LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 14.AUG.2000 (06) [E/S]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 15 03:55:42 UTC 2000
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.AUG.2000 (06) * 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: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, [E/S]
Sandy wrate:
> Subject: "Standardization"
>
> I've just returned home after two weeks and have been reading through
the
> thread on "Standardization". I was very interested in Henry's suggestion
> of "soft" standardisation and Ron's example of this involving Nynorsk.
The
> case of Nynorsk is interesting because it shows that a _permanent_
> standard can be established which need not necessarily be _inflexible_.
It
> seems to me that this is just what we need in Scots to solve the dual
> problem we have of on the one hand everybody not agreeing on spellings
> because of dialectical differences, and on the other hand avoiding a
> "rolling standard", ie one where an interim standard is established with
> temporary compromises, which reassures nobody.
A gree wi ye on a 'staundart' that isna ower strict, but A aye still think
wir ettle shoud be tae meenimize the amoont o differerin spellins sae faur
as we can.
> It has been slowly dawning on me over the past few months as I've been
> pondering how to standardise the texts on ScotsteXt, that the first step
> in educating people in a standard is not to specify how things _should_
be
> spelled, but to specify how they _shouldn't_ be spelled, and why.
A jalouse exponin hou things shoudna be spelt is mair eith said nor duin.
Monie fowk aye still writes thair ain dialect/pronunciation in a
'pseudo-phonetic' mainer aften walin 'esoteric' spellins juist tae mak whit
thay'v wrutten leuk sae faur remuived fae Inglis as thay can. (A wadna
plead
innocent here!). Aften howpin that akis whit thay'v wrutten disna leuk awfu
lik Inglis it maun be a 'language' an no a 'dialect'. Siclike disna maiter
tae me. It's ma tung an a pairt o ma cultur A want tae uise - e'en in a
wrutten form.
> For example, I recently bought a map of Scotland in the Scots language
> which turned out to have many spellings that I could only mark down as
> incorrect. For instance, the Muirfit Hills was spelled "Mairfuit Hulls".
In
> a standard (even soft standard) Scots, this can only be said to be
> incorrect. "Mair" favours certain dialects unnecessarily, since "muir"
> could be written and its pronunciation understood even in the dialects
> that "mair" favours. "Fuit" isn't said anywhere in Scotland, this is just
a
> nonsensical analogy with good/guid which doesn't apply to foot/fit. With
> "hulls" a single dialect spelling has been favoured only in order to be
> different from English. The end result is a spelling which makes no sense
> in _any_ dialect (whereas "Muirfit Hills" can be read correctly in all
> major dialects).
A wunnert aboot thon cairt an aa.
> In a soft standard, my suggested spelling "Muirfit Hills" could be read
> correctly by anybody, and NE writers could write "Muirfit Hulls" if they
> really did feel uncomfortable with "hills" and the rest of us could
still
> read it and accept that that was just the writer's dialect. However,
_no_
> native speaker could feel comfortable with "Mairfuit Hulls" - it's
Central
> + nonsense + NorthEast dialects. So even in a "soft" standard there are
> right and wrong ways to spell things, and we really need some sort of
> guidlines to say what _not_ to write, and enough of the "why" for the
> writer to understand how to write a nationally-accessible Scots with no
> more of his own dialect than necessary.
As A aften said afore, on ma wabsteid the bitties anent spellin an
pronunciation gangs intae the maiter bi wey o the sindrie dialects.
Sae gin ye veesit ma wabsteid (www.scots-online.org) juist sneck on the
pairt o the Scotland cairt whaur ye hail fae. The spellins in than
expoondit
throu the phonology o yer ain dialect. (O coorse 'dialects' chynge ilka ten
mile doun the gate sae it's onlie a roch guide)
> I think guidelines prohibiting incorrect spellings like this would be
far
> more effective in giving everybody confidence in producing correct Scots
> than producing some sort of absolute standard that practically everybody
> would feel uncomfortable with. We wouldn't get all Scots speakers
writing
> exactly the same, but we could get all Scots speakers writing to a
> standard that all other Scots speakers would feel comfortable reading, to
> the extent that they could even read out loud in their own accent, even
> though the dialect might have unfamiliar vocabulary and constructions.
