LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 09.AUG.2000 (02) [D/E/French]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 9 18:24:27 UTC 2000
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 09.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: Roger Thijs [roger.thijs at village.uunet.be]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 08.AUG.2000 (02) [E]
At 09:57 8-8-2000 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>> From: Floor van Lamoen [f.v.lamoen at wxs.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 06.AUG.2000 (06) [E/S]
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).<<<<<
As Belgian I have some difficulties with Belgie. Is it becoming standard in
the Netherlands to drop the diaeresis on the e? My edition of the Groene
Boekje still has it. How do you pronounce it? Belgii in Low Saxon and in
the Netherlands and Belgi-e in Belgium? The official writing has allways
been, to the best of my knowledge, België, as well in the Netherlands as in
Belgium.
In "Voorzetten 50", Buitenlandse aardrijkskundige namen in het Nederlands,
1996, SDU en Nederlandse Taalunie, p. 68, it is still:
België/ Belgique, Koninkrijk België/ Royaume de Belgique, Belgisch, Belg
Id the diaeresis systematically dropped in the Netherlands nowadays?
During the Dutch occupation (1814-1830) the area was referred to as België
(cf. Besluit van den 16 September 1819....(referring to the Prussian
military occupation of 1814-1815): ... den toenmaligen Gouverneur-Generaal
van België).
(but: this is quoted from a newer book: de Jonghe, "De taalpolitiek van
Willem I", and the spelling may be adjusted)
I guess we have known it allways, in Dutch, at least without -n; no -n was
dropped since it never was there. I can't imagine the German way of writing
Belgien could by any means have influenced the Dutch spelling.
We have more -ië endings: Mongolië, Indonesië, Albanië, Groot-Brittannië,
Italië, Joegoslavië, Kroatië, Moldavië, Macedonië, Roemenië, Slovenië,
Tsjechië.
I can't imagine the are all borrowings from German, with -n dropped.
I'm wondering modern Dutchmen use rather Mongolie, Indonesie, Albanie etc.
nowadays, without diaeresis. Inspiration by the French?
---
I have 3 "Des Roches"at home, he gives:
1782, Nouveau dictionnaire françois-flamand, xxiv + 667 pp, p. 53:
Belge, s. m. Een Nederlander
Belgique, adj. Nederlandsch
12 vendémiaire, l'an 10, Niew Nederduytsch en Fransch Woórden-boek, 738
pp, p. 67:
Belge, s.m. Nederlander, Belge s.m.
Belgen-land, s.n. La Belgique, s.f.
Belgen-landsch, adj. Belgique
1812, Nederduytsch - Fransch Woórden-boek, iv + 752 pp, p. 66
Belge, s.m. Nederlander, Belge s.m.
Belgen-land, s.n. La Belgique, s.f.
Belgen-landsch, adj. Belgique
The king of Holland avoids using "Belgium" in 1830:
quoting from: Journal Officiel du Royaume des Pays-Bas, tome
vingt-cinquième, N° 1 à 59, Année 1830
(even pages in Dutch, facing the French version on the uneven pages)
N° 58 Proclamatie van den 5den September 1830 etc.
Wij WILLEM, ..., Koning der Nederlanden...
Nous GUILLAUME,..., Roi des Pays-Bas
de Staten-Generaal, die,..., het geheele Nederlandsche volk
vertegenwoordigen...
les Etats-Généraux qui,..., représentent tout le peuple Belge...
... Prins Frederik der Nederlanden...
... le Prince Frédéric des Pays-Bas...
Nederlanders! Bewoners der verschillende streken van dit schoone land...
Belges! Habitans des diverses contrées de ce beau pays...
----
The first belgian legal texts I have, are in French only:
Premiers actes du nouveau gouvernement de la Belgique, 1830
In the acts the name of Belgium is not occuring from the very beginning
Sept 24, 1830: ... "provisoirement un pouvoir..."
