LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (03) [E]

Thu Aug 3 18:31:15 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 03.AUG.2000 (03) * 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: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

Gooden dag Leeglanders!

Ian hef schreven:
>
> Well, this happens in "major" languages two - consider the past
> subjunctive in Spanish, where two equally acceptable forms remain.
>
Looks like the Spanish have been sensible :) It's alright if you prefer
(and even use) only 1 form, yet if you understand the other, then what
good is it, if the other is "taken out" of the language? That could
possibly even hinder mutual understanding. So I'm all for open standards,
which only state which options are available, but don't set limits on them.

> > 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.
>
> Well, during the "propaganda" that Henry rightly spoke of, it would be
> necessary to indicate that the standard would be for use only a) in
> formal documents (such as government publications) or b) where writers
> of two very different dialects were seeking to understand each other.
> In informal writing (poems, stories, letters to speakers of similar
> dialects etc.) local conventions would remain.
>
And for people who have no idea how to write their language of course.
If you can get these people to use it, you'd have a user base.

Ian hef ok as reaktie op 'n eerder bericht van mie schreven:
>
> > Is there any authoritative body that could govern this? Should be an institute
> > or something that is willing to make the effort in a short amount of time, and
> > willing to possibly make some radical changes (else we'll get nowhere again).
>
> Like I say, native speakers must have the final say. If not, well, we
> all know what's happening to High German at the minute. If the native
> speakers are ignored, they will get irritated, even with "major"
> languages! So I fear "radical" changes aren't always a good idea.
>
I agree that native speakers should have a big say in these matters, but what
I
meant was more like they'd manage it, not really creating something
themselves.
More like seeing to it that enough people give their input, and that they stay
sensible and not go into endless discussions and things like that.

With "radical changes" I meant things like using different representations of
vowels for instance (for the sake of typing), or the omission of the capital
of
nouns (High-German influence). Of course you'd have to explain it to people,
instead of just presenting it to them.

>
> > If not, is this the right place to start, or should I take it someplace else?
> > (trying to get something going here, instead of just dreaming about it...)
>
> Does a magazine for creative or factual writing in Low Saxon exist in
> your area? Or an e-mail list? That's what I would do.
>
Nothing I'm aware of. And if it would, they'd probably have their red, white
and
blue caps on... with an orange touch... You, and Ron, make me think I
should start something myself. Anybody got any tips on that? I'm willing to
pull the cart a little here, but I'm afraid it's not one of my strong points
(yet).

Ian hef ok schreven:
>
> Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl] hef schreven/writ
> > Therefore we'd have to avoid Dutch and/or German
> > influence as much as possible, else we'll end up with a standard we'll
> > never get recognition (let alone status) for, just because the spelling system
> > is the same.
>
> Well, sort of. On the other hand, you can't decide to use a certain
> spelling in standard just because it's different from Dutch or German.
> It needs to be part of a consistent system, preferably one based on
> traditional literary texts.
>
Of course, if something would make sense based on existing literature,
we should keep it, and not throw it away because it's too close to Dutch
or German. We'd only make a fool out of ourselves, for not being ourselves.
Being yourself often means not basing your actions on those of others.
I guess the same goes for languages, follow your own path, if it happens
to cross that of others, walk down it hand in hand and say goodbye if the
paths diverge again. Don't go stepping beside it, just because somebody
else is walking where you'd like to walk. You'd be recognising their
superiority as a matter of fact, and I believe that's not something we want
to do here...

> The only time a group of academic-types would really
> have to be involved would be with grammar - although even then you
> would have to be careful. Those who based English grammar on Latin
> were hardly a prime example!
>
We'd also make a fool out of ourselves if we'd base our grammar on that of
another language... What idiot thought of that? We'll have to analyse our
own speech and see what history gave us.

Ron hef schreven:
>
> Henry, you asked:
>
> > How do you think institutions like the INS would react if someone
> > came up with something like we talked about?
>
> I have no idea.  Hopefully someone else on the List does.
>
> I think a more immediate question you ought to ask is if they accept the
> dialects west of the border as a part of their "Low German".
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Perhaps you should ask the INS about their position in the matter.  This would
> be good since you are a Low Saxon speaker in the Netherlands.  The
> standardization issue could be addressed after they have stated that they
> include the dialects of the Netherlands (and also Mennonite Low Saxon
> [Plautdietsch]), if they will.
>
Sound quite sensible to me, I'll have to make sure they include us as well,
before I go about, do a lot of stuff, and in the end walk into a "German"
wall...
So point 1 is to get them to include the dialects on the Dutch side of the
border. Does anybody have any ideas on what else we should get them to
state, or at least to think about?

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Ian and Henry wrote:

> > Like I say, native speakers must have the final say. If not, well, we
> > all know what's happening to High German at the minute. If the native
> > speakers are ignored, they will get irritated, even with "major"
> > languages! So I fear "radical" changes aren't always a good idea.
> >
> I agree that native speakers should have a big say in these matters, but > what I
> meant was more like they'd manage it, not really creating something > themselves.
> More like seeing to it that enough people give their input, and that they > stay
> sensible and not go into endless discussions and things like that.

Personally, I feel that there needs to be some sort of balance between
"scientists" and "laypeople", with more emphasis on the former.

Linguists may tend toward creating something that is scientifically sound but
is utterly unacceptable to the ordinary speaker who come with expectations
based on what they are familiar with.  Phonologists, on the other hand, would
hopefully bring laypeople's ideas out from the dark ages.
Judging by past creations of Low Saxon (Low German) orthographies by people
who had no knowledge of 20th century phonology, "laypeople," having no idea
what a phoneme is, lean toward wanting to create something like a phonetic
script, a system that shows all sorts of redundant phonetic detail specific to
a given dialect.  This is detrimental to the process of creating an
inter-dialectal writing system.  On top of it (strangely, considering "High"
German precedence to the contrary, e.g., _Kleid_ [klAIt] -> _Kleider_
['klaId at R] vs _Zeit_ [tsaIt] -> _Zeiten_ ['tsaIt at n]), the predominant Low
Saxon systems in Germany go so far as to represent final devoicing by rule in
writing; e.g., _Tiet_ [ti:t] 'time' but _Tieden_ ['ti:d=n] 'times', which is
correct as _Tied_ [ti:t] 'time' -> _Tieden_ ['ti:d=n] 'times'.  Linguists
would have to convince lay panel members that this type of approach is
unreasonable.

People who have no scientific component in their reasoning about orthographies
tend to err on the side of conservatism and narrow-mindedness and tend to opt
for systems that are far too complex, cumbersome and inconsistent, far too
difficult to learn.  Therefore, I feel that scientific guidance and tweaking
are essential.  Rejecting inclusion of "faceless academics" therefore seems as
ill-advised as rejecting inclusion of users of the language who are not
familar with scientific principles.  Input from both sides is essential.

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
 =======================================================================