LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 10.AUG.2000 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 10.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: Floor van Lamoen [f.v.lamoen at wxs.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 09.AUG.2000 (02) [D/E/French]

Dear Roger,

> 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.

This was not written as an example of nowadays spelling of Belgium in
the Netherlands. Certainly we still write België.

In a discussion on orthographic standardization we the inconsistency of
writing long vowels in our language was mentioned. In a standard for Low
Saxon, or even more LL languages, it should be more consistent to write
ii in stead of ie for the long i:, and consequently let ie be the
diphtong now often written as ië. No insults intended.

> 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.

But somebody was suggesting to write Belgien in the standardized
orthography, and drop the -n in speach. To that I was opposing.

> 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?

Not many French inspire people in this country nowadays. We would easier
switch to Mongolia, Indonesia, Albania, etc.

Roger, please accept my apologies that my intentions were so unclear.

> 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)

Holland never had a king. Roger, you know better!

> In the Lëtzebuerger Dixionär (1950-1977):
>
> Belsch(t):... e könnt aus der B.                (the country)
> Belschen (pl. Belsch)...                (inhabitant(s) of Belgium)

Aha, there are more people than NL Brabantic speakers who use Bels. I
suppose this is a Dutch way to pronounce French "Belge"?

Dear Henry,

You wrote:
> >> 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.

As a geometry fanatic I immediatly knew that the radius is half the
diamter of a circle ("straal"). The word radius is in the _Van Dale_
dictionary, and the plurals given are _radiussen_ or _radii_ (but I
don't have the latest Van Dale). The latter is the correct Latin plural
of radius. Radia would suggest the singular to be radium, but radium
doesn't have a plural.

Groetenissen,
Floor van Lamoen.

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Standardization

A small observation about a difference between English/British and (at least
some) other monarchies. As far as I know, the first E/B monarch named "N"
has always been known during his/her lifetime simply as "N". The next is
called "N II". Leopold I of Belgium was (see Roger's recent posting) always
called that. Franz Josef I of Austro-Hungary was actually the first and
last.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 09.AUG.2000 (02) [D/E/French]

Roger hef schreven:
>
>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.
>
No, dropping the diaeresis is NOT standard, it's just my laziness of not
wanting to press
Alt on my keyboard and key in a bunch of numbers for an ASCII code... The
standard
has always been België. As I said before, I have no idea if there ever was a
specific
Low-Saxon name for Belgium, I have always used the Dutch "België" (yet I
usually write
it as "Belgie" for reasons explained before). However, I don't see why you
would have
difficulties if I used Belgie in Low-Saxon writing. It's "my" language, so
can't "I" decide
how to write it? After all, you let the English write "Belgium" and the
Germans "Belgien".
And I pronounce it as in Dutch anyway, so the spoken word would still be the
same.

What I have a problem with btw, is foreigners (and most Dutch people as well)
calling
the Netherlands Holland. Holland never was and never will be the entire
Netherlands.
It was just one of the states and nowadays it's split up in 2 provinces
(North- and South-
Holland). Together with the other 10 provinces, they form the Netherlands.
It's like calling the US America. As if America ends at the North and South US
borders.

>I'm wondering modern Dutchmen use rather Mongolie, Indonesie, Albanie etc.
>nowadays, without diaeresis. Inspiration by the French?
Laziness. That's all there is to it... You know how hard it is for some people
to type 'ë'?

Ron hef schreven:
>
>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/;
>
I still don't completely agree with you. In my dialect there are more than
just /a/ and /aa/.
The 1st a-sound in _langwagen_ sounds like posh British "car", while the 2nd
a-sound
in _langwagen_ sounds like Dutch "baas". Then you have the word _bak_
(container).
That a-sound would be /a/ (same as in _kars_ (cherry) in my dialect by the
way).
Then you have _schaap_ (sheep) and _maand_ (month), with a short /o/ that gets
lengthened. In plural this is something like skööpe (multiple sheep). And at
last there is
_wark_ (work), with a sound somewhere in between a and o. Weird enough, people
usually write _schaap_ as "schoap" and _wark_ as "wark", while _schaap_ hasn't
anything resembling "oa", and _wark_ does... How this came to be, I don't
know.
But it does look to me, that when we have 5 different sounds, maybe we need a
little
more than just "a" and "aa" to represent those?
Does this all sound confusing? Yes it does... had to think about it a bit
myself...

