LL-L "Orthography" 2004.10.15 (08) [E]

Fri Oct 15 16:55:14 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 15.OCT.2004 (08) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2004.10.14 (10) [E]

Hoi Reinhard

I just read your explanation of the ANS spelling below and at your
Sassisch-site.
It's not yet totally clear to me how ey and ee, ou and oo are pronounced.
Is ANS ey  pronounced like Dutch ei/ij [Ei], or Dutch ee [e:i]; ANS ou =
Dutch ou [au] or D oo [o:u].
ANS ee = [e:] or [E:], ANS oo = [o:] or [O:]? ANS öy = Dutch ui [öy] or
Dutch eu [ø:y]?

I think it's a good idea to have a LSaxon spelling of its own, but I suppuse
ANS is meant only for te Lower Saxon
of Northern Germany. For Dutch Lower Saxon dialects it would only be fit
maybe for Gronings, but even
Groningen LS doesn't really have these oppositions ee vs ey, oo vs ou. Gr
has ai [a:i] and ee[e:i], au [a:u] and oo[o:u],
ui [öy] and eu [ø:y].
Most other Dutch Lower Saxon have oo [o:] vs oa [O:], ee [e:] vs è/ea/ae
[E:], and eu [ø:] vs öä/äö [ö:].
The pronunciation of  ee, oo, eu as monophthongs are even one of
characteristics of most Dutch Lower Saxon
vs the diphthongs in modern Standard Dutch (based on Western/Hollandic).

I understand ANS also has Y [i:] for German/Dutch based  IE.
For Lower Saxon writers in the Netherland (like myself) this is a bit hard
to accept.
In Dutch, Y is just another way to write IJ [Ei] (like Afrikaans y = Dutch
ij) and in LS this ij is normally [i:], written ie.
Dutch tijd [tEit] = DLS tied [tit], Dutch blijven ["blEiv@] = DLS blieven
[bli:bM] etc.
Using spellings for DLS like  tyd, blyven  would be seen as [Ei] in stead of
[i(:)] and be far too Dutch for us, even after
practice. I understand that Northern German Saxons might welcome a spelling
that reminds of Dutch - their most
related standard language- above that of German, but in the Netherlands  we
don't have to fight High German,
and our dialects have a different nature... Ingmar

> From: R. F. Hahn <> Subject: Orthography
>
> Ingmar,
>
> You wrote under "Language varieties" today:
>
> > But I wonder how these EI and OU are pronounced, maybe not so different
> from
> > Dutch EE [e:i] and OO [o:u] that are in fact diphthongs too.
> > I noticed reading the translations of my scarry poem that Reinhard uses
> > twodifferent ways too spell
> > Lower Saxon: one with OO and EE ("German-based orthography"), the other
> > with OU and EY.
> > So Franz and Reinhard: what do you mean by that? Houdoe, Ingmar
>
> First of all, let's reestablish the fact that Franz and I use different
> languages: Low Franconian and Lowlands Saxon respectively.
>
> What happened to "Low German" (or "Platt") in Germany is that Low
Franconian
> and Lowlands Saxon dialects all got lumped together under this one
> convenient label.  This and the fact that similar unscientific lumping is
> done in the Netherlands is why labels like "Platt" or "plat" simply won't
> do, at least not on this list where we do recognize differences.
>
> The stated aim of the movers and shakers in Germany in the past -- still
> sheepishly followed by the majority of writers -- was to make written
> "Platt" look as much German ("High German") as possible, even if this
> resulted in inaccuracy -- and this was a part of reinforcing the myth that
> they were simply German dialects, thus needed no special protection and
> support and where bound for the scrap heap.  The overriding purpose was to
> create a German look that reinforced the then current overall aim of
giving
> and perpetuating these languages German dialect .  Due to indoctrination
of
> this sort since the middle of the 19th century, many people in Germany
have
> knee-jerk reactions to "un-German" ways of spelling.
>
> This is what I call "German-based spelling," and I call what you use for
> Lowlands Saxon in the Netherlands "Dutch-based spelling."
>
> The German-based spelling does the following main things:
>
> (1) It ignores sounds that are not German and represents them by the
closest
> German equivalent.  Thus, both <o(o)> and <oh> stand for two phonemes:
> monophthong /oo/ and diphthong /ou/, both <ö(ö)> and <öh> stand for
> monophthong /öö/ and diphthong /öü/, and both <e(e)> and <eh> stand for
> monophthong /ee/ and diphthong /ei/.  German does not have these
diphthongs,
> so they are orthographically ignored.  Some people do try to differentiate
> them, though, using all sorts of German-based devices.  As a result of
> non-differentiation, learners of the languages in Germany do not know
about
> these differences or cannot tell from writing what is a monophthong and
what
> is a diphthong.
>
> (2) It forces the languages to conform with written German by using not
only
> German-style devices (such as _ß_ and post-vocalic _h_) but also using the
> same word-final consonant final stop symbol as in German; e.g., (/kleid/)
> _Kleed_ [klEIt] -> _Kleder_ ['klEId3`] (cf. German _Kleid_ -> _Kleider_),
> (/tiid/) _Tiet_ (which should be _Tied_) -> _Tieden_ (cf. German _Zeit_ ->
> _Zeiten_).
>
> (3) It wants to write dialects "phonetically."  So you get for instance
> _Rüch_ [rYC] 'back' but plural _Rüggen_ ['rYgN] 'backs', where spelling
> _rüg_ and _rüggen_ would be phonemic, because there is a rule by which
final
> /g/ is pronounced both voiceless and fricative.  (By the way, this is a
> fault in the orthography of Westerlawer Frisian also.)
>
> Kenneth Rohde Christiansen and I count among those that would like to see
> alternatives used for Lowlands Saxon spelling, and we are experimenting
with
> the ANS (Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys') that uses devices
reminiscent
> of those used in Middle Saxon literature (which happens to be similar to
> Middle Dutch ones).  So when you see me providing two ways of spelling,
one
> of them is ANS and the other is a German-based one.
>
> For more information please see the following site:
> http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/ls-story.html
>
> I am using the ANS here as well (under "Transliteration 2"):
> http://www.geocities.com/grothwarken/
>
> In ANS, we spell the above examples _kleyd_, _kleyder_, _tyd_, _tyden_,
> _rüg_ and _rüggen_.
>
> A description of the ANS system is still in the offing.
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

