LL-L "Orthography" 2007.10.27 (08) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  27 October 2007 - Volume 08
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Joachim Kreimer-de Fries <Kreimer at jpberlin.de>
Subject: "Morphology" [partly Ressources] [E/LS]

Hi Lowlanders,

Ron F. Hahn commented  27.10.2007 :
> Ja, leyve Joachim. J üst so is dat.
...
> Ja, man wat dey morfology un d'n wourdschat anbelangen dayt, daar
> schullen wy Nourdsassen (dey na "neye olde" woyrd' soykt un vör 't
> "neye" keyn bang hebt) fakener na dey snakwys' vun us luyd' in
> Westfalen kyken un ook in Twente un Drenthe kyken (or hoyren), un
> klaar ook mit 'n blik na 't Middelsassische.

Best Ron,
thank you for saying that - that works like an antidepressivum, so
that I can hardly stop reading it again and again!

But nevertheless you adjudicate:

> Lykers hebt de Westfaalschen ook eern deyl "neymoodschen" kraam, so
> as dat "breken" vun lange sülvstluden ( t.b. ee > iä).

Objection, Your Honour! - Inprauke, Juwe Ären!

1. The breaking or refraction of long vowels in Westphalian and other
Dialects is not at all new-fashioned, but must have a very long
tradition, problably already during the Middel LS Period. Otherwise
it cannot be explained, how this phenomenon could have such a
pervasiveness from Twente and Drenthe to West- and Eastphalia with
vibrancies up to Mecklenburg and Pomerania. Because in a period of
supersession by standard German it is scarcely thinkable, that there
was an expansion just of the first endangered group of LS.

2. To me, it seems more verisimilar what I have read in an Overview
of Olaf Bordasch
< http://home.wxs.nl/~obd/obo/platt/ned.htm<http://home.wxs.nl/%7Eobd/obo/platt/ned.htm>>,
that the differences
between the Westphalian(-like) and the northener LS are both results
of the language change  from old to middel LS.: That the
"Westphalian" breaking of the vowels was a reaction to the weakening
of the beautiful old-saxon suffixes - with the result of remaining
the sounding more nearby the old-saxon origin (e.g. from "etan" to
"eatn/iätn" instead of northern "eetn"). - See:
http://home.wxs.nl/~obd/obo/platt/sprachgeschichte.htm<http://home.wxs.nl/%7Eobd/obo/platt/sprachgeschichte.htm>

3. So after all it is neither nymaudsk ("neymoodsch") nor carnival
jocoseness (because of the nearness to Coloun), but rather an
historical cultural-linguistic merit, an unconscious-collective
masterpeace of the people of that language group that they have saved
the catenation with the ancester language Old-Saxon so close, giving
by this material for the linguistic research even when the last
active speakers of Westphalian will be disappeared... ;-)

4. After all, Westphalian & Co. are beautiful idioms because this
kind of development created a more coloured sound than in the North.
Of course, that depends always fully from the personal gusto, but at
least one can objectively, value-free say, that Westphalian has
*more* different vowels (and possibly consonants). Granted but that
in a contest, even restricted to European languages, that the gold an
silver would go to Italian and Russian, I suppose...

5. Being "oldbakscher" than the modern North-Saxon dialects,
Westphalian preserved more words and forms also from the Middelsaxon.
Especially that of the Osnabrück-Tecklenburg region and that of the
Ravensberger Land have continued using dative and even rests of
genetive case, moreover a more distinguishable, contrasting
praeteritum and some conditional forms of verbs from the middelsaxon
time. So these saved elements can be an offer, a treasure trove for
the other LS dialects, or for the reconstruction of a civilized Hyper-
LSaxon.

[Weird that me, escaped directly after the university-entrance
diploma of the Charlemagne School in Osnabrück (and never settled
back), just after beginning to (re-)acquire my father-tongue, am
incited to sing a paean of praise on the original (better said
former) language of my parantage region!] :-)

7. It remains a lasting merit of the northener LS having created and
asserted (via Hanse) the first canonical literary language of
(Middel-)Saxon!!!
There are still and will remain big problems, to *write* Westphalian
dialects in an clear and understandable manner, because of the lack
of "normal" used letters (latin). Not to preconcive what would have
come out, if Westphalian this word had dabbled in this challenge...