Some o the ensaumples that A can think on whaur mair nor the ae spellin wad
be aaricht is in wirds lik:
bowk [baVk] (vomit) is some airts this diphthong /aV/ haes been vocalised
tae /o/ afore /k/ sae boak wad be aaricht anaa. Whit aboot fowk (folk)
shoud
it be spelt folk or foak?
In some NE dialects wirds lik wame [wem] (belly) the /e/ becomes /Ei/ for
ordinar efter /w/ an a daurk /l/. This micht occur efter ither consonants
e.g. claes, gape, plate, wade, wait an wale etc.A wad thole spellins lik
wyme etc. tho thay are kenspeckle NE merkers.
<i> or <u> in will, wird, winter, whistle etc.
It past tenses o verbs efter /s/, /S/ an /r/ some fowk haes /t/ an ithers
haes /d/ sae wisst/wissed (wish), fasht,/fashed (bother), speirt/speired
(inquire) etc.
Wiss o coorse mich be wrutten 'wuss'.
The spellins that brings the maist raivelment wi thaim is <ea, ee, ei, ie>.
Monie fowk taks <ie> tae be the digraph for /i(:)/, sae whan writin Scots -
mair tae the pynt thair ain dialect o Scots in ilka wird whaur /i/ kythes
<ie> is uised. Tho in monie o thae wirds thon vouel isna pronounced /i(:)/
in ither airts.
A spell the follaein wirds wi <ea> :
Akis The digraph <ea> is for ordinar pronounced /i(:)/ in South Central an
monie Northern dialects an /e(:)/ in Nor' East Central dialects an Ulster.
O coorse dialect boonds isna stieve sae this aften varies atween /i(:)/ an
/e(:)/ in monie wirds e.g. weans, beak, beast, easter, meat, treat, weak,
season, seat, sheaf, reaper, beat, cheap, cheat, ream (cream) etc.
For thaim that pronounces siclike /e(:)/ uisin <ae> wad shaw the
pronounciation an ither fowk wad recognise the wirds eith eneuch.
The pronunciation /E:/ micht occur afore /r/ in wirds lik: earlie, earn,
hearth pearl an search etc.
A spell the follaein wi <ei>:
Akis the digraph <ei> is for ordinar pronounced /i(:)/ in South Central,
Ulster an monie Northern dialects an /e(:)/ in Nor' East Central dialects.
O coorse dialect boonds isna stieve sae this aften varies atween /i(:)/ an
/e(:)/ in monie wirds. e.g. breid, breir, deid, deif, deil, gie, heid, leid
n., meidae, meir, peir, threid, pheisant, spreid, sweir, weir etc.
<ie> is a variant o <ei> uised medial afore <l(d)> an <v> e.g. bield ,
chield, elieven, sieven, shield an shielin etc.
<ei> afore <ch> /x/ is maist aaweys /i/ e.g. heich, dreich etc.
<ie> for diminutives an adjectives etc.
Some wirds wi <ie, ei> is aye /i(:)/ akis thare's juist the ae spellin in
the CSD an A'm no gaun tae mak up a new ane!
A spell the follaein wi <ee>:
breest, creepie, dee, dee'd, dreep, ee, een, flee n., flee v., freend,
greeshoch, keek, keeng, lee n., lee v., leeve, weedae, weel adv., weet v.,
releegion, leeberal etc.
Akis the digraph <ee> is pronounced /i(:)/ is aa dialects (Whiles ane or
twa
exceptions).
Compear the abuin spellins tae the entries in the CSD!
Sae fae thon wi see that thaim that aye uises <ie> is thirlt tae Sooth
Central Dialects an disna tak tent tae onie ither dialects.
Weel, eneuch for the nou!
Andy
----------
From: Thomas [t.mcrae at uq.net.au]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 13.AUG.2000 (10) [E]
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 13.AUG.2000 (10) [E]
> From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
> Subject: "Standardization"
Sandy wrote....
