LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 08.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 08.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: Floor van Lamoen [f.v.lamoen at wxs.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 06.AUG.2000 (06) [E/S]

John Feather asked:

> From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
> Subject: Standardisation
>
> Henry wrote:
> >Yes, but you're forgetting we don't say or write Belgien, but België, or
> Belgie<
>
> In what varieties of Nederland/Zuidnederlands is there a distinction in
> pronunciation between "Belgien" and "België"? Is dropping the "n"
> sufficient
> to make the pronunciations the same?

Having an _n_ in Belgien/Belgie seems really a difference influenced by
the standard language being High German or Dutch. In Low Saxon as spoken
in the Netherlands the phenomenon of final -n dropping is not usual. So
here two spellings can suit in one standard orthography: Belgien (in
Germany) and Belgie (in the Netherlands, Belgium).

> How widespread is the use of "Bels" for "Belgisch"?

It is general in NL-Brabantish, but I hear it also in other parts of the
Netherlands. Even in Westerlauer Frisian (Belzelân).

> Henry also asked about the use of "ii". How about E. "radii"?

Yes, I think those Latin -ii are the reason why ii is not in use in
Dutch. But that can easily be solved by writing either radi-i or radiï
(the latter will be considered to much Dutch-like?).

Best regards,
Floor van Lamoen.

Best regards,
Floor.

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 07.AUG.2000 (02) [E]

Roger hef schreven:
>
>South-Brabanders often add an article to names of places, e.g.  they would say:
>"Hij komt uit __de__ Limburg", while we (in Limburg) just say  "Hij komt uit
>Limburg".
>
In my area you often hear the phrase "naar _de_ pruyse (prüse) gaan" (go to
Prussia (~ Germany)), so I don't think this is strictly confined to
South-Brabant.

Ron hef schreven:
>
>Henry wrote:
>
>> Anyway, we do have a pair like /ü/-/üü/, only the /ü/ is pronounced like Dutch short
>> "u" (as in "dus", "pus", "klus"), and /üü/ like either /üü/ or /ü/. It isn't a one-on-one
>>relationship however. We use "u" or /ü/ where you have /ü/, and we use
>>/üü/ or /ü/ where you have /üü/.
>
>In that case you need to decide whether to represent this short vowel as
>_ü_, _ue_, etc., or as _ö_, _oe_, etc.  You'd have to determine what is
>phonologically and supra-dialectally better, and if one or the other would
>clash or coincide with another phoneme represented in that way.  And, of
>course, you'd have to consider ease on the part of the reader and the
>writer.  Either way, I think it'd be all right.
>
Wouldn't it be an option to just use "ü" or "ue" in all cases? Whatever the
u-sound
is? This would be a little unphonemically perhaps, but it does get rid of any
doubts
of how to write something. A reader will know how to pronounce it in his/her
dialect.
Hit me if I say something stupid here...

>Yes, _van_ used to be more wide-spread than it is now.  However, it is
>still used in numerous dialects in Northern Germany as well, not only in
>those near the Netherlands border but also in pockets as far east as
>Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg (e.g., Finkwarder/Finkenwerder) and even in
>Mecklenburg.  I'm not sure if _von_ and _vun_ are very old and are German
>loans or not.  What I do know is that, probably under German influence,
>they have been spreading.  The orriginal form seems to be _van_.  However,
>I don't think that _van_ ~ _von_ ~ _vun_ presents any comprehension
>problems, and they may vary in writing, even if there were a standard
>variety.
>
Yes, I think we could "allow" van/von/vun in writing. I don't think many
people would
have problems with that. Just see what prevails and maybe later scratch 1 or
2.

>> Well, what you're saying here is basically that one that doesn't
>> distinguish, should make /oo/ out of /ou/.
>
>That's really up to debate.  If in a dialect there's only /oo/, I don't see
>anything wrong with writing it _oo_ there.  This is given that we are
>aiming at a standard *system* that allows for dialectal differences and can
>be used for all dialects.
>
Well, maybe we have understood eachother falsely then. I was kinda aming for a
writing system that could be applied to all dialects, so that the word would
be
written the same in any dialect, yet allowing different pronounciations.

