles and finally the bulk of the Germanic forces that settled in Brittania did so in areas populated by Latin speaking natives rather than Celtic ones. I thought you might find this mini-history of the beginnings of English to be of interest.
Nov 6th, 2000, 08:30 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
My understanding was that the latin language survived in Gaul (now France) and not in Britannia, due mainly to the fact that the latin civilisation was much more deeply rooted in the roman gaul (more exchanges with the rest of the empire,a more important part of it than a more or less borderland brittania, a totally "latinized" population, a more complete administrative structure which was partially kept alive by the germanic "invaders", etc..). And also the fact that the local population being much more important in Gaul than in Britania, the germanic newcomers were a tiny minority.I'm not a specialist at all, but I would tend to compare this situation with England after the Norman conquest...for some centuries, the rulers still spoke their own language (as late as the IX° century, the "french" kings spoke their german dialect), but by the end, the language of the majority of the population prevailed.
Nov 7th, 2000, 02:13 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting, I finally have some sort of answer to a question I always had: why weren't the Franks (from whom the name 'France' derives) and the Normans (= men from the North), both Germanic invaders, able to keep their languages? Why were they latinized, whereas the Angles imposed their language on the Celts? I still wonder though that there are no large traces of anything celtic in the French language. Could it be that Latin-based languages tend to prevail for grammatical or practical reasons?
Nov 7th, 2000, 12:10 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mike, <BR>I think the answer as to why the Gallo-Roman language prevailed over the Germanic and the Celto-Roman did not is due to the fact that Gallo-Roman had a written language based on Latin. The Celts at the time of the Germanic incursion had no written language; those Britons with a knowledge of Latin consitituted a disproportionate small part of the populace, predominantly in southern Britannia. The Germanics never attempted significant incursions into what is now Wales, Scotland or Ireland, only the Vikings some 500 years later did.
Nov 7th, 2000, 02:46 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
<BR>There's no practical reason for latin to prevail over a germanic dialect. Concerning Gaul, you musn't imagine huge numbers of germanic invaders chasing the gallo-romans, seizing their lands, and destroying anything. In fact, these germanic tribes were limited in number, and had already close relationships with the roman empire. Most of them were already a part of the roman army, serving as auxiliaries troops to defend the borders (against other germanic invaders..), and have been granted lands to settle inside gaul. When the empire collapsed, they seized the power, the public properties (there was extended land belonging to the roman state)and probably in a lot of places major private domains.But they kept what seemed useful to them in the former imperial system (like tax-collectors!!), used the litterate gallo-romans for they (limited) administrative needs, etc...For a long time, a distinct gallo-roman upper class coexisted with the new germanic rulers, with its own ways and even laws.Then, they slowly mixed-up. The prestige of the roman empire, the familiarity of these germanic tribes with the existing system, the importance of the latin-speaking church and religious people (Gaul was already christianized by this time), and of course the lack of a written form of the germanic dialects, insured a dominant role to the latin language, which anyway was the language of the wide majority of the people. I believe that a lot of these elements were non-existent in Brittania. <BR> <BR>Concerning the celtic language, it is usually assumed that it has already dissapeared at this time in Gaul (the celtic language in Brittany is supposed to have been reintroduced there by celtic fugitives/invaders from Brittania (hence the name of this region). However, there's some words (but not so much) of celtic origin in the french language, and the name of a lot of places has celtic roots, too...I've no idea why the latin prevailed over the celt. The lack of a written form of this language probably played an important role, as someone pointed out. Probably also the importance of exchanges (including trade and people)during this period (as opposed to the middle-age), the presence of various immigrants from all parts of the empire, the "universal language" role of latin.... <BR> <BR>Concerning the normans, they weren't germans but danes (usually called vikings). Some generations ago the king of France gave to one of their chiefs a duchy which will be known therafter as "Normandy" in exchange for peace. But the very limited danish population who settled in Normandy quickly forgot its customs and language to adopt the local ways. So, when William invaded England, even while he was a direct descendant of this danish chief, he was before everything else a french noble, and probably most of his men had no links at all with the Danes. And they spoke the local french dialect they imported in England. <BR> <BR>Sorry for the long post...
Nov 7th, 2000, 03:49 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
To answer another of Ben Haines's questions, in New York, Yiddish is very much alive in the Hassidic communities, often as a first language. These communities are quite insular, and many in them, born in bred in New York, speak English with noticeable Yiddish accents.
