LL-L "Language survival" 2003.04.30 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 30.APR.2003 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Holger Weigelt <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
Subject: "Language survival"

> From: "Kenneth Rohde" <kenneth at gnu.org>
> Subject: Language survival
>
> Hi Reinhard,
>
> I agree with much of what you say.
>
> > Why, their organization may even belong to an alliance of
> > local organizations, but most interregional associations cover little
> > ground, tend to include a narrow range of dialects, perhaps as much as
> > a dialect group (e.g., Drenthe, Groningen, Munsterland or Eastphalian)
> > and do not or will not see the larger picture: that of the language as
> > a whole.  Add to this the border between the Netherlands and Germany,
> > and you get "fragmentation city."
>
> Do you know if there have been any efforts in interregional cooperation
> at any point?
>
> I suspect it has been very hard cooperating so far. You cannot cooperate
> before regional associations are created, and if you want to
> cooperate you have to give up a lot of things you have worked on - and
> you need to make compromises. That I think this is very hard.
>
> > language variety, if created, does not need to be static and rigid,
> > can still allow for regional color (as exemplified especially in
> > Norway's Nynorsk).
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Most successful language and orthography standardization efforts have
> > relied less on administrative decrees than on popular writers' works.
> > This requires a sizeable number of writers and body of works using a
> > given orthography, which requires, at least initially, willingness of
> > publishers to go out on a limb.  We may become less dependent on
> > publishers' willingness if we stage concerted efforts on the Web,
> > provided that this medium stays around and keeps being freely
> > accessible
> > and increasingly utilized.  (When I started with LS on the Web it was
> > still considered quite novel and even outlandish.  It certainly no
> > longer is.)  This would require web publishers to form a united front
> > in exposing readers to generally applicable standards.
>
> Do you think this is something people are interested in doing? I really
> wonder what the people on the Lowlands mailing lists thinks about this.
>
> > > Right now, the dictionary of Grunnegers (Gronings) follows the
> > > Norwegian example, and consists of alternative spellings as well,
> > > but there are no
> > > forms that are marked as main forms. This means that if I wanted to
> > > translate a book to Grunnegers, then I'd first have to decide which
> > > dialect I am going to write; maybe, however, I'd want to address all
> > > people speaking a Grunneger dialect. If some forms would be marked
> > > as main forms (and forming some kind of 'Aalgemeain Grunnegers'),
> > > then I
> > > could translate using these forms and address everyone. Maybe not in
> > > their home dialect, but in something which might resemble it pretty
> > > well.
> >
> > So, it a first step in the direction of creating a written standard
> > variety.  Right?
>
> I think it is - and it doesn't change anything for people writing in
> their dialect - only for people who want to address people in a
> broader area.
>
> > How would you then deal with the indoctrinated need for LS in German
> > to be based on German orthographic principles?
>
> I do not see any easy way of doing this. Would it be more accepted to
> use a non-German orthography if it is based on the middle-age Low Saxon
> writing system?
>
> > There is the not so minor issue of what is generally acceptable.  For
> > instance, "outlandish" proposals usually do not make the cut.  This
> > includes non-German-based orthographies for LS in Germany and
> > non-English-based orthographies for Scots.
>
> But if an unofficial-standard was used by a majority of the Low Saxon
> speakers (for instance by promoting it on the internet) it would
> probably be easier to get it accepted.
>
> > Very well.  But will the language be around long enough to go through a
> > two-step standardization process (first regional and then general)?
> > Also, what if the regional standards are really divergent?  Shouldn't
> > the final goal (i.e., general standard) be considered right from the
> > outset so as to avoid divergence?
>
> If the regional standards are really divergent there is not much we can
> do except considering them as two different languages deriving from Low
> Saxon. The only question is, if there are enough people for two
> different languages to exist?
>
> Fighting divergence is not my point - but it might be necessary for the
> language to survive. Heavy standardization can be a necessary trade-off
> - at least to some point.
>
> It is very hard saying what would be the best thing to do - I honestly
> don't know!
>
> > (3) "Minority" and "regional" languages do not necessarily have to
> > have a single standard variety.  If need be, more than one standard can
> be
> > created, such as in the case of Sorbian (or "Lusatian," a Slavonic
> > language of Germany), which has two written standard varieties (Upper
> > Sorbian and Lower Sorbian), although there is one overall united Sorbian
> > ethnic consciousness, also Norway, which has two closely related
> > standard languages without any perceived threat to national unity.