Maybe this is a choice between trying to allow different phonemes ("schoul")
and
trying to be historically correct ("school")? I myself don't mind much how it
should be
written. In pronounciation I do distinguish between /oo/ and /ou/ ("dood" vs
"doun"
and "schoul(e)"), but in writing I can find myself in using "oo" for both
("dood"/"doon"/"school").

>> Much the same as when in my dialect I have to decide
>> whether to pronounce "ch" as "k" or leave it as "ch". For instance I write "school",
>> but I pronounce it as "skool" (actually even a little bit different than that, but it's for
>> the purpose of the "k" that I write "skool").
>
>Again, if you just want to have a standard *system* there can be variation
>between writing _sch-_ and writing _sk-_, depending on the dialect, as it
>has been done up to now.  If there should be a standard language variety,
>you'd have to decide which one to pick.
>
As said above, I was aiming for a single spelling, which allows different
pronounciations. I think we should go with "ch" and let us pronounce it "k".
Although I do think that this would require documenting it in a standard,
stating
explicitly that it can be pronounced "k", else we'll get the indoctrination in
schools
again that it's "bad language". Several people gave up on "k" because their
teacher kept insisting one should say "ch" / "g". Wouldn't want that to happen
again.

>> Come to think of it, sometimes in my dialect people
>> use 2 forms of a word, like "even" and "eben", which are then pronounced like
>> "ewen" and "emen". Now how are we going to solve that???
>
>Same thing again.  They can write _emen_ if they write "dialect."
>
This again would hinder inter-dialectal writing, as I could see people having
trouble
with "emen". Maybe, as I said above, we should in every case pick one and
state
explicitly that pronounciations may vary (and list as much as possible of
those).

>> (Old Saxon had a bared "b".)
>> >
>> Please let's not use any funny characters...
>
>I couldn't agree more.  I just needed to mention the option.  And it was
>supposed to be "*barred* b", not "bared b".  (There seems to be something
>wrong with my "/", "?", "f" and "r" on one of my PCs.  They either don't
>come up at all, or they come up double.  A problem with my keyboard?)
>
No problems, I can add r's when necessary.
Small tip: don't put softdrinks in your keyboard ;)

>Remember that some people, like you, avoid "special" characters like the
>plague, and then there are others that delight in them (the more diacritics
>and "different" or even unique characters the better).  Some people in
>Germany want to use _å_ for the long /a/ in Low Saxon (Low German), where
>others write _a(a)_ or _o(o)_.  Of course, the underlying vowel is /aa/.
>Spelling it _o(o)_ overlaps with the genuine /oo/.  The character _å_ is
>unnecessary.
>
That's my opinion as well. Apart from being unnecessary, you'd be loaning
again.
Isn't loaning things (from Dutch/German) what we don't like in the first
place?
As far as I know the sound of å is the the sound of the diphtong in "schaap" /
"schoop" (sheep). Would it be weird/wrong/whatever to write it as "schoap" or
"schaop"? "schoap" is the way people in my area usually write it (though they
do it
based on Dutch).

>If you truly see Low Saxon as a language in its own right, you should not care
>if certain characters coincide with Dutch or German and that in those languages
>they represent different sounds.
>
That's exactly as I see it. Write it as it's always been written and to hell
with caring
about differring / aproximising.

>The root of the word is /Sriiv-/, hence _schrieven_.  Low Saxon, like
>German and Dutch, has a general "final and preconsonantal devoicing rule",
>as also seen in alternations like _Kleed_ [klEIt] 'dress' vs _Kleder_
>['klEIdA].  This applies to /-v/ also; hence _schrieven_ ['Sri:v=m] 'to
>write', _(ick) schriev'_ [Sri:.v] (~ _(ick) schrieve_ ['Sri:ve]) '(I)
>write', _(hei) schrivt_ (~ _(he) schrifft_) [SrIft] '(he) writes',
>_Schrievwies'_ (~ _Schriefwies'_) ['Sri:fvi:.z] 'orthography'.  It is only
>that *Dutch* spelling happens to neglect to show the underlying /v/ in
>these cases but to write "phonetically", while otherwise it does not do so
>(e.g., _kleed_ [kle:t] vs _klederen_ ['kle:d at r@(n)]).  This is a case of
>inconsistency in Dutch, and you should consider not importing that into Low
>Saxon orthography.
>
Shame on me, as I did exactly that, until recently. I noticed that too a week
ago,
and changed the "f" in my personal spelling to "v". How 'bout the [f] in "he
hef", or
"he hev" (he has). Which one would be correct?

