LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 04.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: Thomas [t.mcrae at uq.net.au]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (04) [D/E/S]

> From: Lowlands-L <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (04) [D/E/S]
Andy Eagle wrote.....
> Gin its no tradeetional its been creepin intae the langage o illiterates for
> a gey an lang time.
>
> Andy
Aye Andy but all the examples you give are from very old material that was
written before the more formalisation of language structures in the British
Isles. We can find similar examples to those you quoted in England but it
remains totally archaic. You will not find those types of things in latter
day works such as those of Burns, Hogg, or any other writers I know of
thereafter.
In view of the standards of education that have been extant in the British
Isles for over a century and for much longer in Scotland I stand by my
criticism. Couls you be advocating that we use singular and plural when
speaking English and ignoring the rules when we speak Scots?

Regards
Tom
Tom Mc Rae
Brisbane Australia
"Oh wid some power the Giftie gie us
Tae see oorselves as ithers see us"
Robert Burns--

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

> From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

I should clarify this message wasn't actually from me, it was from
Henry, though I think it became clear anyway (I don't usually reply to
myself!).

> 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.

This is true. There is an 'Academia Real' which sets official
standards on the language, but it is only exists for people to
ignore - another example of native speakers having the final say. And
since native speakers still use two past subjunctives (most use them
interchangeably, though one is clearly gaining the upper hand), that's
the system they use.

> 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.

Well, absolutely. It is nigh impossible to teach even the most willing
learner to write your language if you have no standard to go on!
Furthermore, you can't even teach the willing learner to speak the
language really, because there's little agreement on grammar -
something can mean one thing on one farm and something completely
different on the next. (The way I teach the classes, incidentally, is
to introduce the literature rather than try to teach people how to say
'hello')

> 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).

Yes, well if I may say so, you seem like one of these all too rare
people who is interested in action rather than words! I see no reason
you shouldn't do basically what I did. Two years ago I got in touch
with a few people I knew and set up an e-mail group with seven of us
to discuss Ulster-Scots. They got in touch with contacts on other
lists they were on, I got in contact with mine, and now we have an
automated list of nearly 200 and a fully-fledged website to accompany
it - all entirely voluntary, but quite effective. You need to do this,
but with the express intention that people would contribute short
stories or articles to such a list (or even a website) in Low Saxon in
the knowledge that their writing system would be assessed and that the
ultimate aim would be guidelines for a written standard, which you
could also discuss between you - in other words, you would need
members prepared to adapt their own writing systems for the sake of
the ultimate goal.

This requires no technical skills at all, incidentally. You simply
receive the mails and forward them to the members of the group (you
should be able to set up groups on your e-mail software so that you
can just type in the group name).

Of course, part of the point of lists such as LOWLANDS-L is to assist
with such projects, so you can always keep in touch with us for ideas!

Best wishes,
--------------------
Ian James Parsley
parsleyij at yahoo.com

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (04) [D/E/S]

Ron,

I did indeed write:

> > It would be a big mistake to leave standardization to a bunch of
> > faceless academics.

To which you replied:

> Then how about including only academics who do have faces?  And I
guess the
> requirement of pocessing faces should apply to non-academic
participants as
> well.  Or do only they come with faces by default?  I really don't
understand
> why academic experts should be stereotyped as some type of unfeeling
enemies
> and should be assumed to be incapable of considering emotional and
traditional
> aspects in their approaches.  Likewise, I don't see why
non-academics should
> be stereotyped as ignorant, emotion-driven bumpkins incapable of
accommodating
> logic and scientific considerations.  Collaboration is of the
essence, and
> mutual prejudices are not conducive to its success.

Oh the curse of the e-mail strikes again!! I didn't mean for a second
to imply that all academics are faceless (though I can understand why
you may have inferred it), merely that, as you say, the academics
involved "must have faces". I may yet, of course, become an academic
myself, so it wouldn't be in my best interests to dismiss all of them
as faceless!

Mutual prejudices are not conducive to success, no, and you are right
to point out they work both ways. They do exist, though. I know one
academic who simply refuses to listen to anybody's point of view
concerning Scots if they have no linguistic qualification. On the
other hand, I know plenty of Scots activists who refuse point-blank to
involve academics on the basis they "don't know anything about the
real world" (read as: they might actually uncover the truth and that
wouldn't suit our aspirations - these are therefore the "faceless
activists", if you like). There is no doubt in my experience that,
when it comes to language planning, academics and activists on the
ground do seem to live in two parallel universes, and that ain't
healthy.

The point I was trying and probably failing to make was that the
academics involved would have to be sympathetic to the task at hand -
it is no good involving academics simply for the sake of doing so
(which is a risk with Ulster-Scots at present, where the only
Ulster-Scots speaking linguistic academic I know of does not want to
be involved, but the powers that be want to involve some academics,
seemingly just to give their projects a bit of credence). Even English
has had harm done to it by those I refer to as "faceless", who sat
around a few centuries ago with their Latin grammars inventing rules
for English (such as the 'split infinitive' nonsense). On the other
hand, it would appear languages such as Frisian and Catalan have
gained from sensible academic and activist involvement, a balance
along the lines you mention.

