LL-L: "Software localization" LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 02.AUG.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Software localization" LOWLANDS-L, 01.AUG.2000 (06) [E]

Ron hef schreven:
>
> > I think it's time someone steps forward and says "Like this!".
>
> Good for you!  (or "Good on ya!" for Australian ears)
>
> I don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm and start sounding like a naysayer
> myself (for I am *not*), but let me give you a word of warning based on
> experience: language planning, especially orthographic planning, or even the
> mention of it, tends to bring out people's most conservative sides, and
> emotional reactions, oftentimes knee-jerk reactions, tend to lead initially
> rational thought processes and discussions down the path to some sort of
> battle field on which reason does not have the upper hand.
>
This is true, but that's what I want to avoid by not including too many people
at first and just presenting the result to "the masses". People will grow
accustomed to it. Eventually, the complaints will cease. You mentioned the
Dutch reforms. Yes, I've heared a lot about that, but now everybody just uses
the new spelling system (as far as they've had the opportunity to learn it)
and
nobody's complaining anymore. I think we'll hear some people complaining,
maybe even more so, because we're dealing with people with different loans
from different languages, which don't have to be eachothers cognates. But I
think eventually, people will just use one or the other in writing, and their
own
loan in every-day speech.

Let's just keep the enthusiasm and go forth, else we'll surely get nowhere!

> it does not really have a clean start.  People have been conditioned to
> seeing its orthography linked to the Dutch and German ones, depending on which
> side of the border they happened to live on.  Thus, for instance, in Germany
> conservatism regarding noun capitalization and other such devices, including
> lengthening "h" and the use of the German-specific and internationally largely
> ignored letter _ß_, affects Low Saxon (Low German) in Germany as well.
>
Maybe a little "propaganda" will have to accompany a standard then.
Maybe before showing people a new spelling system, you have to make
them aware of the situation, make them aware that Low-German really
isn't High-German and that Low-Saxon really isn't Dutch, that it is a
language in it's own right, and that it can do without all the Dutchisms and
the Germanisms.

> (In the predominant German spelling of Low Saxon, the lengthening "h" is to be
> used only where the German cognate has a lengthening "h"; otherwise the
> Lowlandic device is used; e.g., _Paal_ 'pod' [no German cognate] vs _Pahl_ [=
> German _Pfahl_] 'pole', the pronunciation being the same.  In other words, Low
> Saxon spelling is made dependent on "High" German spelling.)
>
Weird... why not spell words the same if they sound the same? I think most
regional writers do at least that.

> > I have no idea which dialect to choose then, but my guess is that it
> > should be a West-Phalian dialect. According to my knowledge (which might
> > be very wrong) the West-Phalian dialect is the one on the German side
> > which is closest to the dialects on the Dutch side.
>
> Even though our Westphalian-Mercian-speaking friends might bite my ankles for
> doing so, I say that that would be a poor choice in my view.
>
> A quick-and-dirty overview of the dialect groups in Germany:
>
> Northern Low Saxon (Low German)
> in the entire northern half of the language area approximately as far east as
> the former East German border (though I personally would include many dialects
> of Western Mecklenburg), probably including the northern Saxon dialects of the
> Netherlands
>
> Westphalian-Mercian (Westföelsch-Märkisch)
> in the southwest of the language area.  The dialects of the southern range in
> the Netherlands (southern Overijssel, northern Gelderland) may be in a
> continuum with this group.
>
> Eastphalian
> east of the Westphalian-Mercian area
>
> Eastern Low Saxon (Low German)
> a catch-all name for numerous dialect groups, most of them based on mixtures
> of imported medieval Western Low Saxon, German and Slavic
> (I consider the northwestern (western Mecklenburgish) ones of this group an
> extension of Northern Low Saxon and the southwestern (western Brandenburgish)
> ones of this group an extension of Eastphalian.  It is farther east that we
> seem to encounter noticeably "eastern" features.)
>
Maybe you could mention Groningen as specifically Northern Low-Saxon, but the
others you included I'd mark as transitional between Northern Low-Saxon and
Westphalian / southern Overijssels (i.e. Twente). I think though that
Gerderlands
is more similar to Northern Overijssels, than to Southern Overijssels, because
they
largely use the same sounds for the vowels (like "föör" and "döör", instead of
"fuyr"/"füür" and "duyr"/"düür").

