LL-L: "Software localization" LOWLANDS-L, 01.AUG.2000 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 01.AUG.2000 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: "Software localization" LOWLANDS-L, 01.AUG.2000 (03) [E]

Ron hef schreven:
>
> Henry, Lowlanders,
>
> I quite agree that the only way you can get people to stop waffling and to
> face the issue of standardization in Low Saxon (Low German) is by publishing
> important material using a certain system.  The usual, inevitable questions
> then are "Who?" and "How?"  So far there has been no more than these questions
> and all sorts of "But ..." responses.  Maybe it is time to ignore them and
> just act.
>
This is how many standards evolved: de facto. I think in this case we should
go ahead and try to create a de facto standard, which later might become a
true standard (as in: managed by an authoratative body). If we're going to
wait for everybody to stop saying "Who?", "How?", and "But...", we'll never
get anything done. I think it's time someone steps forward and says "Like
this!".

> Thus, Low Saxon in the Netherlands tends to be written using Dutch devices
> (e.g., _oe_ for the [u] or [u:] sounds, which speakers in Germany want to read
> as [ø] or [ø:], and _u_ or _uu_ for the [y:] sound which speakers in Germany
> want to pronounce as [u:]), and on the German side of the border German
> devices are used (e.g., ü, ö, ä, and ß, and _u_ or _uu_ for the [u:] sound
> which speakers in the Netherlands want to read as [y:], and German-type
> lengthening "h" which adds to the confusion).
>
I think in the Low-Saxon case, we should see how people used to write the
language when it wasn't having such a large influence of Dutch and/or German.
Maybe we'll have to modernise that a bit, but at least that way you'll get a
neutral solution. Added to that, I hate having to type ü, ö and ä. I think one
should stick to the latin alphabet (a-z and preferably nothing else).

> However, even though there are
> recommended orthographic guidelines, most writers come up with their own
> orthographic varieties, and the whole thing is quite messy.
>
Which is what I did, and my "thing" is quite a mess too, if I may say so (Yes
you may Henry... Thanks...). I came up with the German lengthening "h" as well
*blush*.  I'm also using "ö", because I haven't got a better idea, but I'm
using "uy" instead of "ü". "ae" may be a good replacement for "ä", but I'm not
sure about that. I also have no idea where and when to use "i", "ii", "ie",
and "y", because there are equally valid reasons for any of these.

> As far as I am
> aware, the hot potato of standardization has not been touched since the
> language came to be officially recognized as a regional language (_streektaal_
> in the Netherlands, _Regionalsprache_ in Germany) in the Netherlands and
> Germany.  If the language is to be taken seriously and wants to enjoy some
> measure of independence, it "must" undergo some sort of unification and
> standardization.  Unfortunately, many speakers naively assume that this would
> endanger their individual, beloved dialects, that from then on they would all
> have to write in Standard Low Saxon.  Of course this does not necessarily
> follow.  While a standard variety would serve as an inter-dialectal variety,
> individual dialects would still be able to be spoken and written.
>
This goes for standardised Dutch and German as well of course.
The Dutch and German dialects are still spoken and to a lesser degree still
written. I always spoke Dutch to my ex mother-in-law. She was from
West-Brabant and I am of course from a Low-Saxon area (Twente). She used her
dialect of Dutch, and I used my dialect of Dutch (NOT Low-Saxon, but a
regional variety of Dutch (yes, this exists)). Even in writing we'd use our
own Dutch subsets, but yet we didn't have problems understanding either. This
illustrates the fact that there should be a standard ortography and a standard
language, so everybody can understand, but which doesn't have to mean that
everybody has to speak and write the same subset, as long as you're familiar
with the standard. If it happens that two dialects are too different, then you
can just use the standard for inter-dialect communication.

> Henry, I could see that it would be relatively easy to devise an orthographic
> system that would suit all Low Saxon dialects and would be acceptable to
> speakers on both sides of the border, if we all "add some water to the wine,"
> as you said.  Note that I say "would suit all Low Saxon dialects."  What I
> have in mind is a uniform spelling system that can be used for each and every
> dialect.  This is unrelated to the issue of creating a standard language
> variety, and I feel we should treat these two as separate issues and tasks.
>
That's my oponion too. A standard language may be a little far fetched (at the
moment), because we both use different (but largely overlapping) subsets. But
that doesn't hinder the creation of a uniform spelling system. A uniform
spelling system will enable people to understand written material more easily,
even if it contains words which are not in the readers subset. I have small
problems with reading material written in a German-based system. If however
the same material were written in a more neutral system (or Dutch-based, for
I'm used to Dutch...), I have no problems at all, even if the words aren't
what I'd use

I say the development of a uniform spelling system has priority. You can
always develope a standard language later, probably consisting of the
combination of both subsets and eliminating the typical Dutch or German words,
which doesn't mean people can't use them anymore of course... I do however
think it shouldn't be neglected, because it does add to understandability too,
although in a different manner, because a standard language just means getting
people used to standard words (maybe different than what they're used to).

