LL-L "Orthography" 2005.02.13 (03) [E]

Sun Feb 13 22:29:50 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 13.FEB.2005 (03) * 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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Anniversary" 2005.02.12 (07) [E]

Dave Singelton wrote:
"I read Gary's Wren and it brought back so many memories  I thought I would
give it a go in South Yorkshire / Derbyshire border dialect."

Dave's was fascinating. It would be good if we could get the England
Englishes down in IPA as I don't think the orthography transmits the sounds
appropriately... Dave used _dae_ to describe a phoneme I know very well as
three vowel sounds together [e.i:.@], which is also used in Nottingham
English. Depending on the stress _day_ becomes [de.i.j] or [di.] in NE, as
will hopefully be communicated when I finally get round to my own version of
the Wren in NE!

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.02.11 (07) [E]

Gary wrote:
"For example the word 'write' - which is phonetically [Pae?] or
phonologically /raIt/ - should this be written , , , , or even just plain ,
all of which would be possibilities?"

This is why I have been attracted more and more to a pan-West Germanic
orthography. I would write _reit_ for Standard English _write_ and _rei'_
for Estuary English to realise the glottal stop. _rei'_ should therefore be
readily readable to those used to Low Saxon, Frisian, Dutch, German, etc too
as meaning /raIt/. There are a number of problems, but it's better than
trying to use Standard English spelling, which is no spelling system at all.
My one inclusion would be to use ash and thorn to represent the dhelta and
theta sounds that English has but the continental Germanic languages do not.
(As I do not know how to represent ash and thorn here, I use /dh/ and /th/
respectively, but prefer ash and thorn) Paternoster in Nottingham English
using my proposed orthography:

ee = [e:]
ei = [ai]
ie = [i:]
aa = [ae:]
oo = [o:]
uu = [u:, y]
sch = [S]
e alone and in final position = schwa
w = [w]
v = [v]

Aa faadhe, hwart i neven, haaled bi dha neejm.
Dheij kindum kum. Dha wil bi dun non oth az tiz i neven.
Gie jus dhis dee ja dellie bred.
En fegie jus aa dets, ez wi fegi [sic] aa dettez.
En lied ez nor rinti tenteschen, be delieje rus fre / frem ievel.
Fe dhein iz dhe kindum en dhe pauwe en dhe gloeri fe reve en neve.
Aamen.

I would be particularly interested to hear how my phonological orthography
for NE is received by those from a Low Saxon, Dutch or Frisian background.

Go raibh maith agaibh

Criostóir.

----------

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

Hi, Críostóir!

I'm generally on the same page with you.  Here's a bit of input.  Much more
could be written, but my time is limited.

I think you ought to somehow distinguish your long-term quest for a suitable
orthography from the immediate goal of the anniversary project, though they
are obviously linked.  For now, I suggest you use a spelling system that
feels best to you at this time and that can be comprehended by both English
speakers and others, and in addition you can post it in IPA.  (Gary or
someone else might help you if necessary.)  Most people cannot read the IPA,
and you don't want to scare the "linguistically curious" away with the
"scientific" stuff on the first page.  You can offer the IPA version to
those who want it.  We are doing this in several cases, linking to an IPA
version from the default version.  You could always revise any of these
later.  Also, there's nothing wrong with having three versions:
English-based, "Continental"-based and IPA.  It is also OK to add a key to
the second, as you did with your sample above.

You wrote:

> Dave used _dae_ to describe a phoneme I know very well as three vowel
> sounds together [e.i:.@], which is also used in Nottingham English.
> Depending on the stress _day_ becomes [de.i.j] or [di.] in NE,

I suggest writing it <aye>, <aë>, <aeë>, <eië> or the like.  (I don't see
anything wrong with using diareses to set a vowel letter off.)  Your
stressed _day_ could be written <dayy> or <daiy> in an English-based system
and <deij> in a "Continental"-based system, the unstressed one <...dy> and
<...di> respectively.

> I would write _reit_ for Standard English _write_ and _rei'_ for Estuary
> English

Then why not go all the way and make it <rait> (<rayt> or <rajt>) and <rai'>
(<ray'> or <raj'>) respectively?  Yes, <ei> would be OK with speakers of
certain languages, but universally <ei> is associated with [eI] or [EI], and
more progressive proposals for minority languages in Germany and the
Netherlands have been <ai>, <ay> and <aj> (also <aai> based on Dutch), and
in North Frisian <ai> is generally used for [a(.)I].

One last point -- not nit-picking but practising constructive criticism.  In
your proposal -- which I generally like -- you represent liaison.  This is
phonetic detail, the result of a regular phonological rule applying, as in
Standard England English.  You can show it in a phonetic representation
(such as when using the IPA), but in ordinary spelling I would not disregard
word boundaries except in contractions (e.g., <it is> -> <'tis>, preferably
<'t is>).

Here then my proposed tweaking:

Aa faadhe, hw art in even, haaled bi(e?) dha neejm.
Dhaij kindum kum. Dha wil bi(e?) dun on oth az 't iz in even.
Giej us dhis deej aa dellie bred.
En fegiej us aa dets, ez wi fegi aa dettez.
En lied ez nor inti tenteschen, be deliejer us fre / frem ievel.
Fe dhein (dhaijn?) iz dhe kindum en dhe pauwe en dhe gloeri fer eve en eve.
Aamen.

Here's another problem.  If /-er/ [@], does it not cause /-r/ liaison in
certain cases (though not in "power and" apparently)?  Wouldn't "our earth"
be something like <aa roth> (using your system)?  If so, you really need to
write the phonemically present /-r/, and it's phonetic "dissappearance" and
"reappearance" would simply obey known rules, as it does in Standard England
English, Australian English and to a more limited extent in American
English.  This is not necessary where the /r/ *never* surfaces, as in
"earth."  (In the case of <art> it should be there because of "are," which I
assume get's involved in liaison if a following word starts with a vowel.)
I take it you wrote <hwart> in error for <hwaat>.

And yet another point.  If you pronounce "king" as [kIN] (which I am
assuming) you should also write <kingdom> for ["kIndOm]. There's obviously a
rule that changes /N/ to [n] before a dental (or dento-alveolar, /d/, /t/,
/n/), so writing <kindom> would be phonetic spelling rather than phonemic
spelling, and this would be disruptive to most speakers, to whome the
semantic relationship between "king" and "kingdom" is still obvious.

Hence, second tweaking:

Aar faadher, hw art in even, haaled bi(e?) dha neejm.
Dhaij kingdum kum. Dha wil bi(e?) dun on oth az 't iz in even.
Giej us dhis deej aar dellie bred.
En fegiej us aar dets, ez wi fegi aar detterz.
En lied ez nor inti tenteschen, be deliejer us fre / frem ievel.
Fer dhein (dhaijn?) iz dhe kingdum en dhe pauwer en dhe gloeri fer ever en
ever.
Aamen.

By the way, I assume that <hwart> (my <hw art>) is a permutation of <huu
art>.  I think it's OK to write it "shortened," "contracted," as you do when
you distinguish stressed "thy" as <dhaij> from unstressed <dha>.

I do this in my AS for Low Saxon (after much waffling) by distinguishing the
masculine and feminine definited article: stressed <dey> [dE.I], unstressed
<de> [de] ~ [dE], also pronominal <dey> 'that (one)' (masc./fem.), etc.

I hope this has been more helpful than confusing.

Cheers and hurrays to you!

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