LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.01 (06) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 01.OCT.2003 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
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
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth at gnu.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.01 (04) [LS]

Actually there are a couple of things irritating me with the Sass
orthography. The thing that irritates me the most is the h [:] ;-)

When using the h in the orthography you always need to know the High
German equivalent in order to see whether you should use h or not. This
means that the orthography actually reflects German ethymology and not
Low Saxon ethymology and that is a shame! It also make Low Saxon look
more like a German dialect than a language on its own.

Other things that comes to mind is the doubling of consonants, like
Platt, Nett, kwamm - this was not used in the Low Saxon othographies
used in the middle-ages. Also why do I have to write qu- for the [kw]
sound and then kw- in kwamm, kweem? That doesn't make sence. 'kwam' was
spelled like 'quam' in the middle-ages.

The last thing is the use of capitals. Why not just use capitals for
names (place names, person names, language names etc) and in the begin
of a sentence? This seem to be what was used in middle-age Low Saxon as
well.

Cheers, Kenneth

> From: Dan Ryan-Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>

> Wi snakken ja vöör en paar weken över Platdüütsche schriifwisen.
> Egentlich is mi dat gans egaal wo een schrift, avers wat mi persöönlich
> opstöten daait, is dat stumme <h>. Ik kan dat nich af! Mi kümt dat
> jümmers as en vremdkörper vöör.
>
> Nedderdüütsch un Hollendsch hebt so'n gode egen metood de lengde vun
> vokalen an to geven: eenfach vokaalteken in de apen silbe un en duppelt
> teken in de slaten silbe. Warüm schal een dan de wöör, de op Hooch mid
> <h> schreven ward, op Plat ook mid <h> schriven. Ik vind dat unwiis.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Hi, Kenneth!

I'm sure you, Dan and I are not the only ones on this list and elsewhere who
find those German-based orthographic practices irksome.  This use of <h> is
nonsensical when considered within the context of the language itself, and
to many of us the deliberate attempt to make LS orthography *look* German
means adding insult to injury.  But apparently not everyone sees it that
way.  Many do not like it all that much (and some will even say so
privately) but keep "shtum" in public in fear of coming across as heretics
and offending people in relevant organizations who revere Sass and Fehr and
do not dare to question and reject anything they had said and proposed in a
less enlightened age.  So alternative proposals tend to be shunned by means
of silence, ignoring, thus get the usual lunatic fringe treatment.

The use of the _Dehnungs-H_ (used in German to mark long vowels) in some
cases creates orthographic pairs where the two words are actually homophones
but one does have a German cognate (thus gets the <h>) and the other one
does not have a German cognate (thus uses native long vowel marking); for
instance:

Paal [p_hQ:l] 'pod'
Pahl [p_hQ:l] 'pole', 'post' (related to German _Pfahl_ [pf_ha:l])

Within a given context they are differentiated by the listener.  Why should
they be differentiated for the reader?  Other homophones and homographs are
permitted.  Why not these ones?  The motto is "Keep strangeness to a minimum
by making things look as German as possible" (and the implied assumption is
"Most people are too unintelligent to cope with anything else").  Mind you,
some people haphazardly use the <h> even were there is no German cognate
that contains it.  In other words, most people who write LS are confused and
do any old thing, because the system ... well, it isn't exactly simple and
consistent, and many people are scared of and stay away from instructions
and rules, also shy away that in their views reeks of "academic
interference."

Gröytens,
Reinhard/Ron

================================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.
=======================================================================