LL-L "Orthography" 2005.02.14 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.FEB.2005 (04) * 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 "Orthography" 2005.02.13 (03) [E]


Ron wrote:
"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."

Your input was very helpful. I want to respond to each of your points one by
one, because you do make a number of useful constructive criticisms, but in
a couple of places my habitual inability to explain myself effectively has
caused one or two misinterpretations.

"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."

If Gary consents to helping me with the IPA representation at some point (I
am unsure about how a lot of NE sounds are represented in IPA), this is what
I will do. I will probably do three versions as suggested, just for my own
peace of mind.

 (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.

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

It's a difficult vowel set. A seasoned linguist would be required to
transcribe it in IPA before I would be happy about any phonological
representation. The same is true of what I gloss as /aa/. It's similar to
the Cockney rendition of [au] - that is, [ae:] with a flat tone to start
with but a rising one to finish with, seguing into a schwa. I would even say
it was a super long [ae:] followed by a schwa. It is for me the most
distinctive NE sound.

"Then why not go all the way and make it ( or ) and
( or ) respectively? Yes, would be OK with speakers of
certain languages, but universally is associated with [eI] or [EI], and
more progressive proposals for minority languages in Germany and the
Netherlands have been , and (also based on Dutch), and
in North Frisian is generally used for [a(.)I]."

That is true, and a fair point. If continental West Germanic non-linguists
understand /ai/ as [ai] I will quite happily use it.

"One last point -- not nit-picking but practising constructive criticism. In
your proposal -- which I generally like -- you represent liaison."

Yes, and for very good reason. I toyed with excluding representing it as it
is, in essence, unnecessary for reading NE. However, if and when you hear NE
you will be astounded by way liaison works in it. You mention that liaison
is a standard rule in English, but NE uses special sounds to represent the
phenomenon - what I would describe as "lingering hinge consonants". The
strongest sound in the sequence /i neven/ ("in heaven") is the prosthetic
[n] which represents a long [n] seguing into a nasal [n]. It would be just
as well to write the sound as /n.n/ to represent this feature. The same is
true of the [n] in _kindum_ (which should actually be _kindem_ to show the
schwa in the final syllable. This could just as correctly be written
_kin.ndem_ to represent the long [n] feature.

In NE [r] does not exist except as a rhoticity in liaison, so it seems a
little against the exercise to represent it in the main body of the word,
e.g., /faadher in/ for [fae:D at .ri]. What is more, the prosthetic [j] in
/giej jus/ represents the same sort of phenomenon as with the [n] described
above. Essentially what NE has is superlong hinge consonants / semi-vowels
to maintain the melody of speech. The dilemma is that in NE the two [j.j] in
words like /giej jus/ is just as strong as the [g] or [s] in that range, so
why should one [j] be ignored simply to fit in with standard English
convention? It is completely against the phonemic clarity I am trying to
represent.

"...haaled bi(e?) dha neejm..."

There is no need to add an /e/ there. The phoneme represented is an
exceptionally short [i], slightly shorter than standard English _pin_, and
mildly nasal. Most non-dipthongised vowels in NE are very short, and
somewhat nasal.

"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)?"

That's exactly right - the rhoticity is prosthetic.

"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."

See above. I am really quite unsure about how to display this phenomenon,
because it is so important to "hearing" the general sound of NE.

"I take it you wrote /hwart/ in error for /hwaat/."

That's correct. You know NE better than me!

"And yet another point. If you pronounce "king" as [kIN] (which I am
assuming) you should also write for ["kIndOm]. There's obviously a
rule that changes /N/ to [n] before a dental (or dento-alveolar, /d/, /t/,
/n/), so writing 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."

This is why I would like an IPA rendition before I do a continental-style
orthography. The [n] in _kindem_ is an odd phoneme that I have only ever
heard in NE, although it does remind me of one of the [n]s in Irish.

"I hope this has been more helpful than confusing."

No, it's been very helpful. It's just a matter of finding a middle way
between what representing the sounds faithfully and producing something
readers can actually understand. Thanks for your input!

I would welcome any other comments from anyone on the list.

Go raibh mile maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

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

Hi, Críostóir!

Thanks for your interesting response!

In a nutshell: there may be preferences, but I hardly think there's right
and wrong.  So my suggestion is to simply forge ahead and do what you can.
It's not as though you'd be making a fool of yourself or anything, or that
you couldn't change it later.  You're particularly safe if you display more
than one version, especially if an IPA version is included.  Much has to do
with individual approach and attitude, and the latter includes the presence
or the absence of fear.  Take our Larry Granberg, for instance, and his
"Picksburghese" (Pittsburgh English) translation of the story.  (We're still
working on it.)  While he doesn't treat the dialect with disdain at all, he
is having fun with the exercise by translating creatively (writing how
people would actually phrase it rather than translating literally) and he
spells it creatively, with a sense of humor without making fun of the
dialect.  I'm not suggesting you should treat it as a joke, am just
reminding you that there is a whole range of approaches.  Anything is fine
as long as it is not desparaging to a variant and its speakers.

If you feel you should represent liaison and certain other phonetics you
consider essential, then by all means go for it!

I appreciate the thought you're putting into it.

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