Nov 7th, 2000, 05:05 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
What about Ladin and Friulan? (Ladin is not the same as Ladino.) Ladin is or was a Romance dialect or minor language spoken in parts of Switzerland (or maybe it was parts of Italy near Switzerland). I don't know if it's still in use and I never hear anything about it any more. Friulan is a dialect in NE Italy (Friuli region). It is Romance, but I think it has some Slavic and Germanic vocabulary mixed in. I read that it's dying out, but I don't know much about it and am curious.
Nov 9th, 2000, 02:20 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, Ladin (Ladino in Italian) is a romance language that has survived in the three contiguos dolomitic valleys of Gardena, Fassa and Badia. <BR>Yes it is still in full use. If anything my impression (from Rome) is that it is more alive and kicking than in the recent past, as it is to be expected in the current climate of heightened (and even esasperated) attention towards regional realities throughout all of Italy. <BR>Two of the ladin valleys (Gardena and Badia) are in the autonomous province of Bolzano/Bozen, and here ladin is recognized as one of the three linguistic groups. As I recollect, in the province elementary school (until age ten) is teached in the native language of the children; only afterwards the choices are restricted to German or Italian (with the one not being used for teaching being taught as a mandatory second language).I think, but I'm not sure, that this is a relatively recent developement. Honestly I don't know the situation in Val di Fassa which instead is in the province of Trento. <BR>In Gherdeina/Val Gardena about 80% of the population is ladin, the remaining 20% is split in a 2 to 1 proportion between the German and the Italian linguistic groups.The ladin prepondarance is even more marked outside the initial segment of the valley, which has been somewhat 'colonized' by german speakers: 84% in Ortisei, 93% in Santa Cristina, 88% in Selva Gardena. As is usual with Italian dialects in a countryside setting, ladin is the language used by the locals amongst themselves. Town border posts on the roads are nowadays trilingual, you'll drive into Ortisei/St.Ullrich/Urtisiej for instance, which is not the case, I believe in say the '60s. <BR> <BR>Romansch instead is another romance language, quite similar to ladin, that has survived in similar circumstances in the Swiss canton of the Graubunden, its areal roughly corresponding to the Engadina Valley, I believe. <BR>For a curious coincidence I spent the first two weeks of September 1999 in Livigno, making frequent day trips to Engiadina, and the last two ones in Urtisiej, and I was impressed by the similarities betweeen Ladin and Romansch, though the two areas are farther away. <BR>Trying to inject travel content in this rant I want to say that Val Gardena is lovely. I was returning there for the first time since I was a kid in the '60s and I was afraid to found that it has been ruined by execessive developement. It was not the case! <BR>By the way September has been reconfirmed to be an ideal month for the Dolomiti (as well as the Alps in general): I got only two days of serious rain in a whole month, while in Livigno I've been told that August has seen rain practically every day (and you can told it from the glacier conditions...). Ok, both month's weather has been on the exceptional side, and you can certainly got a front in with continuous rain and even snow at 1500m in mid September, or a sunny ten days in a stretch in August, but on average September in the Alps is much more stable than August. <BR>Even more striking was the price factor. I stayed in Urtisiej the last two weeks of September and I payed 250.000L /week for my apartament (sized for two people), while the rate for the last week of August would have been about 1.000.000L ... <BR> <BR>Marco <BR>
Nov 9th, 2000, 06:03 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think "minorized" languages are ones that have been suppressed, or at the very least treated as substandard because of the political or cultural dominance of speakers of a different language. An example, I think, would be Basque. I think this is a relatively recently "invented" word, because I cannot find it in the dictionary, but I have seen it used, and not just here. I think it is based on the notion that the dominant group's ACTIONS caused the language to become the non-dominant language, and I guess the newly invented verb for that kind of action is "minoritize." <BR> <BR>Thanks for the information on Ladin. (Yes, I know that it's called "Ladino" in Italian. What I meant in my previous question is that it's not the same as the Ladino spoken by some Sephardic Jews and discussed in Ben's and Ilisa's postings above.) <BR> <BR>What about Friulan, spoken in NE Italy (Friuli-Venezia Giulia?) but dying out, I think. I'm not sure, but I think it's related to Ladin and Romansch, i.e. Rhaeto-Romanic variety of romance language (?) <BR> <BR>I really like this topic, but didn't have much personal knowledge to contribute except a little about Occitan and Sicilian. Therefore... all these questions from me....