>If you write "dialect", then just write it (as _-e_ or _-a_ for all I
>care).  A standard language variety is a different matter.  In that case
>you'd have to decide whether to write _schole_, _wise_, _wege_, etc., or
>_school_, _wiis'_, _weeg'_, etc. ('school', 'manner/way', 'ways')  I assume
>it seems more logical to write the former, older way and allow people to
>omit the _-e_ in speech.  Bear in mind, though, that spelling can and will
>eventually influence pronunciation.
>
True, but that's something we'll have to accept, or we should either stop
writing or
think of a better way of representing speech on paper (or any written form).
What is the majority in this case, with or without -e?

>> Another one is how to distinguish between the "ee" in "been" (leg) and "beer"
>> "beer". The "ee" in "been" is pronounced as a superlength "i" and as "ie" in
>> Drentish dialects. I'm thinking of writing leg as "bien", would that be an option?
>
>In most dialects these are pronounced as [bEIn] and [be:A] respectively.
>There are quite a few dialects (e.g., several Northern Low Saxon ones,
>including Groningen dialects) that say [bAIn] for the former.  Clearly, the
>underlying representations are /bein/ and /beer/ respectively; thus it
>follows that they be written as _bein_ and _beer_.  As for the /ei/ written
>_ei_, there is dialectal variation in pronunciation: [bEIn] (as though
>English _bane_) ~ [baIn] (as though English _bine_) ~ [bi:n] (as though
>English _been_) (or is it [bi. at n]?).  As for _beer_ some pronounce it
>[be:A], others [bE:A].  And there is the sequence /eir/.  In most dialects
>it's pronounced [EIA], in others, especially around the Lower Elbe, [i:A],
>hence _peird_ [pEIAt] ~ [pi:At] 'horse'.  Likewise the sequence /öür/:
>[{oe}IA] ~ [y:A], e.g., _hoyren_ [h{oe}IAn] ~ [hy:An] 'to hear'.  What are
>they in your dialect?
>
peird (horse): [pEIAt], hoyren (to hear): [h{oe}An], beer (beer): [bE:A] (that
is, if E
means long e as in Dutch "been", else it would be [be:A]). In _hoyren_ there
is an
attempt at an "r" (or at least some sound), so maybe it could be represented
as
[h{oe}IAn]. Looks we're all like-mouthed on this one.

>> I do know there are a lot of questions like this, but I think eventually we can still
>> come up with something we can all use. I think we'll have the biggest problems
>> with including Plautdietsch. Do we want that, and is it even possible?
>
>Sure!  It may be written "funny" now (because of slavishly following "High"
>German conventions and trying to be "phonetic," just like so may other
>dialects do).  But if you go to the phonemic level there aren't really any
>major differences.
>
Ah, I thought it was also pronounced differently (for instance _plat(t)_ vs
_plaut_).
So perhaps as you say at phonemic level there aren't any major differences,
but
maybe the biggest problem if we want to include Plautdietschers as well, will
be
getting them to change their mind about spelling?

grooten (grouten?),
Henry

----------

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

Henry:

> >In that case you need to decide whether to represent this short vowel as
> >_ü_, _ue_, etc., or as _ö_, _oe_, etc.  You'd have to determine what is
> >phonologically and supra-dialectally better, and if one or the other > would
> >clash or coincide with another phoneme represented in that way.  And, of
> >course, you'd have to consider ease on the part of the reader and the
> >writer.  Either way, I think it'd be all right.
> >
> Wouldn't it be an option to just use "ü" or "ue" in all cases? Whatever
> the u-sound is?

Sure!

> A reader will know how to pronounce it in his/her dialect.
> Hit me if I say something stupid here...