Sept 24, 1830: Braves patriottes, Vous êtes les vrais enfans de la
Belgique.... etc....(signed:) La commission administrative (names follow)
Sept 26, 1830:
Aux soldats belges,
Braves militaires Belges,
Depuis trop long-temps vous êtes sacrifiés à la jalousie des Hollandais
qui, non contents de s'emparer de tous les grades, saississent toutes les
occasions de vous humilier, de vous maltraiter...La nation Belge... Le nom
de Belge ne sera plus un motif d'injustice, il deviendra un titre de
gloire... (names...)
Sept. 27, 1830:
Le gouvernement provisoire invite...
Le Gouvernement adresse la même invitation à tous les Belges qui sont en
France.
---
Bulletin des arrêtés et actes du Gouvernement Provisoire de la Belgique, N°
2, 5 Octobre, 1830
Sept 30, 1830,
Le Gouvernement provisoire, arrête: ....
La justice se rendra au nom du Gouvernement provisoire de la Belgique...
Oct 6, 1830
Le Gouvernement provisoire,
... seront élus dans les diverses provinces de la Belgique les députés de
la nation au prochain Congrès National...
---
I have some bilingual leaflets from 1831, but the name Belgium is not
directly occurring:
Bulletin Officiel des décréts du congrès national de la Belgique...
staetsblad.
N° 191
Nous, Léopold Premier, Roi des Belges...
Wy, Leopoldus den eersten, Koning der Belgen
... La formule exécutoire des arrêts et jugemens des cours et tribunaux...
sera... "Nous, Leopold Premier, Roi des Belges, A tous, présens et à venir,
faisons savoir: (Texte)...
... Den uytvoerbaeren opstel van de vonissen der hoven en regtbanken...
zullen, geduerende den tyd onzer regering, in de volgende bewoordingen
vervat zyn: "Wy, Léopoldus den eersten, Koning der Belgen, Aen alle
tegenwoordige en toekomende doen te weten: (Inhoud)
Leopoldus suddenly got an accent on the e
---
So I'm not completely sure how "België" was written in "Nederduytsch" in
the very first days of it's existence (certainly without -n, but I wonder
about the diaeresis) .
---
In 1864 I find Belgie without diaeresis in "Nationael Woordenboek van het
Belgisch Regt", (in Commission spelling, valid in Belgium from 1844 till
1864):
p. 591:
Tarief der porten van brieven en gedruktens
van Belgie en het Buitenland
;;; In bestemming voor Belgie
Het port der gefrankeerde brieven is bepaeld;
1° Op 10 centiemen per enkele brief, indien de afstand van het bureel van
verzending tot dat van bestemming geen 30 kilometers re boven gaet...
...
Vreemde landen
Gewigt der brieven/brieven gefrankeerd/..
Grammen/ Fr C/...
.. (a random selection)
Bremen 15/ 1 50
Duitschland (Pruissen) 1st afst 15/ 1 20
Engeland, over Oostende 15/ 1 40
Engeland, over Frankryk 15/ 1 60
Hamburg 15/ 1 60
Holland 15/ 1 40
Lubeck (vrystad) 15/ 1 60
-----
In the Lëtzebuerger Dixionär (1950-1977):
Belsch(t):... e könnt aus der B. (the country)
Belschen (pl. Belsch)... (inhabitant(s) of Belgium)
----
Regards,
Roger
r.thijs at ieee.org
----------
From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 08.AUG.2000 (02) [E]
Floor hef schreven:
>
>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).
>
Of course Belgium hasn't existed for most part of history, only since 1830 (or
something like that, not sure) has it been called Belgium. So maybe there
never
was one Low-Saxon word for Belgium? Else I think we wouldn't have used a
different one on both sides of the German-Netherlands border. So then maybe
it's not so strange us on the Dutch side use "België" and the people on the
German side use "Belgien". Just because they never had anything else.
>> 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?).
>
Ok, this cost me a few minutes, before I was able to make a guess at what
"radii" means. My best guess is that it's the plural of "radius". "radius"in
Dutch
is just the same, "radius". But wouldn't the plural of Dutch "radius" be
"radia",
instead of "radii"? I'm just guessing the word "radia" here, because I've
never
used or heared of a plural form of radius myself. Is there even one? Same goes
for Low-Saxon, never heard of it, if it even exists.
