LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.21 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

21 December 2005 * Volume 10
=======================================================================

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.21 (07) [E]

Ron wrote:
> > But don't you see that the orthography IS the language?
>
> Following this, an unwritten {whatever} is not a language, or a {whatever}
> becomes only a language if it is written.
>
> Mongols, for example, are therefore bilingual by virtue of using two
> entirely different scripts and systems (Cyrillic- and Uyghur-based) to
> render the same speech, as are Serbs by being able to use both Cyrillic
and
> Romance systems for Serbian.
>
> It would therefore have to be proposed that the UNESCO and its likes
adjust
> (reduce) the number of currently surviving languages accordingly.  Since
> this would eliminate the majority of indigenous languages of Australia and
> Latin America and numerous languages of Africa and Asia, and hundred of
> languages of Papua-New Guinea alone (including languages written mostly by
> linguists and educators, not by the average speaker), the world's
linguistic
> scene would be vastly simplified.  On the other hand, however, languages
> that *are* written but have a large number of dialect-specific as well as
> individually idiosyncratic systems rather than a single standard system
> would need to be reclassified as consisting of several languages, which in
> the case of Low Saxon and Scots would probably number in the hundreds.
The
> bottom line number would therefore probably not change all that much, but
at
> least we'll end up only with the languages that really count: those that
are
> written.

Quatsch mit Soße. You are deliberately trying to distort my meaning. First,
I am not a linguist, so I do not "classify" languages which, given your
examples above, seems to be an idle pastime anyway and serve no meaningful
purpose. Anyway, we are discussing Lowlands languages here, right? The
example at hand, Lower Saxon, does exist in written forms that reflect its
multitude of flavours - just like many written forms of German dialects
exist besides High German - Bavarian, Suebian, Palatian, to name just a few.
And yes, local varieties are permitted and encouraged.

I am amazed that you should not understand the concept of "seeing" a
language rather than hearing it. I thought this was more common, at least
among people who thrive on languages. It's similar to the phenomenon of
tasting colours, feeling music, or understanding the individual character of
different numbers.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I always "read" every word I hear (I
actually learned to read around the time that others learn to talk), and
therefore, in a linguistic context, a heavy lisp, a strong accent, or just a
slightly different pronunciation are all the same to me. It all gets
translated into writing by my brain, which is also why I am a really good
proofreader, spotting any irregularities at a glance. Of course I do have an
ear for the voice and its idiosyncrasies, but that's something else
altogether - that's music, not language.

And yes, I see Russian written in Cyrillic, and I have no idea what I would
do if I had to learn a language like Mandarin. I would probably have to rely
on my sense of music for that, and it would be a very different experience
altogether.

But surely I am not the only one here who functions like this?

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Heiko Evermann <Heiko.Evermann at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.21 (07) [E]

Hi Gabriele,
> But don't you see that the orthography IS the language? I don't know about
> the rest of you, but every spoken word I hear appears in front of me in
> writing on some sort of mental screen, from which I read it. The same is
> true for anythig I say: I mentally read the script at the same time. The
> look of a word is just as essential, if not even more so, because it is
> not
> subject to individual modifications (or shouldn't be) as the way it
> sounds.
To me it's the same.

Hi Ron,

> > But don't you see that the orthography IS the language?
>
> Following this, an unwritten {whatever} is not a language, or a {whatever}
> becomes only a language if it is written.
Please do not mock us. Obviously there are people who think that languages
have a visual component. Gabriele and me are already two.

Second: Spoken language can of course be heard. But written language is
read, and that is a visual process. It is based on pattern recognition and
it can work without even speaking the text aloud. Reading a text in an
unfamiliar script means that I cannot read it. I have to speak it and that
takes a lot more time. This is why I have great difficulties reading your
ANS-spelling. Johnys mails are hard to read, too. For me it is not much
easier than reading Afrikaans.

> Mongols, for example, are therefore bilingual by virtue of using two
> entirely different scripts and systems (Cyrillic- and Uyghur-based) to
> render the same speech, as are Serbs by being able to use both Cyrillic
> and
> Romance systems for Serbian.
There is a Serbocroation newspaper here in Germany, I think it is called
vesti. It is published in two identical versions: one is cyrillic, one is
latin. It might be the same language once it is spoken, but people like to
read it and they like to read it the way they are used to. At least there
seems to be a market that is so interesting for the publisher to produce two
versions of it. Have you ever tried to write German in cyrillic? I sometimes
do that, because I have leared the script (but not the Russian language).
But I can read and write cyrillc. I take notes in German written in cyrillic
letters, whenever I want to make sure that other people cannot accidentally
see what I am writing. When those notes are a bit older, I need quite some
time to decipher what I wrote. So obviously the visual part of the language
IS important.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann

-- 
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

----------

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

Heiko,

This isn't mocking.  It is a process known as "thinking things through," of 
following up with conclusions about implications, in this case pursuing the 
logical conclusions of the phrase "the orthography IS the language."

If orthography *is* language, this means that it is an intregal part of it 
(at least apparently to "visually inclined" people), and the conclusion of 
that would be that unwritten languages are not really languages, since they 
have no orthography.

I happen to be "visually inclined" myself, also see words written in my mind 
when I hear them.  I assume that this is because I have been conditioned in 
this way by my culture and my education, also because I am artistically 
inclined.  I extend it to languages that are not officially written and to 
those whose official orthography I don't know, knowing full well, however, 
that this "mental writing" has nothing to do with the language itself.  I 
can only assume that an illiterate person does not visualize words in this 
way, which in the case of unwritten languages would apply to all its 
speakers.

I do recognize the visual aspect of reading.  But an orthography is simply a 
string of symbols, strung together more logically in some cases than in 
others.  There *are* a few solely written and read languages, such as 
Classical Chinese (which cannot really be spoken).  However, definite links 
exist in most languages between speech and orthography. When orthographies 
were created they were new to everyone.  Languages existed quite happily for 
millennia before that.  Orthographies are man-made, not god-given.  They are 
not etched in stone, are not sacrosanct.  Orthographies have been changed, 
i.e., adapted to changing language, as long as writing exists, and this has 
not led to pandemic nervous breakdowns, leave alone to the extinction of 
mankind. Furthermore, as long as orthographies have been around, they have 
been standardized to enhance inter-variety communication.  Again, even the 
naysayers eventually got over it or at least gave up complaining ... and the 
world kept on turning.

The AS is merely a proposed, experimental *auxiliary* orthography, mostly 
for the purpose of facilitating cross-border written communication and 
aiding foreign language learners, guiding them through the multitude of 
writing systems for the same language, a symptom of fragmentation that is 
the Achilles heel of the language.  Perhaps there are mental or 
psychological connections to which I am not privy, but I simply cannot see 
how anyone could even begin to feel threatened by that.  Perhaps it's all 
based on a misunderstanding of intents, of suspecting some sinister plot 
where there is none or objecting to the "un-German" or "heretical" look, 
possibly because of privately held rejection of separate language status for 
LS.  Is it fear of change in general, one of the most deep-seated fears of 
mankind?

Of course I can deal with language in an emotional way.  I do so in creative 
writing all the time.  Alleging that I am some sort of cold-blooded 
scientist gone crazy is just deflection and discrediting attempts, as far as 
I am concerned.  I am, however, able to separate my emotions and my sense of 
esthetics from logical thought processes.

You tell *me*!

Regards,
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.
======================================================================