No, I can't hit you for that (even if I wanted to).  I think you're on the
right track.

> Well, maybe we have understood eachother falsely then. I was kinda aming > for a
> writing system that could be applied to all dialects, so that the word > would be
> written the same in any dialect, yet allowing different pronounciations.

Sure, but remember that there are two things involved here that mustn't be
mixed up:

(1) creating a uniform writing system suitable for all dialects

(2) creating a standard language variety

Try to keep these two separate, despite your youthful fervor and impatience.
;)  In an ideal scenario they would go hand in hand, but they aren't one and
the same thing.

> Well, maybe we have understood eachother falsely then. I was kinda aming > for a
> writing system that could be applied to all dialects, so that the word > would be
> written the same in any dialect, yet allowing different pronounciations.
>
> Maybe this is a choice between trying to allow different phonemes > ("schoul") and
> trying to be historically correct ("school")? I myself don't mind much how > it should be
> written. In pronounciation I do distinguish between /oo/ and /ou/ ("dood" > vs "doun"
> and "schoul(e)"), but in writing I can find myself in using "oo" for both
> ("dood"/"doon"/"school").

If there are phonemic differences they should be represented.  In "Lowlandic"
I write _dood_ [do:t] 'death/dead' vs _doun_ [d(e)oUn] 'to do' and _schoul_
[S(e)oUl] 'school'.  In the "au"-type dialects, they are _dood_ [do:t] vs
_doun_ [daUn] and _schoul_ [SaUl] respectively.  However, there are also
dialects in which the difference does not exist and all are pronounced [(e)oU]
([d(e)oUt], [d(e)oUn], [S(e)oUl]) or [aU] ([daUt], [daUn], [SaUl]).  Making
the difference in a standard variety would mean an inititial hardship for
speakers of dialects that don't have the difference.

> >Same thing again.  They can write _emen_ if they write "dialect."
> >
> This again would hinder inter-dialectal writing, as I could see people > having trouble with "emen".

It would be all right in *dialect* writing.

> >The character _å_ is unnecessary.
>
> That's my opinion as well. Apart from being unnecessary, you'd be loaning > again.
> Isn't loaning things (from Dutch/German) what we don't like in the first > place?

I don't think there's anything wrong with loaning as such.  After all, *all*
the letters and letter combinations (e.g., sch) have already been used
elsewhere, so they are also loaned.  I consider the use of _å_ unnecessary
simply because it is supposed to represent the phoneme that is really a long
/a/.  Why write it "fancy"?  There are many North Germans who have some sort
of emotional and romantic attachment to Scandinavia, myself included.  After
all, there are long-standing ties.  (Christianization of Scandinavia was
launched from Hamburg, the Vikings thanked by sacking the city several times,
and the Hanseatic League partly Saxonized Scandinavian port cities and
languages.)  It's only that some of these people seem to get carried away in
my opinion.  This person thought that _å_ would be some sort of symbolic
"Nordic affiliation" thing, and he also advocates some type of
Scandinavian-style "Low German" flag.  At least he's thinking about these
things.

> How 'bout the [f] in "he hef", or
> "he hev" (he has). Which one would be correct?

This verb is an exception because it has b ~ v alternation in all dialects,
and the /v/ never surfaces as [f].  Nevertheless, this is how I write it in
"Lowlandic":

hebben ['hEb=m]
ik hev [hEf]
duu hest [hEs(t)]
hei het [hEt]
sei het [hEt]
dat het [hEt]
wii hebt [hEbt] ~ hevt [hEft]
jii hebt [hEbt] ~ hevt [hEft]
sei hebt [hEbt] ~ hevt [hEft]

Spelling _f_ instead of _v_ would be reasonable because the /v/ never surfaces
as [v].

About presence or absence of _-e_:

> What is the majority in this case, with or without -e?