On the other hand, the Westphalian (their scribes) could read and
write middelsaxon documents. Indeed, the half-phonetic spelling of
most Westphalian Texts might irritate the Northeners and mislead them
to exagerate the differences of two dialect groups to
irreconcilability of the languages. (But the half phonetical writing
is important for Learner, as me.) And certainly the lack of a commen
literary language for the modern LS dialects and the relegation of LS
in the public communication has lead to excrescences of (even
eccentric or perverse) particularities, corrations and contractions
also in the spoken dialects.

But in reality there is still more similarity and affinity as the
first look lets suspect. To take Ron's example of the breaking "ee >
iä". The "iä" as in "iäten" and uncountable other words is not a full-
blown diphthong i-ä, but - after Klöntrupp - an bright stressed e-
sound (therefore ä) with a little initial sound of "i" before, almost
"j"/"y" in Standard German. Therefore, might the northern
prononciation be "eeten" / "eyten" or "äten" (as in Mecklenburg), it
is not allto hard to identify the Westfalian "ıäten", too. Of course
there are other more difficult words/prononciations.

The hitherto attempts of the last two centuries to create a LS
Orthography were good in intention, but deficient in accomplishment.
Mainly because of the meander to aspire similarity with Standard
German Orthography.

6. But, such a concentration of accelent people as here in the
Lowland-List could at least be able to reconstruct an civilized
orthographie or the principals of it!

==> The first serve for that, Ron, were your long promised Schema,
basic principles of the "Algemeyne Schryvwys", even if still
inchoate, rough-and-ready!

=> common Schryvwys, first between us but than to propagate to
others, is IMHO the precondition for the realisation of your great
Idea of an "Alaska"-Project for LS-Dialects, which you, Ron, proposed
recently under "resources"! - I have been retented in praising it
yet, because I am aware that probably the only contribution I can
give to it, could be the translation, the audio-files and perhaps a
sort of half-phonetical transscription of the texts for the
"Ossenbrügger Plat".

Nice Weekend & Goudgaun!
Joachim Kreimer-de Fries from Berlin

----------

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

Hello, Joachim, and many thanks for the interesting posting above. It is
always terrific to sense your level of interest and passion and at the same
your open-mindedness.

I stand corrected (and still smiling) with regard to the timing of
Westphalian vowel breaking. I suppose it was simply a case of assumption and
of lack of knowledge on my part. It makes perfect sense to me that breaking
began during the transition from Old Saxon to Middle Saxon already.
Furthermore, I wonder if we are dealing with an areal feature that crosses
language boundaries and covers both Saxon and Frisian varieties, perhaps
also Franconian varieties. After all, Westphalian is situated at the western
edge where Saxon meets Frisian to the north and Franconian to the south, and
where there seems to have been a fair bit of overlapping and overlaying.

I am quite aware of the fact that the North Saxon dialects predominate by
virtue of a larger speaker population (and bigger mouths ;-) ), and I am
also aware that this has generated a fair bit of resentment on the part of
speakers of dialects that belong to other dialect groups. I have been
accused of Northern favoritism and bias many times, usually in attempts to
devalue my opinions and efforts that don't sit well with some in Germany
(particularly with those that do nothing but complain). I have to say,
though, that, besides from the neighboring areas across the Netherlands'
border and those of the Northeast, I have seen a good bit of Westphalian
effort and even attempts to collaborate across dialect group boundaries.
Obviously you are a shining example of that.

Joachim, I'm still hoping to get at least a basic outline of the said
orthography together, though my projects are many and my time is dwindling.
Here just a couple of remarks for now.

From a linguistic (phonological) point of view, a phonically based
orthography ought to represent the phonemes and nothing but the phonemes of
a given language. In such an ideal case it will successfully represent the
language across dialect boundaries, though there will still be dialectical
differences, because there tend to be few differences between the phonemic
structures of different dialects. (In other words, such an orthography would
not create a new and neutral language, as has been alleged many times.) For
example, in German you write kaufen 'to buy', but it is pronounced
differently in different dialect areas (e.g., khaufm, kho:fm, kɐʉfm,
khau:fǝ), but kaufen represents all of them adequately and you would only
represent phonetic detail for specific purposes, not in ordinary literature.
Yet in Low Saxon people have been trying to represent phonetic detail in
ordinary writing, and most of them don't do a good job at that because they
don't understand much about phonology and because they try to do the job
with German and Dutch orthographic devices, some of which are not very
suitable for the job. They have been stuck in this rut because they are
stuck on the idea of showing as many dialectical peculiarities as possible.

