LL-L: "Language planning" LOWLANDS-L, 08.OCT.2000 (01) [D/E/Z]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 08.OCT.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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
  =======================================================================

From: Marco Evenhuis [evenhuis at zeelandnet.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Language planning" LOWLANDS-L, 07.OCT.2000 (01) [E]

Nigel Smith wrote:

> I think it's important that monoglot speakers of the
> language of power should not be given any more ammunition to throw at the

> 'minority' language. If a purely oral form is used on such notices, there

is
> a danger that they will merely attract ridicule

and:

> The responses to some of the suggestions for
> "Please do not disturb" seem to bear this out -- it seems to be difficult

to
> achieve a translation that
> (a) is acceptable to speakers of the language
> (b) is not too informal
> (c) is not too close to the related "language of power

I believe there were some very wise things said about translating formal
texts in 'smaller' languages. Maybe I overlooked something, but I think I
missed one very important issue in the discussion: the attitude of speakers

and (perhaps even more important) people in the same region that speak the
standard language towards translation of formal texts in the language. I
think these translations are useless unless both speakers and non-speakers
are convinced these texts/roadsigns/etc. are necessary. Otherwise, I fear
that ridicule is not far away regardless of the fact whether the actual
translation is acceptable to speakers linguisticly, the translation is not
too informal or it's not too close to the related language of power.
Even a perfect translation might easily be rejected by both non-speakers
and
speakers if they believe such translations are not necessary or that they
are overdone.

Henk Wolf wrote:

> In fact, the West(erlauwer) Frisian system is rich enough to be used
quite
> normally in many domains. The problem is that many speakers are not
exposed
> in a sufficient extent to all those domains. When they need to write a
text
> or produce a speech in Frisian, they tend to switch to the corresponding
> Dutch register and start to convert. The provincial government, but also
> the Frisian movement are known for spreading this kind of Frisian. With
the
> best intentions, of course!

I think the main thing here is creativity. A good translator should have a
very rich vocabulary, should be allergic to dictionaries (to keep things
more vivid) and should be experienced in 'playing' with his language. Some
time ago, someone sent us an article for our magazine in Zeeuws, Noe. The
article, which was quite a formal piece on the ferry between Vlissingen and

Breskens that will disappaer because a tunnel is being build nearby, was
written in Dutch and had to be translated into Zeeuws. Due to some
miscommunication, two editors both made a translation:

NL original:
Over het algemeen heb ik een redelijke dosis geluk als ik met het veer
overmoet. Bijna gedachtenloos controleer ik af en toe mijn horloge, maak
een
ruwe berekening van de reistijd en werk daar dan naartoe. Nu was ik net te
laat. Ik had net een heel geannimeerd gesprek achter de rug en was niet
bijzonder gehaast om naar huis te rijden. Ik kwam dus net bij de slagboom
toen de boot wegvoer. Oké, dan wacht ik wel.

Zeeuws, 1st editor:
Over 't algemeên è 'k een redelijke possie geluk a' k mee 't veer overmoet.

Naebie gedachtenloôs controleer ik af en toe m'n 'arlôzie, maek een ruwe
berekenienge van de reistied en werk dae naetoe. Noe was ik net te laete.
Ik
ao een 'eêl geannimeerd gesprek achter de rug en was nie biezonder ge'aest
om naer 'uus te rieen. Ik kwam dus net bie de slagboôm toe de boôt wegvoer.

Oké, dan wacht ik wè.

Zeeuws, 2nd editor:
A 'k mee de boôt nae de aore kant wil, è 'k noga 's geluk. Agauw zonder nae

te dienken kiek ik aol-an op m'n 'arlôzie, 'k maeke te ruugsten een
schattieng van de reistied en 'k wèrke dae nae toe. Alleên deze keer was ik

te laete. 'k Ao net angenaem zitte praote en vee jacht om tuus te kommen
was
t'r nie bie. As ik bie de slagboom ankwam, vaerde de boôt net weg. Oké, dan

wachte 'k wè.

In Zeeland, many speakers do not find Zeelandic translations of formal
texts
and roadsigns very usefull. Not yet, at least. I'd really like to know how
the attitude towards these translations is in other regions.