> I think guidelines prohibiting incorrect spellings like this would be
far
> more effective in giving everybody confidence in producing correct Scots
> than producing some sort of absolute standard that practically everybody
> would feel uncomfortable with. We wouldn't get all Scots speakers
writing
> exactly the same, but we could get all Scots speakers writing to a
> standard that all other Scots speakers would feel comfortable reading, to
> the extent that they could even read out loud in their own accent, even
> though the dialect might have unfamiliar vocabulary and constructions.
This is the ideal solution to one of my main concerns with a standard
written Scots dialect. We have a nation where different dialects can be
heard within a few miles of one another. I've been pondering for some time
on how to overcome the problem of adopting a standard that could embrace
dialects ranging from snooty Edinburgh, to robust Glasgow, and up to the
mysteries of Aberdonian. As Sandy says his system would work, only thing is
to get it generally accepted.
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: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 14.AUG.2000 (01) [E]
Ron hef schreven:
>
>Henry,
>
>That's a rather complex set of sounds you described there, involving tone.
>I hardly think that they are all separate phoneme, though. I think we
need
>a bit of time to mull it ove.
>
I know, and there are probably more distinctions like that to be made. I'm
not saying they're all different phonemes, but as I'm not an expert, I can
only
distinguish sounds, not phonemes. However, I do think I may have 1 or 2
additional phonemes in my dialect.
>droum (_Droom_) [dro.Um] 'dream'
>droym(en) (_Drööm_) [dr{oe}.Ym(:)] ~ [dO.Im(:)] 'dreams'
>
>So it's plural umlauting: /ou/ -> /öü/
>
How do you pronounce the /ou/ and the /oy/ then?
In my dialect, it's both like a long Dutch "eu".
A few more just came to mind:
froo/vroo (early) (17)
stool (chair) (17)
grooten,
Henry
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Standardization
Henry, you wrote:
> >That's a rather complex set of sounds you described there, involving
tone.
> >I hardly think that they are all separate phoneme, though. I think we
need
> >a bit of time to mull it ove.
> >
> I know, and there are probably more distinctions like that to be made.
I'm
> not saying they're all different phonemes, but as I'm not an expert, I
can only
> distinguish sounds, not phonemes. However, I do think I may have 1 or 2
> additional phonemes in my dialect.
Yeah, this *is* getting messy isn't it? (I hear John Feather say, "I told
you so." ...) Maybe it's time to start considering putting sound files of
a small number of well-chosen words in your dialect and general Northern
Low Saxon of Germany on the web somewhere and have our expert panel mull
them over.
> >droum (_Droom_) [dro.Um] 'dream'
> >droym(en) (_Drööm_) [dr{oe}.Ym(:)] ~ [dO.Im(:)] 'dreams'
> >
> >So it's plural umlauting: /ou/ -> /öü/
> >
> How do you pronounce the /ou/ and the /oy/ then?
> In my dialect, it's both like a long Dutch "eu".
_Droum_ (dream) pretty much as if written _drome_ and pronounced by a
speaker of a dialect of Southern England (including London), perhaps just a
tad longer: [dro.Um] ~ [dreoUm]. In some dialects it's [draUm] (and then
spelled _Draum_), as if written _drowm_ for English speakers or _Draum_ for
German speakers, better _drauwm_ for Dutch speakers because the added
length may be there.
_Droym(en)_ (dreams)? Pronounce _druim_ in Dutch (if there were such a
word). Then pronounce French _{oe}il_ or perhaps _feuille_. The diphthong
we are looking for is somewhere in between, and a bit longer. The
alternative pronunciation which predominates in the Lower Elbe dialects
(including Hamburg) is similar to the _oy_ in English _boy_, just a bit
longer.
> A few more just came to mind:
>
> froo/vroo (early) (17)
With umlauting: _froy_ (_frö(h)_ ~ _freu(h)_) [fr{oe}.Y] ~ [frO.I] with the
same diphthong as in _droym(en)_ above.
> stool (chair) (17)
_Stoul_ (_Stool_ ~ _Stohl_ ~ _Stauhl_) [sto.Ul] ~ [steoUl] ~ [sta.Ul].
Same as in _droum_ above.
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
======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list