> As I see it, the main dilemma you would face in localizing software in Low
> Saxon would not be the orthographic one but the variety choice one.  Which of
> the following methods would you choose?
>
> (1) create a standard language variety (that is understandable to speakers
> everywhere), and to do so in a rush (i.e., in time for the project)
>
> (2) choose one of the existing dialects (perhaps tweaking it here and there)
> that is understandable to speakers everywhere -- if so, which dialect?
>
You're right about that, our differing subsets will clash, when creating a
single version that has to be understood by all speakers.

I think what might be best is option nr 2, with a little bit of option nr 1
mixed in: choosing an existing dialect, but creating a standard for those
parts that differ too much with the rest to be easily understood. I think in
the case of software (which consists mostly of 1 to 3 word "sentences"), that
shouldn't be too much of a problem. After all, in Dutch some idiot decided
that "annuleren" should be used for "cancel" in dialogs. I can't think of
anything more stupid to use, but everybody gets it...

I have no idea which dialect to choose then, but my guess is that it should be
a West-Phalian dialect. According to my knowledge (which might be very wrong)
the West-Phalian dialect is the one on the German side which is closest to the
dialects on the Dutch side.

Another option might be to let speakers of the different dialects make a
proposal, see what overlaps and what not, and try to decide on something for
the parts that don't (which is kinda like creating a standard).

In any case, we'd have to be very careful not to alienate any groups.
Maybe there are some West-Frisians on the list who can help with this?
Why wrestle with something if there's a neighbour willing to help :)

grooten,
Henry

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Software localization

Dear Henry, Lowlanders,

You wrote,

> I think it's time someone steps forward and says "Like this!".

Good for you!  (or "Good on ya!" for Australian ears)

I don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm and start sounding like a naysayer
myself (for I am *not*), but let me give you a word of warning based on
experience: language planning, especially orthographic planning, or even the
mention of it, tends to bring out people's most conservative sides, and
emotional reactions, oftentimes knee-jerk reactions, tend to lead initially
rational thought processes and discussions down the path to some sort of
battle field on which reason does not have the upper hand.

In my experience, the majority of people oppose any kind of language or
spelling reform, even if they don't really know the details, and even if they
now have an inconsistent, hard-to-learn system and the reform would introduce
consistency and economy of time and effort.  If hard put, people will offer
arguments such as "preservation of etymological/historical links" which do not
apply to the spoken language (so why should they in writing?). Oftentimes they
believe that even minor "tweaking" of a familiar orthography will have
enormous, detrimental repercussions in the language as a whole.  *People hate
change* -- or, better to say, they *fear* change.  They don't want to relearn,
probably because it was so difficult to learn the inconsistent system they
know.  They jump to the conclusion that a new system would be at least as
difficult to learn, and they don't want to have any part of that.  You saw
that happening in the recent reforms of Dutch and German spelling (which were
really quite minor in the great scheme of things).  Those reforms were
compromise solutions, thus watered-down ones. They may not be wonderful and
may have flaws, but on the whole they were steps in the direction of
consistency, at least where *systematic* changes were made rather than
changing the spelling of individual words.  People's reactions were negative
and emotional for the most part.  I asked some people what their specific
complaints about the reforms were, and in most cases they turned out to be not
or only poorly informed about the specifics of the reforms.  All they knew was
that they didn't want *any* reform, as though even opening up the door an inch
would allow some horrendous monster to enter and devour the language as they
know and love it.  I heard a couple of halfway informed arguments only against
specifics of the Dutch reform, and I found them reasonable.  And don't even
get me started about English orthography, of the history of resisting reform
attempts and clinging to an outmoded system like barnacles to the hull of a
caravel left over from the 16th century!  ;)

Interestingly, you will get similarly emotion-based negative reactions to Low
Saxon (Low German) orthography planning, even though the language does not
have any standard orthography as yet, has only various recommendations or
traditions.  I understand this to be a spill-over from the resistance to Dutch
and German spelling reforms, coupled with the persistent attitude that Low
Saxon (Low German) is a part or some sort of extension of German and Dutch
respectively.  In other words, Low Saxon (Low German), though newly
recognized, and though not having any standards, is not seen as independent,
as an unwritten leaf, as a vessel ready to be molded and filled.  In other
words, it does not really have a clean start.  People have been conditioned to
seeing its orthography linked to the Dutch and German ones, depending on which
side of the border they happened to live on.  Thus, for instance, in Germany
conservatism regarding noun capitalization and other such devices, including
lengthening "h" and the use of the German-specific and internationally largely
ignored letter _ß_, affects Low Saxon (Low German) in Germany as well.

