LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 03.AUG.2000 (03) * 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: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: "Software localization" LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

Ron Hahn wrote (LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000(01)):
>
> Even though I agree with Ian in that wild dialect mixing would be
likely to
> lead to wild confusion, I also feel that adherance to a single
dialect in
> standardization is too restrictive and is also likely to cause
resentment on
> the part of speakers of other dialects.

Yes, I didn't quite mean as strictly as that. Firstly, I meant that a
standard would be *based* on a single dialect, but not necessarily
entirely created from it. Secondly, I agree with you an Henry
regarding "soft standards", and would suggest that initially we are
talking about "guidelines" rather than wholesale standardization.

> I agree with Ian that grammar standardization would be an important
> component.  However, this soft approach would solve, at least
initially,
> dilemmas such having to decide for instance which present tense
plural verbal
> suffix to use in Low Saxon: (1) -t (e.g., _wie hebbt_ 'we have',
_jie leert_
> 'you study/teach', _se kaamt_ 'they come') or (2) -en (e.g., _wie
hebben_ 'we
> have', _jie leren_ 'you study/teach', _se kamen_ 'they come'),
distribution
> being somewhere in the vicinity of 50%-50% among the dialects.  In
this
> approach you would allow both forms as a matter of choice.

Well, this happens in "major" languages two - consider the past
subjunctive in Spanish, where two equally acceptable forms remain.

> I think that such a more flexible approach would also have some
psychological
> benefits.  What I have gathered from discussions is that many or
most Low
> Saxon speakers seem to fear that standardization would result in the
death of
> their dialects and of the writing in their dialects.

Well, during the "propaganda" that Henry rightly spoke of, it would be
necessary to indicate that the standard would be for use only a) in
formal documents (such as government publications) or b) where writers
of two very different dialects were seeking to understand each other.
In informal writing (poems, stories, letters to speakers of similar
dialects etc.) local conventions would remain.

Best wishes,
------------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000 (04) [E]

Henry writ:

> Something completely different. If anyone is going to work on a
standard (or
> guidelines if you wish...), who would that have to be? Is it
reserved for
> linguistic experts, or can other people make an input? By that I
mean people like me,
> whom may not be experts, but have a good knowledge of their own
dialect and
> have a healthy set of brains to think about something, instead of
digging a
> trench immediately, sticking to what they know best.

It would be a big mistake to leave standardization to a bunch of
faceless academics. Languages are living things, the spoken language
develops and so does the written. The trick is to encourage native
speakers to write in their own best representation of their own
dialect. Then they can look at other dialects, and see what they have
in common. With Scots, for example, in Co Antrim (N.Ireland) the word
for 'above' is pronounced as if 'aboon' or 'abyoon' (to rhyme with
'soon'), but I know up in Aberdeenshire or even in NW Ireland, the
pronunciation is more like 'abeen' (almost to rhyme with 'seen').
However, the word for 'palm' (of the hand) is 'loof' to Antrim
speakers but almost 'leef' to Aberdeenshire speakers - so here we have
a pattern. This is represented by <ui>, thus 'abuin' and 'luif'. These
spellings could now be considered more or less "standard", but no
academic has ever imposed this rule, it has come about through looking
at what other people write and seeing the pattern. Recently I adopted
the Scottish spellings 'finnd' and 'binnd' because they don't
contradict my own system, and so, although the final /d/ is not
pronounced in Ulster, I saw no reason not to adopt them. Another
example would be English 'hold'. In most Ulster dialects, the /d/ has
been lost on this word, and a common dialect spelling is 'houl' or
'howl'. However, in most Scottish dialects the <l> has been lost, thus
'haud'. I would suggest, therefore, that the obvious spelling (and the
one I use) should be 'hauld' - which also has literary use and
reflects both pronunciations. I think that is now gradually gaining
ground. Ulster speakers will know to drop the /d/, and Scots will know
to drop the /l/.

So nobody would "work on a standard", a standard would have to evolve,
although people would need to be aware that a standard is required
reasonably quickly. You do need a group of people to check
consistency. If you go for 'hauld', you also go for 'cauld', 'auld',
'fauld' etc. If you decide on <ch> in 'sheuch', you should use <ch> in
'teuch' and 'eneuch'. But beyond that, "linguistics experts" shouldn't
be involved - in any case, many of them aren't "experts" at all, as I
explained with reference to English grammar in a previous posting.

> Is there any authoritative body that could govern this? Should be an
institute
> or something that is willing to make the effort in a short amount of
time, and
> willing to possibly make some radical changes (else we'll get
nowhere again).

Like I say, native speakers must have the final say. If not, well, we
all know what's happening to High German at the minute. If the native
speakers are ignored, they will get irritated, even with "major"
languages! So I fear "radical" changes aren't always a good idea.

> If not, is this the right place to start, or should I take it
someplace else?
> (trying to get something going here, instead of just dreaming about
it...)

Does a magazine for creative or factual writing in Low Saxon exist in
your area? Or an e-mail list? That's what I would do.

Best wishes,
--------------------
Ian James Parsley.

