LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 07.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 07.AUG.2000 (02) * 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: Roger Thijs [roger.thijs at village.uunet.be]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 06.AUG.2000 (06) [E/S]

At 16:19 6-8-2000 -0700, you wrote:
 >>>>>>From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Standardisation
Henry wrote:
 >Yes, but you're forgetting we don't say or write Belgien, but België, or
Belgie<
In what varieties of Nederland/Zuidnederlands is there a distinction in
pronunciation between "Belgien" and "België"? Is dropping the "n"
sufficient to make the pronunciations the same?
How widespread is the use of "Bels" for "Belgisch"?<<<<<<<<

To my feeling, only België (pronounced Belgi-e) is correct Dutch. At least
in Belgian standard Dutch. The EGB (Electroniscg Groene Boekje) common for
Belgium and the Netherlands, also has only België.
Bels is dialect (including Limburgish). I use it in my Limburgish as well
for the country "België" as also for the adjective "Belgisch".
For the country one also hears in South-Brabantish "De Belgiek".
South-Brabanders often add an article to names of places, e.g. they would
say:
"Hij komt uit __de__ Limburg", while we (in Limburg) just say "Hij komt uit

Limburg".
Regards,
Roger
r.thijs at ieee.org

----------

From: HS Brandsma [hsbrand at sloep04.cs.vu.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

koartby skreau Ron

[snip]
> 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.

One remark about this: _uu_ for [y] is not a case of French influence,
it's just a consequence of language change.
Old Germanic _hu:s_ became [hy:s] in the Franconian/Frankish dialects
preceding Dutch. This was already the case in Middle Dutch. All
conservative dialects of Dutch that do not have diphthongisation to
_ui_ still have [y], never [u] (except in relic words).
(Note that the spelling _ui_ used to be used for [y:] but changed its
meaning when the sound changed, and the same happened for _uu_ as
well.)
The only varieties that have [u:] in the word for _house_ are Frisian,
Saxon and Limburgish ones.
So the meaning of uu just changed when the sound changed.
The same story applies to _oe_ for [u].
When [u] changed to [y], there was a chain shift that caused most
dialects to change old long [o:] (as in *bo:k) to [u]-like sounds,
mostly falling diphthongs. Old long o: (in some dialects still
present) and the sounds [u.@] or [u] that stemmed from it were written
with _oe_, where the e just signals lengthening, as does i sometimes
(as in _ui_, note also spellings like Oirschot (instead of the
expected Oorschot), where this habit persists).
This way of writing [u]-like sounds is quite old, early mediaeval.
(old Low Franconian had _hus_ and _buok_, no doubling of vowels, and
uo for the diphthongised long o:)
So in Middle Dutch we find spellings like _huys_ and _boek_ but they
were pronounced more like [hy:s] and [bu. at k]. So we didn't change the
spelling but changed the interpretation, as did the English, eg.

Groetnis,

Henno Brandsma

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: Dutch loanwords... or not...

Hi list,

I was re-reading the "schriefwiezer" (spelling recommendation) for my
dialect
(Twente Low-Saxon). I knew it was Dutch-oriented, but then I came across
this
fragment:

   Toonloze klinkers in leenwoorden
   In een groot aantal uit het Nederlands afkomstige woorden worden
toonloos geworden
   lettergrepen gespeld met de oorspronkelijke klinker. Bijv. model,
politie, fatsoenlik,
   toneel, natuur, muziekfornuus, laweain, gordien.

Where model->model, politie->police, fatsoenlik->decent,
toneel->play/acting,
natuur->nature, gordien->curtains. What muziekfornuus means I have no idea,
probably
someone tried to be funny and made up a word (like "kujrdroad" for
telephone, or
"pleerieser"
for a motorcycle). Same goes for "laweain", which probably means "lawaaien"
(make a
noise)
although that isn't even a normal Dutch word... Let alone Low-Saxon.

Well, maybe 1 or 2 of them are real loans from Dutch, but I wouldn't say
words like
"model",
"politie" or "natuur". You find those in many languages, so it might as
well be our own :)

Furthermore, including words like that and stating they're loans, doesn't
make a credible
"schriefwies". Maybe to people who want to have some "fun" with the
language, but not to
me.

Don't know if this is of any interest, but it's my 2 cents worth...

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

John Feather hef schreven:
>
>Henry wrote:
>>Yes, but you're forgetting we don't say or write Belgien, but België, or
Belgie<
>
>In what varieties of Nederland/Zuidnederlands is there a distinction in
>pronunciation between "Belgien" and "België"? Is dropping the "n"
>sufficient to make the pronunciations the same?
>
Belgien simply doesn't occur in Dutch (or in my variant of Low-Saxon for
that
matter). But you're right about dropping the n, then it sounds the same as
België.
I'm a lazy writer and prefer not to write umlauts, so I just write Belgie.

