[lbo-talk] as if on cue

[123hop at comcast.net]

The last time I was in Romania (1985), I happened to spend a few days staying with peasants in the countryside. It came as a shock to me that I could not understand what they were saying. The local dialect was completely incomprehensible to me. I mean, Italian or Spanish were far more comprehensible than a Romanian dialect. (Dante noted the same thing in De Vulgaria.)  They, on the other hand, could also speak "Romanian."

So to say that a nation is defined by a common language is to say more that a nation is defined by the language of the ruling elites. Or as I heard it once, that a "language" is a dialect with an army and a navy. To which one might charitably add: and a literature.

What' I'm saying, I think, is that the point about a common language is tautological.

Joanna

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> 
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 1:57:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] as if on cue 

Doug Henwood 
Forgot the part about the shared lie about the past and a unifying hatred of 
the neighbors. 

=== 

I'd never come across this, but it is an extremely useful perspective. 
Stalin's common language and common culture simply don't fit actual history. 
I came across something in the last year or so on France which indicated 
that it did not have either a common language or culture, not even an 
approach to such, until imposed in the late 19th-c. I can't remember any of 
the details, so this isn't too reliable but it seemed persuasive at the 
time. Something like that would explain the eagerness of the French army to 
find an internal enemy in Drefuss. 

Carrdol 

___________________________________ 
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk