LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.23 (03) [E]

Fri Dec 23 17:20:04 UTC 2005

======================================================================
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)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 23 December 2005 * Volume 03
=======================================================================

From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.12.22 (08) [E]

> From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.12.22 (04) [E]
>
> Hi David
>
> This Omniglot description of Dutch pronunciation has a lot of mistakes
> in it, however short it may be, and describing D. <v> as [f] is one of
> them.
>
> The other mistakes:
>
> <auw> is not [Ou] but [au]
> <ay> doesn't exist in Dutch, only in English or French loans, but
> then  it's pronounced as in that language
> <e> is never [e] but [E], when short
> <ee> is not [e] but [e:], or rather [e:I]
> <ieuw> is not [i:u] but [iu]
> <oo> is not [o] but [o:], or rather [o:U]
> <uw> is not [y:u] but [yu]
>
The above is not a matter of accent variations?

> and finally
>
> <v> is not [f] but [f\]

Does this mean <f> and <v> are distinct phonemes one /f/ one /f\/ or
that both should be /f\/ = [f\]?

 I've no idea what sound [f\] represents.  SAMPA does have a diacritic
section. Would adding any of those to [f] or to [v] serve to give me an
idea of its sound? Is it usually a voiced sound or a voiceless one?

> Furthermore, <g> is describes as [R] intervocally, that would rather
> be [G]
> and that <r> isn't pronounced before <g> is really nonsense.
>
> So I wouldn't trust too much on Omniglot here...

Again, not a question of accent variation?

> Met de vriendelijke groeten van [mEt@ "f\rind at l@k@ "xrut@ f\an]
> Ingmar Roerdinkholder ["INmar ru:rdINk"hOldEr] or ["ru:rdINkhOldEr]
>
The SAMPA page for Dutch

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/dutch.htm

seems to match your transcriptions more closely.   However I'm wary of
using SAMPA pages because their symbology is phonemic rather than
phonetic and often the same symbol is used for different sounds in
different languages.

David Barrow

> David Barrow wrote:
>
>> http://www.omniglot.com/writing/dutch.htm
>>
>>> has [f] for both <f> and <v>
>>> Do you mean Dutch <v> is phonemically distinct from <f> and needs a
>>
>> separate symbol or that  <f>/<v> are phonetically different from the <f>
>> = [f] of other languages and needs a different symbol
>>
>>> From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
>>> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.12.18 (01) [E]
>>>
>>> I cannot find the symbol for Dutch <v> in your Wiki X-SAMPA link.
>>> Just [v\] that's for Dutch <w>.
>>> I know it's confusing, Henry, but that's a totally different sound.
>>> Dutch <v> isn't mentioned at all, probably there is no Sampa symbol for
>>> it yet. I'll send in a proposal to use [f\] for that to the Sampa-guys.
>>>
>>> To avoid your and others' confusion in the future, the alternative
>>> Sampa
>>> symbol [P] for Dutch <w> could be used instead of [v\]. [P] is also in
>>> the
>>> list.

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.22 (03) [E]

Sandy wrote:
> You seem to be describing synesthesia here, which isn't the same thing
> at all to the semantics-to-orthography coupling you describe yourself as
> experiencing. In particular, synesthetic experience is non-specific (for
> example, a synesthete might say blue "tastes like banana" but they won't
> say blue with red polka dot tastes like "banana with vanilla ice cream
> and cat-tail sauce"), while your one-word-one-spelling experience is
> very specific.
>
> Descriptions given by you and Heiko suggest to me that you simply read
> without subvocalising, so that a small shift in orthography disconnects
> you from the meaning of the word, whereas subvocalisers get the sound
> from the written word, which connects them to the meaning. You've
> presumably made connections directly to the meaning from the written word.

Well, yes, but it is related to synesthesia, isn't it? At least to me, it
feels the same, and I do see colours with music etc.; this also goes for
words - like, I cannot stand the name "Claudia" because of its cloying
metallic taste. But this is a vast field.

I think that most, if not all avid readers do not subvocalise in familiar
languages. On the other hand, I do subvocalise unfamiliar words when reading
Russian, for example, where I can only recognise certain, usually shorter
words on sight.

> What it doesn't mean is that anyone is entitled to accuse others of
> "butchering the language" because they use a different orthography.
> Don't forget that this is a languages discussion list and languages such
> as Scots and Low Saxon do have orthographic problems which most of us
> find difficult to reach an agreement in. It's entirely appropriate that
> people use alternative and even experimental orthographies on the list
> when they feel some purpose is achieved, because if not here, then where?

Well, I already conceded that, didn't I? Just as long as it remains
experimental, without a political agenda.

Except for introducing Middelsprake as a pan-Northern European (is there
even a way to spell this correctly?) language, of course. I'm all for it.
Then maybe we would have a fighting chance of finally understanding what the
Danes are saying...

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (08) [D/E]

Heather wrote:
´
>>Gary wrote:
>>whereas a
>> written form should portray the way a language is
>> spoken and not the other way round.

> Then all teenagers in the UK will be writing
> nuffink
> sumfink
> anyfink

The normal written forms portray such realisations perfectly adequately and
people I know who speak something like that when reading standard English
out loud still realise <th> as /f/ and environmentally conditioned final
<ng> as /Nk/.

> there no good
>
> or alternatively
>
> they're friends like football

surely "they're frenz like football"?

> bruvver
> muvver
> farver
>
Once again <th> maps perfectly to /v/. Something to do with underlying
phonemes, I think. If I rememeber rightly the use of <o> in a lot of those
words is down to earlier handwriting because the strokes in <u> would have
made it difficult to decipher.
None of the examples completely negate Gary's statement. He did write
'should' so I assume he also accepts the odd mismatch that Standard written
English may produce.
>
> Otherwise education is all about learning the accepted standard of written
> language.

It would also help if education included how language works.

Andy Eagle

----------

From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.22 (09) [E]

Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>Therefore consciously practising subvocalisation can help with
remembering the material,<

I am having exactly this experience - unfortunately - with a book I am
reading at the moment.

The book is good - no criticism of the author implied but he has caught
only too well the language of young people, media luvvies and contestants
in Reality Shows.
I'm referring to Ben Elton's "Dead Famous" about a murder that occurs in
full view of the cameras and the production team in a Big Brother like
programme.

I hate and never use the worst swear words: I find them ugly to say and
ugly in meaning. However some of the characters in the book use them
constantly.
To have to read them so often in the book  is having a real effect on my
brain. I can hear/feel these words springing to my lips when talking at the
moment and I am having to exercise extreme control and caution not to
suddenly find myself using them.

I will shock my family if I do - I am known for my prudery in this
particular area.
Strange that having heard them i.e. my familiy use these words for years, I
have never felt inclined to join them.
 But read them over and over again, and they come unbidden to mind.

Is this unavoidable?

Heather 

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