>How widespread is the use of "Bels" for "Belgisch"?
>
I think that's confined to the south of the Netherlands, or maybe even
Brabant. My
ex-girlfriend was from West-Brabant and she used Bels sometimes.

Ron hef schreven:
>
>Henry, you asked above:
>
>> what is then the difference between "ue" and "uy"? To me they
>> both sound the same, unless "ue" sounds like the short "u" in Dutch.
>
>Henry, please read what I said in response to John Feather's question
under
>today's issue entitled "Orthography".  Much of it applies here, and I do
>not want to bore you and others with repetitions.
>
>I strongly suspect that in your dialect, as in Dutch, there is no
>short-long pair /ü/-/üü/.  However, since you are keen on helping to
create
>a standard orthography for Low Saxon (Low German) *as a whole*, it is
>essential that you familiarize yourself with the phonemic inventories of
>pretty much all dialects, at least dialect groups and sub-groups.  If you
>do not, your graphemic inventory may not suit several dialects.
>
That's why I'm reluctant on starting this myself, as I fear I'm not
familiar enough
with all the dialects. But if no-one else does it, I guess it's left up to
me...

Anyway, we do have a pair like /ü/-/üü/, only the /ü/ is pronounced like
Dutch short
"u" (as in "dus", "pus", "klus"), and /üü/ like either /üü/ or /ü/. It
isn't a one-on-one
relationship however. We use "u" or /ü/ where you have /ü/, and we use /üü/
or /ü/
where you have /üü/.

>The short/long pair /ü/-/üü/ occurs in the majority of Low Saxon dialects
>in Northern Germany, more in those dialects that tend toward the high
range
>of short vowels where other dialects have mid-level short vowels; e.g.,
...
>
>high-level-type dialects:
>Putt -> Pütt, kinnen, vun, up
>
>mid-level-type dialects:
>Pott -> Pött, kennen, von, op
>
Mine could be typed as mid-level then, although we use "van", instead of
"von".
Whether "van" is a Dutch influence, or "von" a High-German one, or neither,
I don't
know.

>However, also the mid-level-type dialects have the /ü/-/üü/ opposition
>(though less frequently).  Thus both types of dialects can have for
>example:
>
>short: _lütt_ (little), _Tünn_ (_Tunn_ ~ _Tonn_ [barrel])
>
>long: _Lüüd'_~_Lüü_~_Lüe_ (people, folks), _he tüünt_ (he fantasizes/tells

>tall stories)
>
You don't hear "lütt" much here, mostly we use "klein", but if we use it,
we would
pronounce it with the Dutch short "u" again. And "lüü" isn't pronounced
with either
/ü/ or /üü/, we use some sort of superlength short Dutch "u", maybe like
the "ö" in
"söken" (to search).

>Any good writing system represents length if a language has phonemic
length
>distinction.  I suggest you must have for Low Saxon (Low German) letters
>for these (here *phonemes*, not suggested graphemes):
>
>short:
>i      ü           u
>e     ö           o
>ä*         a
>
>(* only if you want to represent umlauting of /a/, as in _Wand_ > _Wänden_

>(~ _Wännen_ ~ _Wannen_) 'wall' -> 'walls' -- otherwise _Wand_ > _Wenden_
(~
>_Wennen_ ~ _Wannen_))
>
ä would be consistent, wouldn't it? I mean, we have the pairs u->ü, o->ö,
so a->ä
would fit in nicely. Added to that, "ä" sounds just a little bit different
than "e".

>(** Some dialects do and other dialects do not distinguish /oo/ and /ou/;
>e.g., in _so_ /zoo/ 'so' vs _School_ /Soul/ 'school' respectively.)
>
>Not all dialects may have all of the above, but your wrriting system must
>be able to represent them if necessary.
>
Well, what you're saying here is basically that one that doesn't
distinguish, should
make /oo/ out of /ou/. But I could turn that around, by saying that one
that does
distinguish, could decide when to pronounce "oo" like /oo/ and when to
pronounce it like /ou/. Much the same as when in my dialect I have to
decide
whether to pronounce "ch" as "k" or leave it as "ch". For instance I write
"school",
but I pronounce it as "skool" (actually even a little bit different than
that, but it's for
the purpose of the "k" that I write "skool").