Added to that, Westphalian and the southern range in the Netherlands isn't
really
one big continuum, but they are the closest thing you'll get, especially the
dialects
just east of the border are almost exactly the same as ours. Just a wee bit of
difference due to a High-German influence there.

> Of these, Northern Low Saxon has the numbers; i.e., it is the largest group,
> and has relatively minor variation within it, i.e., has good mutual
> comprehension between dialects.  As I said, I would probably count the
> dialects of western Mecklenburg as an extension of this.  Also, I consider the
> northern dialects of the Netherlands (Groningen, Drenthe and northern
> Overijssel) a part of it.  An important subgroup within it is the Eastern
> Friesland/Emsland/Oldenburg group spoken in a broad band along the North Sea
> coast, perhaps in a continuum with the said dialects of the northern range in
> the Netherlands.
>
In my opinion, it's not always right to choose the variant that is spoken by
the
majority. If we were to establish a standard just for Low-Saxon on our side,
my
variant would have the most speakers, although I wouldn't choose that, because
it's
at the same time the variant that differs most from the rest. I'd choose
Northern
Overijssels, because that's what most people will understand. Southern
Overijsselers will understand it, because they're accustomed to it and people
from
Drente and Gelderland speak more or less the same. The only exceptions we'd
have to make would be for Groningers, but then again maybe not, because
they're
accustomed to dialects from Drente as well, which might just be enough.

My reason for choosing Westphalian at first was because to me it looked like
it
was more of a centre, like Northern Overijssels is. But if I understand you
correctly, it just isn't.

Maybe we'll have to do a bit more studying before we embark on our little
adventure?
Or maybe this is another option: establishing a somewhat loose standard, more
like guidelines, instead of a harsh standard like Dutch and (High-)German. In
the
software industry some fine strict standards grew out of loose standards based
on
multiple variants. Maybe we can apply the same principle on languages? I think
it
has been over the ages already, but that's just a bold assumption I'm making
here.

What I'm saying here is: let's just throw it all together and see what filters
out.

> Westphalian and Eastphalian are considered difficult to understand by many
> speakers of Northern Low Saxon.  They have "strange" pronominal systems (e.g.,
> _It_ ~ _Inken_ the 2nd polite in Westphalian, and objective _mick_ and _dick_
> in Eastphalian, also distinction between dative and accusative in some of the
> dialects).  There are also "unusual" diphthongs in Westphalian (e.g., _iä_ for
> /ee/, _ue_ for /uu/ and _öe_ for /öö/ or /ee/) which some speakers of Northern
> Low Saxon have told me to be difficult to read.  Eastern Low Saxon dialects
> might be difficult to understand for speakers of farwestern dialects,
> especially for those of the Netherlands.
>
Which is probably the same the other way round. That's why I'm opting for
a "centrum" variant. If you say that's Northing Low-Saxon, that's fine with
me,
but just don't base that on the fact that it's spoken by the majority, because
as
in the example I gave above about a fictive standard on our side, that could
alienate too many people. I think a standard has to be based on what most
people will understand, not on what has the most speakers.

> So, if I had to choose, I would probably opt for some "watered-down" version
> of Eastern Friesland/Emsland/Oldenburg Low Saxon, because I think it would be
> suitable as a bridge across the Netherlands-German border and still be
> understood pretty well by most speakers in Germany.  I would probably "watered
> it down" in the sense of replacing Frisianisms with "mainstream" Saxonisms
> (e.g., _hum_ -> _em_ 'him'), replacing puzzling dialect-specific words (e.g.,
> _Wicht_ -> _Deern_ ~ _Mäken_ 'girl'), perhaps replacing some Dutch loans that
> other speakers don't understand (e.g., _Vietz_ -> _(Faar-)Rad_ 'bicycle'), and
> somehow deal with semantic shifts (e.g., _Tuun_ vs _Gaarn_ 'garden',
> _Ri(e)chel_ vs _Tuun_ 'fence').
>
I think I could largely agree with that. "hum" is sometimes used in my variant
as
well by the way. So is that really a Frisianism? But I agree that it should be
replaced by "em". "wicht", "deern" and "mäken" is all the same overhere,
although
"wicht(er)" is also used for "kind(er)". So I see no problem in choosing on of
them,
which I presume won't be a problem in most cases. It's just like you said
words
like "tuun" and "richel" will give problems. We have either Dutch loans or
different
words for that, for example the Dutch loan "tuin" for "tuun" and "richen" for
"richel".
"richen" is pronounced like "riknche", but with a bit of thought, I think it
should be
written like "richen" (so you see, the written and spoken language really
don't
have to be the same).