>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).
>
Ain't gonna write bibles, so I guess I won't be rolling any balls for now ;)
A standard language variety is not something I'd really really really want
anyway.
I'd just like to see words in east, west and north would be spelled the same
way.

>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.
>
I'm very well aware of that, and I'm not thinking of doing it all in one go.
I'd just like to
see something happening for a change. And yes, maybe I'm a little impatient
due to my
youth, but if something doesn't happen soon, I might as well ditch my
language. 'cause
if it takes another generation, it'll really be only old people (me by that
time) that speak it,
because no-one ever took any initiative to change the language's doom. I would
really
regret it, as I think I've had so much benefit in international/interregional
affairs, of me
speaking Low-Saxon first, and then Dutch, I have much less problems
communicating
with North-Europeans than people who don't speak it. So if no-one is going to
do
anything other than talk about it, then I feel like it's left up to me to act
and get something
going, however reluctant I am of doing just that. "Geen woorden maar daden",
as they
say of us Tukkers ;)

While writing this, I came up with a possible "path" to follow:

1. establish a phonemically based writing system (this means a system where
dialects
    may vary on exact spelling, if phonemes differ in a given dialect)
2. work towards an exact spelling of *all* words, across *all* dialects
    (words are written the same in any dialect)
3. ultimately, if chance, people, and a whole lot of other factors permit, a
standard variety
    (replacing regionally used words by generally used words in inter-dialect
    communication)

While developing 1, one would have to keep 2 in mind though, else when coming
to 2,
we could run into unexpected trouble.

>> >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.
>
I say "kus", just like in Dutch, which is probably close enough to "k{oe}s",
but I don't have
problems with writing "kues", that's close enough for me to interpet it as
"kus", although
the sounds are different. But again, if I write "kues" instead of "koes", why
not write
"school" instead of "schoul"? Looks like the same principle to me, picking one
over the
other, having the reader pronounce it the way he/she is used to.

>> 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.
>
Eeks... Did it seem like I was having Nordic thoughts? I'm clearly aware of
the
distinction between North- and West-Germanic languages. It's just that when
discussing a-sounds, it could be used maybe, if you only have "a" and "aa" to
work with
otherwise. And I still think å *would* be closest to my _schaap_, but I'd
never even
dream of using å! It's Scandinavian, we're not.

>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.
>
I have problems with option 3, because I wouldn't want to make any demands of
people. I can't tell them to pronounce it with -e, while all their life they
did without!
As for option 1, I wouldn't have problems with that, but as you said,
non-speakers and
non-writers (native speakers without writing proficiency) wouln't have an easy
time.
Option 2 might be better in that case. What would we use, -a and -e? Where -a
may be
ommitted and -e not?

>> Oops... then "beer" would be [bEIA]].
>
>So your dialect has a diphthong there where others have a long monophthong.
>
Not sure, the A isn't really there, but it isn't really not there either.
Maybe it's just half an attempt at pronouncing the r.
Dunno, I'll leave that up to the experts :)

>How about completing the following "questionnaire" -- and anyone else who
>cares to join?
When I studied a little Sampa, my answers will follow.
And may I stress Ron's question, could anyone else *please* care to join?
Something like that questionnaire looks rather invaluable information to me.

>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.
>
Actually I meant audio samples, while I think you mean written samples,
although both
are a good idea of course. If you don't have time, maybe I could spend a
little time on it?
I could put it in a nice web-enabled database as well (sometimes being a
software
engineer does have benefits...). That means it'd have to be hosted at our
company web-
server, but you could incorporate it in your website (and I in mine, if you
let me), without
it seeming to be anywhere else.

Well, it's 1 am again, better log off, before I'm unable to study that Sampa
tomorrow...

grouten,
Henry

----------

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

Henry wrote:

> I still don't completely agree with you. In my dialect there are more than > just /a/ and /aa/.
<snip>
> But it does look to me, that when we have 5 different sounds, maybe we > need a little
> more than just "a" and "aa" to represent those?
> Does this all sound confusing? Yes it does... had to think about it a bit > myself...