What I'm saying here is, should we try our best and try to represent any
sound any
dialect may have, and by that try to make any distinction any dialect may
have, or
should we try ty find forms that anybody could find themselves in, and
leave it up
to the reader how to pronounce something, like in "school"/"skool"?

>Another thing you need to think about is how you want to deal with the
>labial consonants.
>
>(1)
>Most dialects have medial _-v-_ (e.g., _Heven_ 'sky', _Avend_ 'evening',
>_Leven_ 'life') where some others (especially those around the lower
>reaches of River Elbe) have medial _-b-_ (e.g., _Heben_ 'sky', _Abend_
>'evening', _Leben_ 'life').  Do you want to let everyone write it as it is

>in their dialects?  Or do you want to write _v_ and let people pronounce
it
>either as [v] or as [b], or as voiceless [v] in some dialects of the
>Netherlands?  You cannot use _b_ because there are rare instances of
medial
>/b/ in _-v-_-type dialects.  You cannot write it _w_ because both types of

>dialects tend to have words with medial [v], e.g., _ewig_ (not *_ebig_)
>'eternal'.  Or you could come up with a whole new symbol to represent both

>_-v-_ and _-b-_.  (Old Saxon had a bared "b".)
>
Please let's not use any funny characters... Remember, most of use will
type it
and most of our keyboards don't have any of those, so we'd have to go to
great
lengths to get those characters in our emails and documents. I'd rather try
to
stick to the latin alphabet and not even use umlauts.

As for the "v" vs "b" question, I think I'd use "v" and let everybody
decide how to
pronounce it. Mainly because I tend to write "avend" and "leven", yet I
pronounce
them like "abend" and "lewen". I think one should only write "b" where some

dialects pronounce it as "m". Come to think of it, sometimes in my dialect
people
use 2 forms of a word, like "even" and "eben", which are then pronounced
like
"ewen" and "emen". Now how are we going to solve that???

>(2)
>How will you represent initial /f/ if you use it consistently?
>International usage, also Frisian usage, suggests _f-_; e.g., _fadder_
>'father', _fruend_ 'friend', _fun_ ~ _fon_ ~ _fan_ 'of'.  Pre-contemporary

>Low Saxon texts, in keeping with Lowlandic tradition, have almost always
>_v-_; thus, if you adopted it, you'd write _vadder_ 'father', _vruend_
>'friend', _vun_ ~ _von_ ~ _van_ 'of'.   The latter does not clash with
>medial _-v-_.  The rule would be "Initial _v_ is pronounced [f] (also
>following prefixes like _be-_ and _ge-_); medial _v_ is pronounced [v] (or

>[b])."  This is assuming that you want to write it consistently one way or

>another, and I suggest you should. In native or nativized German words you

>have both _f_ and _v_ representing [f] in initial position (e.g., _Fohlen_

>'foal', _Vogel_ 'bird), _v_ representing [v] only in non-nativized
>loanwords (e.g., _Violine_ 'violin').  This inconsistency has been adopted

>in Low Saxon (Low German) writing in Germany.  In fact, (surprise,
>surprise!) your choice depends on the spelling in German!  Thus _Fahlen_
>and _Vagel_ respectively.  In fact, following German spelling, you
>distinguish between _för_ 'for' and _vör_ 'before', 'in front of', even
>though they are pronounced alike, unlike in German (_für_ and _vor_
>respectively).
>
Good point. I don't know, I tend to vary between "f" and "v", although when
I think
about it a bit, I think we may have to write "v" consistently. Also for
historic reasons
like you pointed out, as I recall an old sentence we learned in school
which had
the word "vogela" (birds) in it. But maybe there are cases where "f" would
be
justified.

I have one point though, in the word "schrievwies" (of all words...) you
have a
medial _v_, but it's pronounced [f]. Therefore many times people (me too
until very
recently) write it as "schriefwies", but I admit that's weird, because in
the
conjugation of the word "schrieven" you never come across the form
"schrief". In
my dialect you do have "schriv" or "schrif", as in "he schriv" (he writes),
which is
pronounced somewhere in between [f] and [v], but I think that's not a
reason to
write "schriefwies", as the first part of the word suggest the 1 person
singular
form, which is "schriev".

>You see? There are many questions and many choices, and there are more
>where these come from.
>
When writing this email another one came up. In my dialect we often add an
"e" to
the end of a word. Above I mentioned that we pronounced "school"
differently. We
say "scho(o)le", a bit like Swedish "skola". We also have it in "fietse"
(bike, initial
f?), "flesche" (bottle), "banke" (couch), "duyre" (door), and more. Does
that occur
in other dialects as well? And how do you suggest we should represent that,
if we
should represent it at all? Do we write the "e", and assume people who
don't use
it will just skip it when pronouncing, or should we just ommit it from
written
speech, and assume people who do use it, will add it when pronouncing?