A "neutral" orthography -- that is an orthography with uniformly usable
devices -- would facilitate mutual comprehension of texts written by people
that speak different dialects and thus pronounce things differently from
each other.

For example what in the ANS I write <e> (in open syllables) and <ee> (in
closed syllables), is pronounced [e:], [E:], [ie:] and [iE:] in various
dialects and is being written <e>, <ee>, <eh>, <ę>, <ęę>, <ęh>, <ä>, <ää>,
<äh>, <iä>, <iäh>, <ië>, <iëe>, <ié>, <iéé>, <iê> and <iêê> in German- and
Dutch-based orthographies. What I write <ey> is pronounced something like
[ei], [e:i], [EI], [E:I], [æI], [æ:I], [aI] and [a:I] in various dialects
and is now being written <e>, <ee>, <äi>, <eei>, <ej>, <ei>, <ai>, <èi>,
<éi> and <êi>. Some dialects (such as in Drenthe and Twente) has [e:] where
others have a diphthong. That's fine; so there would be a spelling
difference (<ee> versus <ey>). Some Northern dialects have lost the
distinction between /oo/ and /ou/ and pronounce all occurrences as a
diphtong ([oU] etc.). That's fine, too; they get to write <ou> everywhere.
Many dialects in Drenthe and Twente have [y:] where others have [u:]. This,
too, can be spelled accordingly (e.g., <huys> v <huus> 'house') because here
we are dealing with phonemic differences. Mutual comprehension will still be
vastly improved. If a "neutral" orthographic system is used, facilitated
reading comprehension would cross national boundaries.

At first at least, such an orthography could be used as an auxiliary system,
such as in teaching material and as an alternative in interregional literary
activities.

I don't really want to go into all the details and bore everyone to death on
the List. However, please find below a for now rough and tough of-the-cuff
transliteration into ANS of your translation (
http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/ossenbrugge.php). (It may not all be
correct at this time.) Just bear in mind the following. The system uses
Middle Saxon devices. Assimilation of prevocalic /d/ to preceding /n/ and
/l/ is a regularly applying rule; so the /d/ is written (e.g., kind 'child'
v kinder 'children' rather than Kind v Kinner).

We can talk about details later.

Thanks for your interest, Joachim!

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

***

De netelkoening

De netelkoening hev syn nest in eyne wagenschuur hat. Nu sind dey oul(d)en
beyde moul uut-vlogen wesen – sey hevvet vör ere jungen wat tou eten halen
wold – un hevvet de lütken gans alleyn louten.

Nou eyne tydlang kümp dey oul(d)e wyer tou huus.

"Wat is den hyr blout passeyrd?" vrog hey. "Wer hev ju wat doun, kinder? Jy
sind jae gans verschüchterd."

"Aach, Vaer", anveret sey, "hyr kwaymp eben sou eyn grouten laygen kerel
vörby. De saag sou boyse un schuderig uut. De glupkede met syne grouten
ougen nou uset nest rin. Daar hevvet wy us sou vör verveerd."

"Sou," seg de oul(d)e „waarneven is hey den af-bleven?"

"Jou," segget sey, "hey is daar herümme goun."

"Toyvet!" seg dey oul(d)e, "den wil ik nou. Syt jy men stil, kinder! Den wil
ik krygen." Daarmet vlüg hey em nou.

As hey ümme dat houk kümp, daar is dat dey lövve; dey geyt daar lank.

De netelkoening is men nich verveerd. Hey set sik up den lövven syn rügge
hen un vangt eyn schenden an. "Wat hes du by myn huus tou doun", rop hey,
"un myne lütken kinder tou verveern?"

Dey lövve keert sik daar gaar nich an un geyt synen gang.

Daar weerd hey noch duller schimpen, dey lütke kratssack. "Du hes daar gaar
niks verloren, wi'k dy man seggen! Un küms du wyer", seg hey, "den sas men
moul seyn! Ik mag et eygentlik nich doun", seg hey – un daarmet trekt hey
eyn syn beyn in dey hoegte –, "süs pedd' ik dy up dey stye den rügge in!"

Daarup vlüg hey wyer tourügge nou syn nest hen.

"Sou, kinder", seg hey, "den hevv' ik dat af-leerd. Dey kümp nich wyer."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20071027/eaf29007/attachment.htm>