Marco Evenhuis

----------

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language planning"

> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Language planning
>
> Sandy,
>
> You can certainly find such formal register in Low Saxon (Low
> German) also,
> namely in older, mostly pre-18th century documents.  Reading them
feels
> similar to reading those older Scots texts, I dare say.  However,
> I'm not all
> that sure this is very helpful or even relevant to the
> development of a formal
> register in Modern Low Saxon which has been pretty much without

It's interesting that you say "mostly pre-18th century
documents" - this would be exactly true of Scots as well.
Is this the time of the rise of the large nation-states
in Europe?

It's true that useful material is very sparse in these
older Scots texts, but I was thinking of the sort of
study where a person would be prepared to examine such
texts to gain a better understanding of the available
options when forming signage and other high-register
usages. One problem in Scots these days is that enthusiasts
tackling high-register Scots start to coin new words and
phrases long before they've exhausted all precedents -
the real problem being that they can't exhaust all
precedents because they don't know much of the language
beyond their own everyday register.

Although currently usable Scots may be sparse in these
documents, occasionally one does seem to hit a seam.
To take the example I pointed out earlier:

"Item that na persone mak gait throw thair nychtboris
gras or cornes under the paine of X li"

(Item: that nae persone mak gate throu their neebors
gress or crap ablo pain o £10)

There's quite a lot of food for thought in this. For
example, the importance of the word "neebor" in Scots,
as compared to its English usage, is highlighted. Comparing
"mak gate throu" with the more colloquial "maks wey throu"
draws attention to the fact that the colloquial use of "wey"
runs into dialectical differences (it's pronounced [wQ:] in
many areas), while "gate" is more stable (although it is
pronounced [gEt] in a few areas - this suggests to me that
the alternative spelling "gait" might be better). This isn't
just about this specific word - it suggests a whole principle
of preferred official usage involving the selection of words
that are mostly invariant across dialects. Of course one
doesn't expect disinterested civil servants to have such
depth of understanding (though I don't mean to imply that
_all_ civil servants are disinterested!), but the appropriate
guidelines could be written for them by people who do. Again,
it suggests the possibility of using "mak gait" for "give way"
- maybe, maybe not, but the point is that the phrase ultimately
chosen is done in full knowledge of the alternatives (though
the spelling favoured by modern writers - "gate" could cause
problems here - "mak gate"). "Gait" in fact seems to me the
more usual spelling in most C19 and earlier texts - it's also
the spelling used in signage in my area - "Hermiston Gait" &c
(I think enthusiasts tend to chose the "gate" spelling for
etymological reasons, ie Scand. "gata" - it's not a very
"Scots" spelling, however).

> From: Nigel Smith [lists at intexta.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Help needed" LOWLANDS-L, 06.OCT.2000 (01) [E]
>
> Why should this be a problem? I remember being surprised at the
informality
> of the Welsh translation of "Serve fuel" at our local petrol station:
it
is
> the equivalent of "Put petrol in car". At least Welsh is different
enough
> from English for non-Welsh speakers not to notice the difference in
> register. But with the Lowlands languages it's different. If we ever
get to

Yes, sometimes the "chattiness" of Welsh signage can seem
almost humorous beside the formality of the English. On
seeing "Ewch i'ch lôn" ("Get to your lane") for "Get in
lane" I can't help wondering why the Welsh has to have the
pronoun (in this case it's the formal and/or plural form
of the pronoun), especially considering that the form of
the verb already indicates the pronoun. You might object
that "Ewch i lôn" isn't good Welsh, but then again, "Get
in lane" isn't good English (think about it - you should
already be in a lane - "Get in lane" is intended to mean
"Get into the lane you need to be in to reach your
destination, get to the appropriate toll booth, or whatever"
- it's really mostly context).

There are some situations where words come at a cost -
newspaper headlines, telegrams, small ads, signage. Few
English speakers have trouble deciphering "des res 2 bed",
even in speech (though I don't know whether that particular
phrase is international or just British). It may just be
that telegraphic English has a longer history than telegraphic
Welsh. Whether a language should take the telegraphic or full
approach to signage perhaps depends on the perceived advantages
and disadvantages, but it may be that the telegraphic approach
is a sign of maturity - it means that people are used to
reading newspapers and writing small ads and other brief,
urgent communications in the language.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

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