----------

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" (was "Software localization") LOWLANDS-L,
02.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl] hef schreven/writ
> Therefore we'd have to avoid Dutch and/or German
> influence as much as possible, else we'll end up with a standard
we'll
> never get recognition (let alone status) for, just because the
spelling system
> is the same.

Well, sort of. On the other hand, you can't decide to use a certain
spelling in standard just because it's different from Dutch or German.
It needs to be part of a consistent system, preferably one based on
traditional literary texts.

> I think placenames are a little bit tricky.

I should point out that I only used "Belfast" as an example, I wasn't
meaning it as a place name. The point was that many Ulster-Scots
writers ignorant of linguistic principles spell this word, and many
others, according to English conventions, often specifically to make
them different from English. As I said above, this is not a good idea
where there is no tradition of doing so - it leads to inconsistencies
and a spelling system which, paradoxically, is actually based on
English!

> That's exactly what I'm hoping for, tolerance. Maybe just a single
option will
> prevail, maybe others or all will prevail, but with tolerance, or
maybe we'll
> just get the bonus of everybody having more options (I'd prefer the
latter).

I have maintained this for some time. The trick is to get people
writing, and eventually people will come to various agreements on
forms that should prevail (certainly in terms of orthographical
conventions). The only time a group of academic-types would really
have to be involved would be with grammar - although even then you
would have to be careful. Those who based English grammar on Latin
were hardly a prime example!

Best wishes,
----------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

From: Thomas [t.mcrae at uq.net.au]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000 (03) [E]

John Tait wrote....

> From: Lowlands-L <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000 (03) [E]
>
> (1) The Tory
> representative at the last-but-one SLS conference wanted to be assured that
> any Scots taught in schools would be good Scots;

For once I must agree with a Tory. A major problem with Scots is currently
spoken in the muck ups with singular and plural. e.g. 'They coos IS gawn
doon the road'. 'Is THEY a buik Ye're readin' ?' 'These men IS sojers'. Such
material is not traditional in any way, merely the language of illiterates
that has crept into common usage. Alas I've even seen examples on this List.
Care must also be taken to get rid of obsolete words that have not been used
by the community at large for many years. 'Dreich' for example has been
largely replaced by 'Dry'. I like the former but in my areas at least I only
heard it used once by a sheriff in court.
To develop a language has to evolve, to stick to the old for the sake of the
old hampers development.
Regards
Tom
Tom Mc Rae
Brisbane Australia
"Oh wid some power the Giftie gie us
Tae see oorselves as ithers see us"
Robert Burns--

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 02.AUG.2000 (05) [E]

Ron hef schreven:
>
> Of course, Henry, one possible route to travel is to just start publishing Low
> Saxon material in whatever standard you personally envisage, maybe with some
> input from friends.  Perhaps that will get the ball rolling.  People may not
> want to *start* something, but they are quite ready to *criticize* whatever a
> rare doer has done, and this may trigger some sort of dialogue and perhaps
> eventually collaboration.
>
You're right about that, that's what I was thinking last night as well.
How do you think institutions like the INS would react if someone
came up with something like we talked about? And what do you
think a possible follow-up could be?

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Henry, you asked:

> How do you think institutions like the INS would react if someone
> came up with something like we talked about?

I have no idea.  Hopefully someone else on the List does.

I think a more immediate question you ought to ask is if they accept the
dialects west of the border as a part of their "Low German".

See my annotation in the following book entry of listed at
http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/low_saxon_offline_3.htm:

==Quote==
Lindow, Wolfgang, Dieter Möhn, Hermann Niebaum, Dieter Stellmacher, Hans
Taubken & Jan Wirrer (1998); _Niederdeutsche Grammatik_; Leer (Germany):
Verlag Schuster (Mühlenstr. 15/17, D-26789 Leer, Germany); DM 49.80. (Low
German grammar; totally German-centered, i.e. taking "Low German" literally,
completely ignoring the Low Saxon dialects of the Netherlands and actually
stating that the language area extends from the Netherlands border to the
Polish border; otherwise an excellent reference work; in German)
==End Quote==

I am not sure if the INS had any involvement with the publication of the book,
though I know that Lindow has some connection with the INS.  (I have my copy
at home and will check tonight if there is any reference to the INS.)  The INS
people have been taking a very strong pro-recognition and pro-implementation
stance and are quite outspoken about it.  So in this regard I give them high
marks.  Their position with regard to the geographic spread of the language is
not quite clear to me.

My recommendation is to always assume that individuals and organizations in
Germany do not consider and include the dialects of the Netherlands in "Low
German" and may not even know about them.  The concept of _över de Kimm
kieken_ ("to look beyond the horizon") is not as yet very popular among Low
Saxon speakers and organizations in Germany, leave alone the concept of _över
de Grenss kieken_ ("to look beyond the border"), though I've noticed that
people (including writers) who live in the border regions tend to be laudable
exceptions.  I believe that a lot of work needs to be done about *inclusion*
first.  A lot of avoidance and denial needs to be broken down before any real
game plans can be made.

Perhaps you should ask the INS about their position in the matter.  This would
be good since you are a Low Saxon speaker in the Netherlands.  The
standardization issue could be addressed after they have stated that they
include the dialects of the Netherlands (and also Mennonite Low Saxon
[Plautdietsch]), if they will.

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
 =======================================================================