Anyway, as words like that will probably form the biggest hurdles, I'm for a
solution
that allows synonyms (be it Dutch/German loans or true Saxon words) to
co-exist.
If we really can get it into swing, some of them will get more mainstream, and
some
of them will perhaps die, except regionally, which is fine.

grooten,
Henry

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: Software localization

Lowlanders,

The discussion about standardization/orthographical guidelines for Low
Saxon
is fascinating, and several excellent points have been made. Once
again, the
situation with Low Saxon mirrors almost exactly the situation with
Scots.

I think I have made my ideas on this subject known to this list in the
past,
but I may summarize them again here, because they are no doubt of
relevance
to the discussion.

Firstly, the process of "standardization" is a gradual one, and often
is
never completed (even in English we have "judgement" or "judgment", and
in
British-English of course "standardisation" or "standardization"). So,
as
several of you have noted, it is often an idea to begin with general
guidelines.

Secondly, it is essential not to equate "standardization" (that is to
say,
the creation of a written standard) solely with agreed orthographical
conventions, particularly in languages such as Low Saxon or Scots. It
is
perhaps even more important to agree on grammatical rules. As was
mentioned,
generally people can understand other people's spellings and usually
also
vocabulary, but if people are using different rules of grammar,
confusion
will result. Besides, it is important that people ensure that Low Saxon
does
not just become German or Dutch with a few funny words thrown in and
the
occasional odd spelling convention (and the same with Scots vis-a-vis
English) - grammatical rules must also be observed. This is tricky even
for
the most fluent Scots or Low Saxon speakers, who simply aren't used to
putting the way they actually speak into print.

Thirdly, it is important not to neglect traditional forms. In fact,
where
there has been general agreement on a convention, it should usually be
applied to the present also, particularly with spellings. Even if an
old
spelling does not really reflect a modern spoken form, it should be
retained
for two reasons: 1) it is as likely as anything else to be consistent
and 2)
an important part of a language is its literature (in the broadest
sense),
and it will be easier for native speakers and learners alike to enjoy
the
literature if spellings and, to an extent, grammatical rules remain the
same
(at least in writing). The one exception to this is if a "traditional"
rule
or spelling has been agreed merely to make the language easier to
understand
for speakers of another language (e.g. speakers of English in the case
of
Scots). Of course a written standard should be relatively easy to learn
in
that it should be consistent, but there are numerous examples in
traditional
Scots literature of English grammatical rules or spellings being
applied -
e.g. Burns' infamous "Scots wha hae" where "Scots that haes" would be
more
natural to a broad Scots speaker. I think to sum this up, it was once
suggested to me that you can define a language, in Europe at least, by
saying that it is a variety where the spellings do NOT always reflect
the
spoken form - precisely because the spellings are traditional and
therefore
reflective of a distinct literature. Where something is written down in
such
a way as to reflect exactly the way it is spoken, it is then a dialect,
because this reflection will use the spelling system from the
standardized
version of the language. For example, I believe the Scots spelling of
"Belfast" should remain "Belfast", because Scots speakers will know how
"Belfast" is pronounced in Scots. However, many people here insist on
"Bilfawst". But this is defeatist, the spelling "Bilfawst" reflects how
"Belfast" is pronounced in Ulster-Scots *to an English ear*, using
English
conventions. In fact, the unstressed 'e' in Ulster-Scots is *always*
pronounced nearer /i/, and the stressed 'a' is always long. Scots
speakers
know this anyway!