Another one is how to distinguish between the "ee" in "been" (leg) and
"beer"
"beer". The "ee" in "been" is pronounced as a superlength "i" and as "ie"
in
Drentish dialects. I'm thinking of writing leg as "bien", would that be an
option?

I do know there are a lot of questions like this, but I think eventually we
can still
come up with something we can all use. I think we'll have the biggest
problems
with including Plautdietsch. Do we want that, and is it even possible?

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Henry wrote:

> Anyway, we do have a pair like /ü/-/üü/, only the /ü/ is pronounced like
Dutch short
> "u" (as in "dus", "pus", "klus"), and /üü/ like either /üü/ or /ü/. It
isn't a one-on-one
> relationship however. We use "u" or /ü/ where you have /ü/, and we use
/üü/ or /ü/
> where you have /üü/.

In that case you need to decide whether to represent this short vowel as
_ü_, _ue_, etc., or as _ö_, _oe_, etc.  You'd have to determine what is
phonologically and supra-dialectally better, and if one or the other would
clash or coincide with another phoneme represented in that way.  And, of
course, you'd have to consider ease on the part of the reader and the
writer.  Either way, I think it'd be all right.

> >high-level-type dialects:
> >Putt -> Pütt, kinnen, vun, up
> >
> >mid-level-type dialects:
> >Pott -> Pött, kennen, von, op
> >
> Mine could be typed as mid-level then, although we use "van", instead of
"von".
> Whether "van" is a Dutch influence, or "von" a High-German one, or
neither, I don't
> know.

Yes, _van_ used to be more wide-spread than it is now.  However, it is
still used in numerous dialects in Northern Germany as well, not only in
those near the Netherlands border but also in pockets as far east as
Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg (e.g., Finkwarder/Finkenwerder) and even in
Mecklenburg.  I'm not sure if _von_ and _vun_ are very old and are German
loans or not.  What I do know is that, probably under German influence,
they have been spreading.  The orriginal form seems to be _van_.  However,
I don't think that _van_ ~ _von_ ~ _vun_ presents any comprehension
problems, and they may vary in writing, even if there were a standard
variety.

> Well, what you're saying here is basically that one that doesn't
distinguish, should
> make /oo/ out of /ou/.

That's really up to debate.  If in a dialect there's only /oo/, I don't see
anything wrong with writing it _oo_ there.  This is given that we are
aiming at a standard *system* that allows for dialectal differences and can
be used for all dialects.

> Much the same as when in my dialect I have to decide
> whether to pronounce "ch" as "k" or leave it as "ch". For instance I
write "school",
> but I pronounce it as "skool" (actually even a little bit different than
that, but it's for
> the purpose of the "k" that I write "skool").

Again, if you just want to have a standard *system* there can be variation
between writing _sch-_ and writing _sk-_, depending on the dialect, as it
has been done up to now.  If there should be a standard language variety,
you'd have to decide which one to pick.

> Come to think of it, sometimes in my dialect people
> use 2 forms of a word, like "even" and "eben", which are then pronounced
like
> "ewen" and "emen". Now how are we going to solve that???

Same thing again.  They can write _emen_ if they write "dialect."

> (Old Saxon had a bared "b".)
> >
> Please let's not use any funny characters...

I couldn't agree more.  I just needed to mention the option.  And it was
supposed to be "*barred* b", not "bared b".  (There seems to be something
wrong with my "/", "?", "f" and "r" on one of my PCs.  They either don't
come up at all, or they come up double.  A problem with my keyboard?)

Remember that some people, like you, avoid "special" characters like the
plague, and then there are others that delight in them (the more diacritics
and "different" or even unique characters the better).  Some people in
Germany want to use _å_ for the long /a/ in Low Saxon (Low German), where
others write _a(a)_ or _o(o)_.  Of course, the underlying vowel is /aa/.
Spelling it _o(o)_ overlaps with the genuine /oo/.  The character _å_ is
unnecessary.  I asked one of the users for the reason, and it turned out to
be this: (1) to make it different from German, being borrowed from
"fellow-Nordic" languages (Scandinavian), and (2) it better describes the
semi-rounded [Q:] sound that differs from the German long /a/.  What he
neglects to understand and to acknowledge after I explained it is that (1)
even though many Germans think so, _å_ is not pronounced like that in the
Modern Scandinavian languages (but more like [o]), and (2) by the very act
of chosing a "strange" character you, who wants to distance yourself from
it, actually *allow* German to call the shots, i.e., you still see "High"
German as some kind of measure to either approximate or depart from.  If
you truly see Low Saxon as a language in its own right, you should not care
if certain characters coincide with Dutch or German and that in those
languages they represent different sounds.