Ron hef schreven:
>
>> Wouldn't it be an option to just use "ü" or "ue" in all cases? Whatever
>> the u-sound is?
>
>Sure!
>
I posed that question, because the length (and sometimes pronounciation) of
the u-sounds seem to differ amongst our various dialects. As I'm aiming for
something general, that anybody can use, and pronounce the way he or she
is used to, I thought it'd be best to use a general (one) form of ü/ue/uy.
Ik heb schreven:
>>
>> 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.
>
wuurop Ron hef schreven:
>
>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.
>
Maybe we both interpret the terms differently? In my opinion a uniform writing
system is a system in which a word is written the same in every dialect. And a
standard language variety would be a written language from which regional
words (such as "kuyeren") are filtered, formed over a long period of time,
after a
writing system has been established. Which doesn't mean that people can't use
them anymore of course, only it would be better for them to use standard words
(i.e., interregionally used) for inter-dialect communication.
However, I do get the feeling that by "uniform writing system", you mean just
a
uniform way of representing sounds, not complete words. And that by "standard
language variety" you mean a uniform way of representing complete words.
Am I correct?
What I am aiming for is the complete words thing, not just the sounds.
If you only try for a uniform way of representing sounds, then all you can do
with
it is dialect-writing, which people do right now anyway, be it Dutchified, or
Germanified, however dialect-writing it is. I don't see the use of that,
because
there wouldn't be any benefit from it. With a system of representing words
however, people would have less problems with written communication.
>If there are phonemic differences they should be represented.
>
Don't you say here exactly the opposite of your reaction above? You said
"Sure!"
when I asked if we couldn't just use one u-variant, for all of the different
u-sounds.
Yet you say we have to distinguish /oo/ and /ou/. Am I not getting something
here? And what about history, how was "school" written pre-1700?
> 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.
>
True, it's a bit of a hardship for me as well, but I think I can get used to
it.
Even though I DO make the distinction in the spoken word.
>
>> >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.
>
Yes, but as I argued above, in dialect writing it doesn't matter much, as long
as
the speakers of that dialect agree on it. With inter-dialect writing however,
we
have a problem, when people start using 2, 3 (more?) variants of the same
word.
I'd rather use "even" and let everybody make of it what they want...
Added to that, in my dialect I usually say "ewen", and sometimes "emen". And
when speaking Dutch, I usually don't watch my accent and say "emen" as well.
So should I really write it in 2 ways, even though it's the same word?
>
>> >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/.
>
What exactly is a long /a/ to you? Is it like in Dutch "baas" (boss), or more
like in
English "part" with extra length? Or, is it different? I haven't heard much
å's in
Danish yet, at least I can't recall very well, but what I remember of it, is
that it
sounded mostly like the a in "schaap" (in my Low-Saxon dialect).
>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.
>
<SNIP>
>
>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.
>
Then what would be wise, add it or ommit it? Adding would probably, like you
said, lead to adoption in pronunciation. Yet ommitting it, would then probably
lead to omission in pronunciation. And of course there will be more cases like
this. So in general, how would one have to deal with it?
>> 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".
>
Oops... then "beer" would be [bEIA]]. Gotta learn the system sometime.
Actually, what are you using, Sampa? (and where can I find info on it?)
>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).
>
True, that's what I'm fearing as well. Yet I think with a little education,
speakers
of the other dialects (thus excluding Plautdietsch) could be shown that it
really is
one language.
>> 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.
>
That's where a uniform writing system would benefit :)
But I see the problem here, differences in our dialect writing will make the
dialects seem really different, which will cause problems creating just that
uniform system. So I think we'd have to have language samples from as many
different dialects as possible. Another feature for a website maybe?
grouten (see, I'm easy... *LOL),
Henry
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Standardization
Henry wrote:
> Maybe we both interpret the terms differently? In my opinion a uniform > writing
> system is a system in which a word is written the same in every dialect. > And a
> standard language variety would be a written language from which regional
> words (such as "kuyeren") are filtered, formed over a long period of time, > after a
> writing system has been established. Which doesn't mean that people can't > use
> them anymore of course, only it would be better for them to use standard > words
> (i.e., interregionally used) for inter-dialect communication.