>
> Though it is better to have only one. That way you will have more
> litterature/material following the same standard, which will make the
> material accessible to more people - and that way strengthen then
> language.
>
> > If we decided to write Lowlands
> > Saxon (Low German) -- which is the closest genealogical relative of
> > Dutch, Zeelandic/West Flemish and Afrikaans -- according to Dutch
> > orthographic principles (which is not necessarily what I am advocating),
> > my prediction is that it would not create any such threat either,
> > although, at least in Northern Germany, LS speakers are no longer
> > considered a separate (Saxon) ethnicity but are seen as ethnic
> > Germans.
> > Using similar orthographic principles for Dutch and LS would, however,
> > facilitate mutual written comprehension between the two languages and
> > also between them and the other mentioned languages.
>
> Mutual written comprehension between the different dialects in Germany,
> The Netherlands, etc would really help the language. It will also call
> for higher quality of Low Saxon literature.
>
> Would it be possible to try defining a standard writing system by taking
> the middle-age spelling and make it more accessible to Germans and Dutch
> people - for instance by modifying it to use the things common in German
> and Dutch today, like 'ie', 'ei' etc?
>
> Cheers, Kenneth
>
> ----------
Hello !
Years ago I started working on an independent - neither German nor Dutch
based - orthography for Eastern Friesland Low Saxon that resembles
phonological and grammatical features of this language including aspects
of
standardization. It was intended not for scientific but for everyday
practical use. To avoid the introduction of too many "new" characters
this
intention brought with it the need for several compromises. Nevertheless
I
tried to make the system as consequent, as simple and as far as possible
self-explaining under these circumstances.
I didn't bear in mind an All-Low-Saxon standardization but an EFLS
standardization. What does that mean ?
First: In German based orthography there are often more than five
possibilities to write the same sound and as numerous are the
possibilities
to write a word.
My system in difference always uses the same symbol (which can be a
combination of letters) for the same sound (with vowels these are the
pure
letter or one with macron or accent circonflexe to mark the length that
is
of grammatical importance) and a word is always written the same way.
With
little general introduction You will be able to read even unknown word
correctly.
Second: Eastern Friesland is a rather small country but there are
several
local variants of EFLS. East Frisians like to highlight those
differences
and might tell You that it is sometimes nearly impossible to understand
a
person from a neighbouring village. That is nonsense of course. The
differences are striking but much smaller than told.
Now, You can write every variant by using the orthography I proposed but
that isn't what I want. I based my proposal on one variant that I
believe to
be the best for creating a standard. It is the phonological and
grammatical
most differentiated one. To make it the base for the written language
helps
for example to avoid a large number of homonyms in written texts.
I tested this system with readers of different age and educational
background and nearly all of them confessed that despite it looked
somewhat
strange to them for the first moment they soon understood the principles
and
after a little time of getting familiar with it most of them found it
easier
to read than texts in German based orthography.
Members of the "Ostfriesische Landschaft" as well gave personal
statements
that agreed with what I just told. Then why can't I receive any official
acknowledgement by this institution that has to care for the regional
cultural heritage and language ?
It is their policy to give up EFLS for a kind of general LS and they -
explicitly - don't want any reformation. They ignore or defeat attempts
to
make changes in the reception of EFLS language. They want to chain it to
the
generalized LS orthographically as well without any try to make
proposals
for optimizing LS orthography in general.
- By the way: If the language appears as a thing of its own (not a "poor
variant of German") also in orthography it possibly might be regarded
worth
accepting or at least learning by the young people. -
On the other hand there are the writers who are used to the German based
orthography and don't want to leave the known paths.
And a further feature is that from the past writing of EFLS is mainly
based
on a (phonologically) quite poorer variant than that I want to take as
standard.
Of course I don't want to give up EFLS for a - not existing - general LS
and
I believe to come to a standard for our small region was a helpful and
urgent step to have a base for comparison with other LS regions better
than
the official policy of diving into some kind of LS mainstream.
Kind regards
Holger

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings 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.
=======================================================================