Only a little.  It's uncommon to have more than two kinds of /a/ phonemes, but
I guess it isn't out of the question.  But five?!  I don't think so.  Three
maybe.  Chances are that some of them are just different allophones of the
same phoneme.

What we need is a more sizeable language sample, such as a list of words in
which all the differently pronounced _a_s occur and are indicated.

> The 1st a-sound in _langwagen_ sounds like posh British "car",

So it's a short back /a/, like in Dutch, here lengthened because of the
following nasal.  (You do pronounce it shorter before other types of
consonants, don't you?)  In most Low Saxon dialects it is a more frontal short
[a], like in German _Mann_, and prededing nasals (/m/, /n/, /N/) and liquids
(/l/, /r/) it is lengthened, usually more when preceding /r/, resulting in
[a:] (as opposed to [Q:] or [o:] for the underlyingly long /a/), which sounds
very much like the Dutch _aa_ in _baas_.  Note that this is the phonetic
realization of /ar/, not of /a/.

> And at last there is
> _wark_ (work), with a sound somewhere in between a and o.

That appears to be an allophone of the above.  Note the /r/ environment.

> while the 2nd a-sound
in _langwagen_ sounds like Dutch "baas".

So in your dialect this /aa/ is pronounced more frontal and not somewhat
rounded.  That is very different from most dialects in Germany, where this is
back and somewhat or strongly rounded.

> Then you have the word _bak_ (container).
> That a-sound would be /a/ (same as in _kars_ (cherry) in my dialect by the > way).

I don't get this one.  Like the _a_ in _lang_ above, just shorter?

> Then you have _schaap_ (sheep) and _maand_ (month), with a short /o/ that > gets
> lengthened.

I see.  So it looks as though you have ...

/a/ (> [Q]) (which gets lengthened by rule in certain environments)

/aa/ (> [a:])

/åå/ (> [Q:] or [O:]).  (I just use these symbols for now.)

In other words, something like two kinds of long /a/.

As I said, we need a list of words in which all of these occur, and then we
can also compare them with the respective cognates in other dialects.

> Eeks... Did it seem like I was having Nordic thoughts?

Nothing wrong with that, buddy.  We Saxons have been loving our Nordic
neighbors ever since we stopped fearing them, i.e., since we civilized them.
;)

> What would we use, -a and -e? Where -a may be
> ommitted and -e not?

_-a_ seems a bit "drastic", because it doesn't sound like [a] in most
dialects, and then there are Names like _Amerika_, _Clara_ or _Martha_.  It
should be some sort of _-e_ letter.  Diacritics come to mind, such as a breve
above an omittable _e_, but then you say you are too "lazy" for diacritics.
And we have to bow to the likes and dislikes of the Spelling-Meister, don't
we?  ;)

> >> Oops... then "beer" would be [bEIA]].
> >
> >So your dialect has a diphthong there where others have a long > monophthong.
> >
> Not sure, the A isn't really there, but it isn't really not there either.
> Maybe it's just half an attempt at pronouncing the r.
> Dunno, I'll leave that up to the experts :)

In most Low Saxon dialects, if not in all, /-r/ changes into various sorts of
"indistinct" vowels, much like it does in "non-rhotic" English dialects.  In
the LS dialects I am most familiar with it surfaces as a vowel that is
schwa-like, just lower, perhaps closest to what is written as an upside-down
_a_ in IPA.  In my simplified phonetic notations here I use [A] for
convenience's sake.

> If you don't have time, maybe I could spend a little time on it?
> I could put it in a nice web-enabled database as well (sometimes being a > software
> engineer does have benefits...). That means it'd have to be hosted at our > company web-
> server, but you could incorporate it in your website (and I in mine, if > you let me), without
> it seeming to be anywhere else.

OK.  We'll talk.  It'd be some time, though, because I have stacks of largely
unprocessed samples and too little time to to anything serious about it.  So,
hold your little horses, and study up on SAMPA and collect some dialect
material from west of the great divide in the meantime!

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