> I have one point though, in the word "schrievwies" (of all words...) you
have a
> medial _v_, but it's pronounced [f]. Therefore many times people (me too
until very
> recently) write it as "schriefwies", but I admit that's weird, because in
the
> conjugation of the word "schrieven" you never come across the form
"schrief". In
> my dialect you do have "schriv" or "schrif", as in "he schriv" (he
writes), which is
> pronounced somewhere in between [f] and [v], but I think that's not a
reason to
> write "schriefwies", as the first part of the word suggest the 1 person
singular
> form, which is "schriev".

The root of the word is /Sriiv-/, hence _schrieven_.  Low Saxon, like
German and Dutch, has a general "final and preconsonantal devoicing rule",
as also seen in alternations like _Kleed_ [klEIt] 'dress' vs _Kleder_
['klEIdA].  This applies to /-v/ also; hence _schrieven_ ['Sri:v=m] 'to
write', _(ick) schriev'_ [Sri:.v] (~ _(ick) schrieve_ ['Sri:ve]) '(I)
write', _(hei) schrivt_ (~ _(he) schrifft_) [SrIft] '(he) writes',
_Schrievwies'_ (~ _Schriefwies'_) ['Sri:fvi:.z] 'orthography'.  It is only
that *Dutch* spelling happens to neglect to show the underlying /v/ in
these cases but to write "phonetically", while otherwise it does not do so
(e.g., _kleed_ [kle:t] vs _klederen_ ['kle:d at r@(n)]).  This is a case of
inconsistency in Dutch, and you should consider not importing that into Low
Saxon orthography.

> When writing this email another one came up. In my dialect we often add
an "e" to
> the end of a word. Above I mentioned that we pronounced "school"
differently. We
> say "scho(o)le", a bit like Swedish "skola". We also have it in "fietse"
(bike, initial
> f?), "flesche" (bottle), "banke" (couch), "duyre" (door), and more. Does
that occur
> in other dialects as well? And how do you suggest we should represent
that, if we
> should represent it at all? Do we write the "e", and assume people who
don't use
> it will just skip it when pronouncing, or should we just ommit it from
written
> speech, and assume people who do use it, will add it when pronouncing?

If you write "dialect", then just write it (as _-e_ or _-a_ for all I
care).  A standard language variety is a different matter.  In that case
you'd have to decide whether to write _schole_, _wise_, _wege_, etc., or
_school_, _wiis'_, _weeg'_, etc. ('school', 'manner/way', 'ways')  I assume
it seems more logical to write the former, older way and allow people to
omit the _-e_ in speech.  Bear in mind, though, that spelling can and will
eventually influence pronunciation.

> Another one is how to distinguish between the "ee" in "been" (leg) and
"beer"
> "beer". The "ee" in "been" is pronounced as a superlength "i" and as "ie"
in
> Drentish dialects. I'm thinking of writing leg as "bien", would that be
an option?

In most dialects these are pronounced as [bEIn] and [be:A] respectively.
There are quite a few dialects (e.g., several Northern Low Saxon ones,
including Groningen dialects) that say [bAIn] for the former.  Clearly, the
underlying representations are /bein/ and /beer/ respectively; thus it
follows that they be written as _bein_ and _beer_.  As for the /ei/ written
_ei_, there is dialectal variation in pronunciation: [bEIn] (as though
English _bane_) ~ [baIn] (as though English _bine_) ~ [bi:n] (as though
English _been_) (or is it [bi. at n]?).  As for _beer_ some pronounce it
[be:A], others [bE:A].  And there is the sequence /eir/.  In most dialects
it's pronounced [EIA], in others, especially around the Lower Elbe, [i:A],
hence _peird_ [pEIAt] ~ [pi:At] 'horse'.  Likewise the sequence /öür/:
[{oe}IA] ~ [y:A], e.g., _hoyren_ [h{oe}IAn] ~ [hy:An] 'to hear'.  What are
they in your dialect?

> I do know there are a lot of questions like this, but I think eventually
we can still
> come up with something we can all use. I think we'll have the biggest
problems
> with including Plautdietsch. Do we want that, and is it even possible?

Sure!  It may be written "funny" now (because of slavishly following "High"
German conventions and trying to be "phonetic," just like so may other
dialects do).  But if you go to the phonemic level there aren't really any
major differences.

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