LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.2000 (05) [E]

Sun Aug 6 03:01:14 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 05.AUG.2000 (05) * 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" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.2000 (02) [E/S]

Henry hef schreven/writ:

> I'm a software engineer / web developer, I think I have enough
skills ;)

Well I was sort of talking generally, but in that case your only
problem will be to ensure your site is kept reasonably simple for us
no-hopers!!

I think, speaking generally, websites are an important topic in the
context of developing minority languages and links between related
languages (as is the case with this list).

The Ulster-Scots Heritage Council was formed in 1992 yet is still
conspicous by its complete absence on the Net. In fact, they want to
target a website at North America, which, they believe, will require
50,000 pounds (around 75,000 US dollars) "before Americans will even
touch it".

This is quite frankly outrageous (not least because they have had
several Americans informing them otherwise!) The aim of a minority
language/culture website is to inform, quickly and succinctly. Fancy
pictures are all very nice, but if they take centuries to download and
get in the way of the real info, there ain't really much point!

Besides, I wouldn't doubt that most people who visit, say, the
LOWLANDS-L site, come with the express intention of finding one
particular piece of information. This means easy navigation is
everything.

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

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.2000 (02) [E/S]

Ron hef schreven:
>
>> Don't let our German friends hear it Ron...
>
>Och, Henry!  I hope you don't seriously think I care if they do or don't.
>I left tribalism back on the shore of my native pseudo-continent Europe.
>Netherlands?  Northern Germany?  Hey!  They are just arbitrarily separated

>parts of my native cultural and linguistic homeland.
>
Of course not! I don't care much either, but when creating something you
have
to take your prospective users in consideration (or your name has to be
Bill
Gates). Maybe to us it's arbitrarily separated, but sadly enough, most
people
don't think that way.

>> I already kinda "stole" the use of "uy"
>> from your Leeglands Schriivwiis, because I like the neutrality of it
(not
>> Dutch "uu" or German "üü").
>
>Steal away!  In my private spelling I use _uy_ only for the *long* /ü/,
>_ue_ for the short one.
>
I believe in some cases there is a length difference between west and east
(or north for that matter), so I tend to not write that difference. This
leaves it
open for the reader wether to make it long or not. But I'm open for other
ideas about that.

>I use _oe_ for the *short* /ö/, _oy_ for the
>diphthong /öü/, which is pronounced as [OI] in the Low Elbe dialects and
>[œY] (similar to Dutch _ui_) in most others.  For the low monophthong I
use
>_eu_ as in Dutch, but I'd be willing to reconsider that.
>
Ouch. I always hate it if people use "eu" to write Low-Saxon...
But that's just because it looks so Dutch to me. Are there any historic
reasons
to use "eu"? As far as I know, the "eu" in Dutch might well be a French
influence
(wild guess).

>weik (week) [vEIk] ~ [vAIk] 'soft'
>weg (Weg(g)) [vEC] 'way'
>weeg' (Weeg) [ve:.G] ~ [vE:.G] ~ wege (Wege) [ve:ge] ~ [vE:ge] 'ways'
>
How do you differ between the e-sound in "weeg" (ways) and "beer" (beer)?
Just being curious, as I have no idea myself.

>> But on the other hand, I don't really like "ii", it looks
>> weird to me. How did you come to that?
>
>Simple: Logic and consistency.  The convention is to write long vowels
>*double*.  Right?  (In most Lowlandic systems they are written double in
>closed syllables and single in open syllables; thus e.g., _Klöön_ 'chat'
vs
>_klönen_ 'to chat'.  An exception is the writing system of the _Loccumer
>Richtlinien_, mostly used by church people, that, like North Frisian,
>writes long vowels double in all cases.)  So we get ...
>
>aa
>oo
>uu
>ee
>öö
>üü
>but ...
>ie !
>
>.... where _ii_ would be consistent with the rest.  It is also used in
North
>Frisian (Germany) where it is fully accepted.  Henry, this is where Dutch
>got _ij_ (< _ii_, which used to be pronounced [i:] before the
>diphthongization shift)!  So, I see nothing wrong with _ii_, strange
though
>it may seem at first sight.  The spelling _ie_ is *German- and
>Dutch-specific*.  Do you *have* to follow those two?
>
It is true that it would be logical and consistent, but has this ever been
in use?
I mean, I'm all for things that are logical and consistent, but I don't
want to go
about and inventing things. It may also be true that it's German- and
Dutch-
specific, but does that mean we can't use it? If something is Norwegian-
and
Danish-specific, do the Swedish refrain from using it? I mean, we do have a

relation with Dutch and German. Maybe "ie" is rather inconsistent and
illogical,
but it's not the only curiosity that grew in history. Added to that, I'd
sooner write
"y" than "ii". Is "ii" used in other languages?

>And there is another benefit to _ii_: the spelling _ie_ can then be used
>for the sequence /ie/, as in _Belgien_ ['bElgiEn] 'Spain'.  In the current

>systems, _ie_ stands for *both* /i:/ and /ie/, e.g., _Kanienken_
>[ka'ni:nkEn] 'rabbit' vs _Belgien_ ['bElgiEn] (not *['bElgi:n]) 'Spain'.
>Some Low Saxon writers in the Netherlands borrow the extra letter _ë_ from

>Dutch, thus _België(n)_.  In "my" system, none of this is necessary:
>_kaniinken_ vs _Belgien_.
>
Yes, but you're forgetting we don't say or write Belgien, but België, or
Belgie,
as I'm a lazy typist :) I don't think the ending "ie" is a problem, because
it's only
used in cases like "Belgie". People know how to pronounce it.

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Henry, you wrote:

> >Steal away!  In my private spelling I use _uy_ only for the *long* /ü/,
> >_ue_ for the short one.
> >
> I believe in some cases there is a length difference between west and
east
> (or north for that matter), so I tend to not write that difference. This
leaves it
> open for the reader wether to make it long or not. But I'm open for other

> ideas about that.

I'm not talking about dialect-specific vowels lengthening by rule that some
people in the Netherlands write double although it is redundant (e.g., /al/
_al_ ~ _aal_ [?a.l] 'already', _land_  ~ _laand_ [la.nt] 'land',
'country').   I was talking about phonemic length difference that is pretty
much the same in all dialects (e.g., _pot_ [pOt] 'pot' vs _poot_ [po:t]
'paw').

> Maybe "ie" is rather inconsistent and illogical,
> but it's not the only curiosity that grew in history. Added to that, I'd
sooner write
> "y" than "ii".

I'm not married to it, but it does make sense, *and* it was the *original*
way of spelling the long /i/ in "Low German" (i.e., Dutch and Low Saxon).
No, just because _ie_ is used in German and Dutch doesn't mean that Low
Saxon (Low German) can't use it.  It's only that creating new orthographies
offers opportunities to remove some dead wood.  In Dutch, "ii" developed
not only into "ij" (as eventually made standard in Dutch) but in older
Dutch and still in Afrikaans also into _y_, originally with umlaut dots
(_y_ < _ij_).  Hence the use of _y_ in medieval and early post-medieval Low
Saxon.  (Check the texts I sent.)  Of course, Westerlauwer ("West") Frisian
(of the Netherlands, too, uses _y_ for the long /i/.

> Is "ii" used in other languages?

In North Frisian, as I mentioned, and outside Germanic and Indo-European
also in Finnic: Finnish, Karelian, Estonian and Livian.

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