Best wishes,
-----------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

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

Dear Lowlanders,

In my last posting I wrote about Turkic orthography reforms.  Even though this
is by no means Lowlandic, I was hoping that it would illustrate what I mean by
language planners working around, or better to say "with", popular
preferences.  In the case of Uyghur there was a return to the Arabic script
after government-dictated and -engineered experiments with Roman- and
Cyrillic-based scripts. (This rejection may also be read as a rejection of
Soviet and Chinese cultural interference and political rule in general.)  In
the case of Azeri and Turkmen, a switch to a Turkish-like Roman-based system
was chosen because of a feeling of connection with Turkish (though not
necessarily with the Turkish state).  I believe the reasons that Uzbek
(closely related to Uyghur), Kyrgyz and Kazakh (all used much farther in the
east) eventually joined the Roman-based script reform has two main reasons,
(1) switching from Cyrillic to Roman is much easier than switching from
Cyrillic to the more cumbersome Arabic, though perhaps more beautiful script,
and (2) joining the Roman-script alliance is conducive to (re)establishing
some sort of pan-Turkic alliance of languages in a continuum that are mutually
comprehensible to varying degrees, especially if they all use the same basic
writing system.  Another reason may be the erosion of Islamic identity among
several generations who grew up as atheists under Moscow's Marxism-based rule.

In contrast, the Mongolian Republic, which had been using a Cyrillic-based
standard orthography for a Modern-Khalkha-dialect-based standard language
since 1941, is now in the process of switching back to the
vertical-script-based orthography, apparently without any "modernization,"
i.e., adaptation.  This writing system is far more difficult to learn than the
Cyrillic-based one.  It does not distinguish back vowels and front vowels, /t/
and /d/, /k/ and /g/, and /q/ and /G/, but it has initial, medial and final
variants of letters (like Arabic).  Reading it is therefore particularly
difficult, and there are lots of homographs (e.g., _dala_ and _tala_ being
written alike).  On top of it, spelling is essentially based on the language
of the 14th century.  For example, what is now pronounced as [xu:n] or [xy:n]
(written as the equivalent of _xuun_ in Cyrillic-based spelling) is written
_köbegün_ 'son' in the traditional system.  Thus,the spelling of every newly
encountered word must be memorized, while this was not the case previously.
In other words, this older system is very much like that of English (e.g.,
[wEId] _weighed_).  Apparently, the main reasons for the switch back to an
older, more cumbersome and flawed system are (1) rejection of Soviet dictation
(i.e., national reassertion), (2) reconnection with the supposed glory days of
Mongolia (Gengis Khan, et al.), (3) more general access to older literary
works, and (4) connection with "Inner" Mongolia, i.e., the Chinese-ruled part
of Mongolia where there are more Mongols than in the Republic and where the
old orthography had never been abandoned.  I do not know if any academics were
involved in this and had any objections; I only assume that such objections
would not have carried any weight.  It will be very interested to see if and
how this switch will work, techically speaking a case of regression requiring
far more educational resources than previously.  So far, there seems to be
very slow progress.  Cyrillic-based texts are still being written and
published, and the vertical script serves mostly decorative purposes.

Theoretically speaking, planning of a general, standard Low Saxon (Low German)
orthography should take into consideration the close genealogical link that
exists between Low Saxon and Dutch (which is closer than the one between Low
Saxon and German), much like Azeri and Turkmen spelling reforms consider
genealogical proximity to Turkish.  In fact, medieval and early post-medieval
Low Saxon and Dutch texts utilize very similar spelling systems.  If we follow
through with this line of reasoning, we would have to conclude that Low Saxon
and Dutch spelling should share the same basic principles.  If this is
desirable is another question.  We can argue (1) that Dutch spelling has gone
down the French way in more recent times (e.g., _eu_ [ø:], _uu_ [y:], the
latter of which necessitated the peculiar invention _oe_ [u(:)]), perhaps in a
deliberate move away from German spelling, and (2) that there is a desire
among at least some Low Saxon speakers of the Netherlands to retain and
emphasize a demarkation line between their language and the predominant Dutch
language.  On top of it, making Low Saxon (Low German) speakers in Germany,
thus the majority of speakers, adopt a Dutch-like system would stand hardly
any chance (especially _z_ [z] < _z_ [ts], _eu_ [ø:] < _eu_ [oI], _uu_ [y:] <
_uu_ [u:], _oe_ [u(:)] < _oe_ [ø:] ~ [œ:], which in German Low Saxon are now
written as _s_, _ö(ö)_, _ü(ü)_ and _u(u)_ respectively).  Many of the
German-based devices used for Low Saxon in Germany would probably be
unacceptable to speakers in the Netherlands, especially the wretched rule of
using an "h" as a lengthening sign in words that have German cognates with
this device.