>
> However, I do get the feeling that by "uniform writing system", you mean > just a
> uniform way of representing sounds, not complete words. And that by > "standard
> language variety" you mean a uniform way of representing complete words.
> Am I correct?
"Uniform writing system" refers to a *system* that can be used for all
dialects of a given language. In other words, you use the same spelling rules
to write any dialect. (If the system is mostly phonemically based, the
written dialects will look pretty similar, though there will be some lexical
and idiomatic differences.)
"Standard language variety" refers to a dialect that all speakers of the
language learn as a secondary one, i.e., use besides their local dialects. It
is an inter-dialectal lingua franca, much like "High" German is for all German
speakers (besides Frisian, Low Saxon, Danish and Sorbian speakers) and
Standard Dutch is for all Dutch speakers (besides Frisian and Low Saxon
speakers).
For example, the word for 'long cart (for transporting logs, etc.)',
pronounced ['la.N(k),vQ:(g)N] ~ ['la.N(k),vo:(g)N], is now written
_Langwagen_, _Langwogen_, _Lankwogen_, _Langwågen_, _Langwaogen_,
_laangwaogn_, _laankwaong_, etc., etc. These are attempts at writing
"phonetically" to reflect the sounds of Low Saxon dialects with one eye fixed
on German or Dutch. As we have discussed, devices such as _å_ and _ao_ are
redundant because they are supposed to represent what is an underlying /aa/;
and _o_ (very commonly used for the Low Elbe dialects) is incorrect since it
takes away differentiation between /oo/ and /aa/. Likewise, differentiation
between _aa_ and _ao_ (very commonly used in the Netherlands) is redundant,
since the former is really a short /a/ that gets lengthened by rule to [a:] or
[a.] before liquids and nasals. The underlying representation is simply
/lang-waagen/. If you write _langwaagen_, _lang-waagen_, _langwagen_ or
_lang-wagen_ (depending on which system you want to use) it can be used for
all dialects, only that there are slightly different ways of pronouncing
them. In this case, one type of spelling happens to apply to all dialects,
and my prediction is that this will be the case for most words.
Dialect-specific words and expressions, though also spelled using this system,
would of course differ, e.g., _mouder-diitjen_ ~ _modder-diitjen_ ~
_mouder-kuyken_ ~ _modder-kuyken_ ~ _mouder-pop_ ~ _modder-pop_ 'mother's
boy', 'ninny', _kou-steirt_ ~ _kousteirt_ ~ _water-jungfer_ ~ _waterjungfer_ ~
_water-jumfer_ ~ _waterjumfer_ ~ _spek-freter_ ~ _spekfreter_ 'dragonfly', or
_maand-kalv_ ~ _maandkalv_ ~ _maand-kat_ ~ _maandkat_ ~ _maand-kuyken_ ~
_maandkuyken_ 'ladybug'.
(By the way, the hyphen is useful not only for separating parts of compounds
but also for non-native learners to apply stress correctly.)
A standard language variety is a different matter. It goes beyond written
representation. No, it can not be pulled out of someone's hat in an instant
but must evolve, and this involves input from many sources, though one person
can get the ball rolling in a major way (as Martin Luther did for German with
his Bible translation).
> What I am aiming for is the complete words thing, not just the sounds.
> If you only try for a uniform way of representing sounds, then all you can > do with
> it is dialect-writing, which people do right now anyway, be it Dutchified, > or
> Germanified, however dialect-writing it is.
They do. But the problem is that there are not only many proposed systems but
that most people follow any proposed system inconsistently. The results are
total chaos and people's perception that, going by spelling, the dialects are
more different from each other than they really are. As I see it, a uniform
way of writing all the dialects would be an important first step toward
further standardization. Psychological benefits would be that people would
realize that their dialects are actually more closely related than previous
chaotic spelling had led them to believe. This would instill a sense of the
language as a whole and would smooth the path beyond orthographic
standardization toward language standardization. If you try to solve all the
problems in one go, virtually single-handedly, you'd lose about 98% of your
audience at the get-go, because people simply would not be able to deal with
it psychologically, would simply switch off their receivers, close their
shutters and dismiss *everything* you say henceforth.
