LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (02) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 04.AUG.2000 (02) * 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: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 03.AUG.2000 (03) [E]

Ron wrote in reply to various contributions by Ian and Henry:

> Linguists may tend toward creating something that is scientifically sound
but
> is utterly unacceptable to the ordinary speaker who come with expectations
> based on what they are familiar with.  Phonologists, on the other hand,
would
> hopefully bring laypeople's ideas out from the dark ages.
> Judging by past creations of Low Saxon (Low German) orthographies by
people
> who had no knowledge of 20th century phonology, "laypeople," having no
idea
> what a phoneme is, lean toward wanting to create something like a phonetic
> script, a system that shows all sorts of redundant phonetic detail
specific to
> a given dialect.  This is detrimental to the process of creating an
> inter-dialectal writing system.  On top of it (strangely, considering
"High"
> German precedence to the contrary, e.g., _Kleid_ [klAIt] -> _Kleider_
> ['klaId at R] vs _Zeit_ [tsaIt] -> _Zeiten_ ['tsaIt at n]), the predominant Low
> Saxon systems in Germany go so far as to represent final devoicing by rule
in
> writing; e.g., _Tiet_ [ti:t] 'time' but _Tieden_ ['ti:d=n] 'times', which
is
> correct as _Tied_ [ti:t] 'time' -> _Tieden_ ['ti:d=n] 'times'.  Linguists
> would have to convince lay panel members that this type of approach is
> unreasonable.

Similar problems occur in Scots. 'Lay people' usually base their
orthographies on their own dialect, often using 'English' conventions to
represent the phonology. Thereby producing what is in effect a
pseudo-phonetic transcription. No consideration is given to the idea of an
'an inter-dialectal writing system.' My own experience is that as good as
all (phonetic) descriptions of individual Scots dialects that I have read
have always compared the phonology to standard English and not with other
Scots dialects. That's the reason for my endless quest for good phonetic
transcriptions of Scots dialects. So as to do some comparing. For those who
are interested, my website now presents one spelling system applied to the
(main) phonological features of each Scots dialect. Although there are some
grey areas still needing to be
covered.(www.scots-online.org/grammar/pronunci.htm) Further information,
(constructive) criticism etc. is always welcome.
I must admit here that the version for Insular Scots is a bit of trying to
bash a square peg into a round hole and is in need of revising.
Such intimate knowledge of the phonology of 'all' dialects can only be
provided by experts or enthusiastic amatures or of course a gathering of
native speakers taken from all the dialect groups . Similarly efficiently
representing such like orthographically is once again the preserve of those
with relevant knowledge.
Historical prescendence of course, cannot be ignored.

> People who have no scientific component in their reasoning about
orthographies
> tend to err on the side of conservatism and narrow-mindedness and tend to
opt
> for systems that are far too complex, cumbersome and inconsistent, far too
> difficult to learn.  Therefore, I feel that scientific guidance and
tweaking
> are essential.  Rejecting inclusion of "faceless academics" therefore
seems as
> ill-advised as rejecting inclusion of users of the language who are not
> familar with scientific principles.  Input from both sides is essential.
>
I agree with Ron here. I also wonder if some people have A 'hidden agenda'
i.e. to go down in history as the 'inventor' of the said language's
'official' orthography. Hence the unwillingness to compromise or make that
which is already available more consistant. 'If the end product don't have
my fingerprints all over it I ain't interested!'

Andy

----------

From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject:  LL-L: "Standardization"  [E/S]

Thomas wrate:

> Andy Eagle wrote.....
> > Gin its no tradeetional its been creepin intae the langage o illiterates
for
> > a gey an lang time.
> >
> > Andy
> Aye Andy but all the examples you give are from very old material that was
> written before the more formalisation of language structures in the
British
> Isles. We can find similar examples to those you quoted in England but it
> remains totally archaic. You will not find those types of things in latter
> day works such as those of Burns, Hogg, or any other writers I know of
> thereafter.
> In view of the standards of education that have been extant in the British
> Isles for over a century and for much longer in Scotland I stand by my
> criticism. Could you be advocating that we use singular and plural when
> speaking English and ignoring the rules when we speak Scots?

In a wird AY! A masel am aa for descreeptive gremmar i.e. shawin whit's
tradeetional Scots an whit's (staundart) Inglis.
Baith uises is aaricht bi me. Gin you want tae uise are, an war for the
plural that's fine.
Inglis rules for Inglis tungs - A'll no tell Scots bairns thay speak lik
bums!

Tho it is a weel-kent fact that plural subject noons combines wi 'is' an
'wis' in Scots. 'Wis' micht can tak the steid o 'war' but no contergates.
In the singular an plural the past tense o the auxiliar verb is for ordinar
'wis' or 'war', cept afore or efter the pronoon i.e. 'thay war', 'we are'
etc.

Whit aboot?:

'Thaim that's left is washin the dishes."

Pittin that ower intae pseudo-Inglis wird bi wird gies:

Them that is left is washing the dishes.

Definately ill-Inglis.

Those who remain are washing the dishes.

"Thir wha are left are washin the dishes." isna Scots.

Hou wad ye pit ower 'thaim that's' in the plural?

Andy

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