So, what to do?  Perhaps one possibility would be to base a new Low Saxon
orthography on early, pre-Neerlandization (pre-French-influence) and
pre-Germanization principles, i.e., roughly pre-17th-century ones.  If so, I
would suggest that only the basic *principles* be used, not the
inconsistencies and other flaws we find in early texts.  What do others think
about this?

This would, of course, require a thorough study of the orthographies of older
texts.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

***

Some samples:

1225:
   § l. Jewelk man den man sculdeget mach wol wegeren to antwerdene, man ne
scüldege ine an der sprake, die ime angeboren is, of he düdisch nicht ne kan
unde sin recht dal to dut. Scüldeget man ine denne an siner sprake, so mut he
antwerden, oder sin vorspreke von sinent halven, als it die klegere unde die
richtere verneme.
   § 2. Hevet aver he in düdeschem geklaget oder geantwerdet oder ordel
gevunden vor gerichte,  unde mach man's ine vertügen, he mut antwerden, in
düdischem, ane vor dem rike, wende dar hevet manlik recht na siner bort.

1411:
   An den erbaren man Hildebrand Veckinchusen to Brueghe sal disse bref.
Minen wilghen deinst nu unde to allen tyden bereit an mynen leven vrunt
Hüdebrant Vockinchusen. Weten schole ghi, dat ic juwe breve wol vornomen hebbe
also gy my schri-ven, dat gi my senden in schipper Noytte Stevenson 5
Hemborger tunnen engevers. Disse vorscreven schipper es, Got si ghelovet, myt
leve wol overkomen unde dit gud en is noch nicht opgheschepet; wanner God
gifft, dat et myt leve opkomet, so wil ic gerne dat beste darby doen myt alle
mynen vormogen na utwysinghejuwer breve.

1435-1480:
   1) Vortmer junefrowen, de vnechte boren sind, de scholen noch myd smyd noch
myd pailen to der kerken gan, men slichter kledere sunder smyde vnde voder
moghen brouken.
   2) Geleuet jemande, vmme dagelikes loen to arbeidende, de mach kömen vppe
de Trostesbrugge, sik dar togen vnde zeen laten, dar en islik vnser borger mit
den ouereenkomen mach, na gelege vnde wodanicheit des arbeides vnde erer
vordracht to lonende, dat eneme jeweliken vorbenomet frig stan schal sunder
broke.

1494:
   Men de slanghe was sneydigher wen alle de derte der erden, de ghod de here
maket hadde; de sede to deme wive: "Worümme hefft juw god ghebaden, dat gy van
alleme holte des paradises nicht eten schölen?" Deme antwerdede dat wyf: "Van
der vrucht der böme de dar synt yn deme paradyse ethe wy, men van der vrucht
des holtes dat dar is in deme middele des paradises heft uns god ghebaden dat
wy nicht eten schölen, unde schölen dat ok nicht antasten, lychte darümme dat
wy nicht sterven."

1530:
   Wo vaken de Armen tho besökende sin. Idt schoten de kistenheren alle 8 dage
edder 14 dage so vaken ydt nödt si mit dem Superattendente tho den krancken
gan un dat sülvige gelt weicker yn der kästen si tho behove un na nottruft der
armen vordelen un uthgeven un neinerleye weys beswerlich hyr ynne finden laten
/ Wente dat ys dat rechte werk / dat wi unsem negesten schüldich sin / dat wil
Godt ook van uns hebben.

1562:
   Ick spreke als myns Grotvaders older Möme sprack / Wat kan man bringen her
vür Argument und Gründe / Darmit jemand van juw richtig bewisen künde, De
Mening / dat van der Hochdüdschen Sprake mehr Als van unser Nedderdüdschen tho
holden wehr? / Unse Sprake blifft altidt bestendig und vest / Als se ersten
was / even so is se ock lest / Juwe verendert sick alle vöfftig Jahr / Dat
könen de Schrifften bewisen klar.

1582:
   Hefft uns Eyn Erbar Radt uth bevel H. Berent Pavels und H. Crystoffer
Butsov anseggen taten Van wegen Eines Mannes Welker begert hirtho Rostock
Wytte Sepe Tho Maken Dewyle he den Nycht de Sepe maken kan. Sünder Moth dar
Weyde Aske tho hebben und dewyle den Yden tunne dersülvigen Aske Einen
Lupesken Schilling tho Depgelde gifft also hefft ein Erbar Radt sine
gelegenheyt angesen und Eme Nagegeven. Dyt Erste Jar em de tunne Aske tho
hebbende und tho gevende Einen Soslinck.

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