Sure, individual writers can make a difference in the development of a
standard language variety, e.g., by avoiding words and expressions that they
know are specific to their dialects and substituting them with those that they
feel are predominant in the language as a whole. Thus, when I write in Low
Saxon (Low German), I not only write _aa_ for long /aa/ (pronounced [o:] in
the dialects of my native Hamburg) and _-v-_ (pronounced [b] in Hamburg), but
I also substitute what I consider specific expressions, e.g., _trueg_ (or _tou
rueg_) instead of _bak_ 'back', or _eirsd_ instead of _foerst_ [f{oe}rst]
'first'. When communicating with Low Saxon speakers in the Netherlands, I
also avoid words and idiomatic expressions I consider difficult German loans
(including calques), never assuming that the other party knows German and can
figure it out. Thus, I use the original _kars_ or _kars-beer_ for 'cherry',
although in Hamburg the German loan _kirsch(e)_ is used, and speaking with
speakers from far away I'd say _waanstuuv'_ for 'living room' rather than the
Slavic-loaned _doenss_ we use. I am able to do so because I listen to and
read many different dialects. So, in my own small way I'm working toward some
sort of "standard," i.e., neutral ground. Yet, I am under no delusion (of
grandeur) that I can create a standard language. I think that's the best
anyone can hope for at the moment, that and the "many drops wear down the
stone" principle. I don't see why you couldn't do something like that while
writing your software, being aware that that's not going to be the be-all and
end-all but merely a suggestion, one step, *your* contribution, and, most
importantly, something most speakers can understand and can relate to if their
minds are not totally closed.
> >If there are phonemic differences they should be represented.
> >
> Don't you say here exactly the opposite of your reaction above? You said > "Sure!"
> when I asked if we couldn't just use one u-variant, for all of the > different u-sounds.
> Yet you say we have to distinguish /oo/ and /ou/. Am I not getting > something
> here? And what about history, how was "school" written pre-1700?
You'd have to first figure out (1) what is the phoneme and (2) if representing
something in one way won't clash or coincide with something else. Sure, if
your short [{oe}] can be used where other dialects use [Y] and write _ue_, I
don't see why you shouldn't write it like that too, even if some sort of
complicated phonological discussion may suggest something different. If you
say (I'm guessing) [?Ik k{oe}s] 'I kiss' and I say [?Ik kYs] instead and write
it _ik kues_, I don't see why you can't write it _ik kues_ too, as long as
there is no conflict with something else in your dialect.
> >> >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/.
>>
> What exactly is a long /a/ to you? Is it like in Dutch "baas" (boss), or > more like in
> English "part" with extra length? Or, is it different? I haven't heard > much å's in
> Danish yet, at least I can't recall very well, but what I remember of it, > is that it
> sounded mostly like the a in "schaap" (in my Low-Saxon dialect).
First of all, forget about Danish and other Scandinavian languages. Many
German speakers erroneously assume that _å_ represents an "open o sound", but
in Scandinavian it's more of an [o] sound.
The /aa/ is usually pronounced [Q:] (or [o:] in some dialects), as in "posh"
British English _car_ or in Swedish _bra_, also the pronunciation of /aa/ in
many Dutch dialects, e.g. in Flemish. It is not ever the /aa/ as pronounced
in Standard Dutch: [a:], e.g., _baas_ [ba:s] 'boss'. Low Saxon _baas_ 'boss'
is pronounced [bQ:s] or [bo:s]. This 'bright' [a:] as in Standard Dutch
_baas_ occurs in most Low Saxon dialects only in the pronunciation of _ar_,
pretty much the same as Australian _ar_ as in _car_; thus Low Saxon _kars_
[ka:s] 'cherry' sounds very similar to Standard Dutch _kaas_ 'cheese'. A
somewhat shorter (i.e., half-long) version of this occurs in most dialects
where a short /a/ precedes a nasal or /l/, e.g., _land_ [la.nt] 'land',
'country', _kam_ [ka.m] 'comb', _lang_ [la.N(k)] 'long', _al_ [?a.l] 'all',
'already'.