Hard to say.  The majority of Northern Low Saxon dialects seems to have
"dropped" the _-e_.  A phonologist might argue that it is actually still
there, underlyingly, because it still determines the pronunciation of a word
from which it has been supposedly elided.  In most such dialects, if the
consonant before it is a voiced one (/v/, /d/, /g/), then this consonant
remains voiced as if the /-e/ were still there, i.e., it the consonant does
not undergo the usual final devoicing rule, plus the vowel receives extra
length (superlength or dragging tone).  I write an apostrophe where the _-e_
has been dropped, to indicate superlength and absence of devoicing; e.g.,
_weg_ [vEC] 'way' -> (_wege_ ['ve:ge] ~ ['ve:je] ->) _weeg' [ve:.g] ~ [ve:.j]
'ways', _dag_ [daX] 'day' -> (_dage_ ['dQ:ge] ~ ['dQ:Ge] >) _daag'_ [dQ:.G]
'days', _huus_ [hu:s] 'house' -> (_huyse_ ['hy:ze] >) _huys'_ [hy:.z]
'houses', _bruud_ [bru:t] 'bride' -> (_bruyde_ ['bry:de] ~ [bry:e] >) _bruyd'_
[bry:.d] ~ [bry:.] 'brides'.  Hence also _luyde_ ['ly:de] ~ ['ly:e] > _luyd'_
[ly:.d] ~ [ly:.] 'people', 'folks'.

(The _-e_ is a schwa [@] in some dialects, a short "e" [e] in others.)

If you wrote _wege_, _dage_, _huyse_, _bruyde_ and _luyde_, people could
pronounce them as they are in their dialects (e.g., _luyde_ ['ly:de] ~ ['ly:e]
~ [ly:.d] ~ [ly:.], and [l{oe}j(e)] in some farwestern dialects, including
some in the Netherlands).  However, dialects that elide _-e_ in plural forms
are not totally without pronounced _-e_, namely in productive suffixes; e.g.,
_dei junge bruud_ [dEI 'jUNe bru:t] 'the young bride' (< _jung_ [jUN(k)]
'young').  If in a written standard language the /-e/ were always written,
then intially speakers of elision dialects may not pronounce it in cases such
as plural forms, but I predict that eventually this spelling would cause
general adoption of the [-e] pronunciation.

> peird (horse): [pEIAt], hoyren (to hear): [h{oe}An], beer (beer): [bE:A] > (that is, if E
> means long e as in Dutch "been", else it would be [be:A]).

It's the "e" as in "pet", [EI] as in "bay".

In the elision dialects the plural of 'horse' (_peird_ [pEIAt]) is _peird'_
[pE:IAd] ~ [pE:IA] (< _peirde_ ['pEIAde]), often written _Peer_ in Germany (vs
singular _Peerd_).  In the case of diphthongs, superlength/dragging tone
causes lengthening of the first vowel.  In all cases, there should be three
"beats" to the syllable, i.e., one extra "beat" "inherited" from the "lost"
_-e_.

Plautdietsch:

> Ah, I thought it was also pronounced differently (for instance _plat(t)_ > vs _plaut_).
> So perhaps as you say at phonemic level there aren't any major > differences, but
> maybe the biggest problem if we want to include Plautdietschers as well, > will be
> getting them to change their mind about spelling?

You can argue that the _au_ is due to a rule that converts short /a/ to [aU];
i.e., the underlying representation is still /a/ and could be spelled _a_.
Likewise, what in Plautdietsch is pronounced [a] and is written as _a_  is the
phonetic output of the short phoneme /e/.  So, at least in theory, the same
system can be used.  However, dialect writing would probably retain the
spelling _au_ and _a_ instead of adopting _a_ and _e_ respectively.

If Plautdietsch speakers *want* a spelling reform is a different matter.  My
prediction is that they don't, at least not in the foreseeable future, as I
understand it, partly because of conservatism (the same kind prevalent in
Northern Germany, also in part hanging on the the believe that "High" German
rules) and partly because most speakers don't look beyond their own dialects
and have no real view of the language as a whole and the need to unite (again,
the same as in Germany and the Netherlands).

> In _hoyren_ > there is an
> attempt at an "r" (or at least some sound), so maybe it could be
> represented as
> [h{oe}IAn]. Looks we're all like-mouthed on this one.

Yes we are, more or less, but differences in spelling tend to cloud this fact.

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