(In the predominant German spelling of Low Saxon, the lengthening "h" is to be
used only where the German cognate has a lengthening "h"; otherwise the
Lowlandic device is used; e.g., _Paal_ 'pod' [no German cognate] vs _Pahl_ [=
German _Pfahl_] 'pole', the pronunciation being the same.  In other words, Low
Saxon spelling is made dependent on "High" German spelling.)

> I have no idea which dialect to choose then, but my guess is that it
> should be a West-Phalian dialect. According to my knowledge (which might
> be very wrong) the West-Phalian dialect is the one on the German side
> which is closest to the dialects on the Dutch side.

Even though our Westphalian-Mercian-speaking friends might bite my ankles for
doing so, I say that that would be a poor choice in my view.

A quick-and-dirty overview of the dialect groups in Germany:

Northern Low Saxon (Low German)
in the entire northern half of the language area approximately as far east as
the former East German border (though I personally would include many dialects
of Western Mecklenburg), probably including the northern Saxon dialects of the
Netherlands

Westphalian-Mercian (Westföelsch-Märkisch)
in the southwest of the language area.  The dialects of the southern range in
the Netherlands (southern Overijssel, northern Gelderland) may be in a
continuum with this group.

Eastphalian
east of the Westphalian-Mercian area

Eastern Low Saxon (Low German)
a catch-all name for numerous dialect groups, most of them based on mixtures
of imported medieval Western Low Saxon, German and Slavic
(I consider the northwestern (western Mecklenburgish) ones of this group an
extension of Northern Low Saxon and the southwestern (western Brandenburgish)
ones of this group an extension of Eastphalian.  It is farther east that we
seem to encounter noticeably "eastern" features.)

Of these, Northern Low Saxon has the numbers; i.e., it is the largest group,
and has relatively minor variation within it, i.e., has good mutual
comprehension between dialects.  As I said, I would probably count the
dialects of western Mecklenburg as an extension of this.  Also, I consider the
northern dialects of the Netherlands (Groningen, Drenthe and northern
Overijssel) a part of it.  An important subgroup within it is the Eastern
Friesland/Emsland/Oldenburg group spoken in a broad band along the North Sea
coast, perhaps in a continuum with the said dialects of the northern range in
the Netherlands.

Westphalian and Eastphalian are considered difficult to understand by many
speakers of Northern Low Saxon.  They have "strange" pronominal systems (e.g.,
_It_ ~ _Inken_ the 2nd polite in Westphalian, and objective _mick_ and _dick_
in Eastphalian, also distinction between dative and accusative in some of the
dialects).  There are also "unusual" diphthongs in Westphalian (e.g., _iä_ for
/ee/, _ue_ for /uu/ and _öe_ for /öö/ or /ee/) which some speakers of Northern
Low Saxon have told me to be difficult to read.  Eastern Low Saxon dialects
might be difficult to understand for speakers of farwestern dialects,
especially for those of the Netherlands.

So, if I had to choose, I would probably opt for some "watered-down" version
of Eastern Friesland/Emsland/Oldenburg Low Saxon, because I think it would be
suitable as a bridge across the Netherlands-German border and still be
understood pretty well by most speakers in Germany.  I would probably "watered
it down" in the sense of replacing Frisianisms with "mainstream" Saxonisms
(e.g., _hum_ -> _em_ 'him'), replacing puzzling dialect-specific words (e.g.,
_Wicht_ -> _Deern_ ~ _Mäken_ 'girl'), perhaps replacing some Dutch loans that
other speakers don't understand (e.g., _Vietz_ -> _(Faar-)Rad_ 'bicycle'), and
somehow deal with semantic shifts (e.g., _Tuun_ vs _Gaarn_ 'garden',
_Ri(e)chel_ vs _Tuun_ 'fence').

I hope this input has been useful in some small way.

Best regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has 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>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions 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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================