> >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.
> >
> Then what would be wise, add it or ommit it? Adding would probably, like > you
> said, lead to adoption in pronunciation. Yet ommitting it, would then > probably
> lead to omission in pronunciation. And of course there will be more cases > like
> this. So in general, how would one have to deal with it?
It's difficult to say. The problem with always writing the _-e_ is this:
speakers of dialects that elide the _-e_ for instance in plural form nouns and
feminine nouns do pronounce it in productive suffixes. Thus, if you write the
former and let people drop it from pronunciation (as done in English and
French) then you end up with two types of _-e_: (1) one that may be "omitted"
and (2) one that may never be "omitted." While a native speaker may be able
to handle that, a learner of the language would find it difficult. The
possible solutions? (1) Use two different letters to distinguish the two
types; (2) don't write the former type and let native speakers pronounce it if
they wish; (3) write all cases of _-e_ and demand that they all be pronounced
in the standard language.
> >> 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".
> >
> Oops... then "beer" would be [bEIA]].
So your dialect has a diphthong there where others have a long monophthong.
How about completing the following "questionnaire" -- and anyone else who
cares to join?
N. Saxon L. Elbe Henry
horse..............pEIAt ............pi:At...........pEIAt
horses.............pEIA..............pi:A............
beer...............be:A..............be:A............bEIA
tail...............stEIAt............sti:At..........
berry..............be:A..............be:A............
more...............mEIA..............mi:A............
willingly (graag)..gEIAn.............gi:An...........
star...............stEIAn............sti:At..........
leg................bEIn..............bEIn............
stone..............stEIn.............stEIn...........
to lean/loan.......le:n:.............le:n:...........
to teach/learn.....lEIAn.............li:An...........
to give............ge:vm~ge:bm.......ge:bm...........
to live............le:vm~le:bm.......le:bm...........
to be able to......kø:n:~k{oe}:n:....kø:n:...........
caraway............kø:m~k{oe}:m......kø:m............
green..............gr{oe}In..........gr{oe}In........
flowers............bl{oe}Im(:).......bl{oe}Im(:).....
to hear............h{oe}IAn..........hy:An...........
to hire/rent.......hy:An.............hy:An...........
to lead............f{oe}IAn..........fy:An...........
door...............dø:A~d{oe}:A......dø:A............dy:A (?)
dreams.............dr{oe}Im(:).......drOIm(:)........
trees..............b{oe}Im(:)........bOIm(:).........
dry................dr{oe}Ij..........drOIj...........
expensive..........dy:A..............dy:A............
to hire/rent.......hy:An.............hy:An...........
flower.............bl(e)oUm..........bleoUm..........
school.............S(e)oUl...........SeoUl...........skoUl (?)
dead...............do:t~d(e)oUt......do:t~deoUt......
red................ro:t~r(e)oUt......ro:t~reoUt......
dream..............dr(e)oUm..........dreoUm..........
tree...............b(e)oUm...........beoUm...........
stream/river.......stro:m~str(e)oUm..stro:m~streoUm..
big, great.........gro:t~gr(e)oUt....gro:t~greoUt....
> Gotta learn the system sometime.
Actually, what are you using, Sampa? (and where can I find info on it?)
Yes, SAMPA:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/x-sampa.htm
Though here I use {oe} instead of 9.
>> 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.
>
> That's where a uniform writing system would benefit :)
> But I see the problem here, differences in our dialect writing will make > the
> dialects seem really different, which will cause problems creating just > that
> uniform system. So I think we'd have to have language samples from as many
> different dialects as possible. Another feature for a website maybe?
Oh, I have lots of language samples, modern, middle and old, (though I could
do with more, especially from the Netherlands), and I've been wanting to put
bunches of them on the web, probably at
http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/low-saxon/. However, so far this has
only been a plan. The problem is that so far I haven't had the time to put it
all together.
> grouten (see, I'm easy... *LOL),
Yeah, *suuuure* you are! ;)
Groytnissen,
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
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list