Fourthly, I have suggested before that a standard should be based on a
sole
dialect, albeit with some "watering down". Trying to mix dialects leads
to
inconsistency, and it also means hardly anybody supports the result (at
least not initially). At least if you go by one dialect, some speakers
will
support it, and the result will be consistent. Of course, attention
should
be paid to all dialects if possible - for example in Scots it makes
sense to
use the spellings 'abuin, guid, luif' because they reflect several
different
pronunciations in different dialects, but at least they are consistent.
A
speaker of any single dialect will know his/her local pronunciation. I
have
also admitted, however, that finding one single dialect even with a
comparatively small language (in terms of number of speakers) may be
difficult. The solution may be to agree orthographical guidelines for a
few
major dialects (taking account of what is happening elsewhere), and
then try
to form a consistent merger. In any case, there shouldn't be a major
problem
if conventions differ slightly between major dialect groups (in Scots,
say,
Ullans/Ulster, Lowlands/Southern, Doric/North-eastern and possibly also
Insular), in the same way as conventions differ slightly between
"Hollands"
and Flemish or British- and American-English. As ever, general
agreement on
grammatical conventions is the key (though even some of these would
have to
differ - certainly in Ulster we would always say 'pit tha licht oot',
whereas I believe in Scotland this is nearly always 'pit oot the
licht';
there would also be major differences in past tense forms, in Ulster we
would barely recognize 'fand' from 'finnd', for example).

Finally, in Ulster we have a slight lead on this, because
standardization
usually comes about merely by a lot of formal writing, where people
simply
tend towards 'rules' and 'spellings' that are already there. In
Northern
Ireland many formal texts have, by law, to be translated into Scots.
Inevitably what appears in them will have a major bearing on the
eventual
written standard (as often because it is obvious what should *not*
become
standard as what should!!)

I hope this has been of some assistance.
Best wishes,
-------------------
Ian James Parsley

-----

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Software localization

Dear Lowlanders,

Even though I agree with Ian in that wild dialect mixing would be likely to
lead to wild confusion, I also feel that adherance to a single dialect in
standardization is too restrictive and is also likely to cause resentment on
the part of speakers of other dialects.

I feel that Henry's idea of an initially "soft" standard (if I understood him
correctly) is a good one.  I imagine that this would entail leaving speakers
and writers options, hoping that one or the other would eventually prevail or
that there would be tolerable coexistence for all eternity, as long as people
can understand each other.  Is this not also the case with Nynorsk, the
smaller but not lesser Norwegian language?  Is it not or did it not used to be
a loose standard or set of guidelines that leaves choices between elements
derived from various dialects and thus allows for dialectal "color" within the
use of this loose standard?  A long time ago I spoke with two Norwegian
writers who used Nynorsk.  One of them was a recent "convert," having
previously written in the predominant Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian) language.  She
complaint about the absence of strict rules which forced her to draw from her
own dialect and also sometimes caused her writing to have Bokmål
interference.  The other writer, who had always written in Nynorsk, argued
that the high degree of flexibility of Nynorsk was its strength, that it
should be enjoyed as long as people still understood each other.  The way he
saw it was that he was writing in his home dialect that he had merely adapted
for a more general readership.

I agree with Ian that grammar standardization would be an important
component.  However, this soft approach would solve, at least initially,
dilemmas such having to decide for instance which present tense plural verbal
suffix to use in Low Saxon: (1) -t (e.g., _wie hebbt_ 'we have', _jie leert_
'you study/teach', _se kaamt_ 'they come') or (2) -en (e.g., _wie hebben_ 'we
have', _jie leren_ 'you study/teach', _se kamen_ 'they come'), distribution
being somewhere in the vicinity of 50%-50% among the dialects.  In this
approach you would allow both forms as a matter of choice.

I think that such a more flexible approach would also have some psychological
benefits.  What I have gathered from discussions is that many or most Low
Saxon speakers seem to fear that standardization would result in the death of
their dialects and of the writing in their dialects, that some committee of
bureaucratic-technocratic language planning dictators and engineers would come
up with some weird, unnatural set of rules to be shoved down everyone's
throats.  Perhaps their fears are not totally unfounded.  A more flexible
approach that accommodates choices might at least lessen this perceived blow.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================