----------

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

Hoi, Ingmar!

Thanks for your interest and comments.

The ANS does not have its own pronunciation.  It is supposed to be "above"
dialects (phonemic), i.e., should be pronounced in whatever way a reader's
dialect demands.  So far it works at least for the North Saxon dialect
range.

> Is ANS ey  pronounced like Dutch ei/ij [Ei], or Dutch ee [e:i]; ANS ou =
> Dutch ou [au] or D oo [o:u].
> ANS ee = [e:] or [E:], ANS oo = [o:] or [O:]? ANS öy = Dutch ui [öy] or
> Dutch eu [ø:y]?

(~ = dialectal variation)

y = [i:]
e(e) = [e:] ~ [E:]
u(u) = [u:]
üy = [y:]
o(o) = [o:]
a(a) = [Q:] ~ [O:] ~ [o:]

ey = [e.I] ~ [E.I] ~ [a.I]
öy = [9.I] ([œ.I]) ~ [O.I]
ou = [o.U] ~ [O.U] ~ [e.U] ~ [a.U]
au = [a.U] ~ [Q.U]
ay = [a.I] ~ [Q.I]

eyr = [e.I3`] ~ [e.Ir] ~ [E.I] ~ [E.Ir] ~ [a.I] ~ [a.Ir] ~ [i:3`]
öyr = [9.I3`] ([œ.I3`]) ~ [9.Ir] ([œ.Ir]) ~ [y:3`]

Many dialects now do not differenciate between _oo_ and _ou_.  Their
speakers can either adopt the geneal spelling (i.e., be aware of the
differentiation in other dialects) or can simply write one or the other
without fear of being misunderstood.

> I understand ANS also has Y [i:] for German/Dutch based  IE.
> For Lower Saxon writers in the Netherland (like myself) this is a bit hard
> to accept.
> In Dutch, Y is just another way to write IJ [Ei] (like Afrikaans y = Dutch
> ij) and in LS this ij is normally [i:], written ie.
> Dutch tijd [tEit] = DLS tied [tit], Dutch blijven ["blEiv@] = DLS blieven
> [bli:bM] etc.
> Using spellings for DLS like  tyd, blyven  would be seen as [Ei] in stead
of
> [i(:)] and be far too Dutch for us, even after
> practice.

I understand.  That's just a case of psychological fixation on being
different from Dutch.

Likewise, in Germany, _y_ tends to be associated with [y] (i.e., with _ü_).

I am still open to suggestions and changes.  I had adopted <y> from old
manuscripts for two reasons:

(1) It represented [i:] both in Saxon and in Dutch, originally being <ÿ>
which developed from <ii> (later interpreted as <ij>).  Dutch retained it
(or its variant <ij>), as did Afrikaans, even though these languages have
meanwhile diphthongized the sound.

(2) By using this symbol you enhance mutual reading comprehension between
Lowlands Saxon and Lowlands Franconian (Dutch, Afrikaans, etc.).

Rejecting <y> for Saxon on the grounds of its (supposedly different) use in
Dutch and Afrikaans is clearly a psychological reaction stemming from a need
to be different, a need to "fight" Dutch (or German).  To me this is a sign
of immaturity with regard to language assertion and confidence.  ("The
dominant language uses X, so we can't use X but must use Z to draw the line
between them and us.")  The same letter or letter combination is pronounced
differently in different languages.  You accept this unquestioningly if the
languages involved are "established" and "official," such as when learning
that English <oo> is pronounced [u:] or [U] rather than as [o:] or [oU] as
in Dutch, and you accept that German <eu> is pronounced [OI] and not [ø:] as
in Dutch and French.  So why can't you accept that <y> is pronounced [i:] in
Saxon, [aI] in Dutch, [@i] ([ǝı]) in Afrikaans, [y] in German and
Scandinavian, [i] in French and Spanish, and [i] or [aI] in English?

Minority language speakers try hard to assert themselves and their
languages.  I see many of them doing so by "going overboard," by trying too
hard to make their languages be or appear different from the respective
dominant languages.  This to me indicates that these speakers have not
liberated themselves, their minds and their decisions from the domination.
They allow the dominant language(s) to dictate their decisions (even if this
means doing the opposite).  It is like a son trying hard to liberate himself
from the influence of his father by acting exactly the opposite from the way
his father acts: he deliberately continues the influence he purports to
escape.  Lowlands Saxon will only be a truly liberated, independent language
when its speakers and writers stop looking to Dutch and German or run away
from them.  This is what I meant by referring to "immaturity" in language or
orthography planning.

Kumpelmenten,
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.
=======================================================================