LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 19.AUG.2000 (01) [D/E/S]

Sat Aug 19 21:52:57 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 19.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: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: Standardization

Goden dag Leeglanders,

Ron and I recently discussed the use of the double i ("ii") for the sound
which
is written as "ie" in Dutch and in German. Middle-Dutch also had that "ii",
which
later developed into "ij", as Ron explained. But that wasn't the only form
of  it,
Middle-Dutch also had "ie", which remained "ie" to the present day. The
sounds
were pronounced differently.

As I was thinking of how to write that "ie" sound in Low-Saxon, I came up
with
"y" myself (as opposed to the "ii" Ron uses for that). However, in some
words
that just looks very weird. For words like "my"/"myne(n)" (my/mine) and
"by" (by)
it works fine, but in words like "schier" (?) and "versieren" (to decorate)
it looks
horrible in my oppinion. You'd write it as "schyr" and "versyren". Ugh...
If I compare it to Dutch, "my" and "by" become "mij" and "bij" in Dutch
respectively,
and "schier" and "versieren" are spelled exactly the same. But then it
dawned on
me, words like "my" and "by" have an i-sound that remains constant, while
words
of the other form have an i-sounds that changes (maybe some sort of a
diphtong).

So my question is, do we need, or is it possible that, we use 2 forms,
representing
the different sounds? This would roughly mean that where Dutch has "ij"
we'd
write "y" and where Dutch has "ie", we'd write "ie" also.

Any comments?

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Moin, Henry, Leeglanners!

> You'd write it as "schyr" and "versyren". Ugh...

Surely "Ugh" only because it's new or different.  Right?  I'm sure you'd
get used to it soon.  If you are dealing with the same sound in all the
dialects (i.e., _y_ and _ie_ representing the same sound in each dialect,
not necessarily between dialects), then I don't see why you should have two
graphemes for the same phoneme just because Dutch and German or use _ie_
for the /ii/ sound.  Afrikaans is a good model in that it has introduced
pretty much consistent spelling into a Dutch-based system (_y_ is [@I],
_ie_ [i:]), though a few solely orthographic differentiations between _y_
and _ei_ remain where the pronunciation is always [@I].  On the other hand,
yes, the majority of people *are* conservative and afraid of anything "new"
and "foreign", and that can't be ignored or easly overcome.

Have you considered a two- or multi-step spelling program in which you
start with a "moderate" (i.e., partly conservative, Dutch- and/or
German-based) system with the plan to streamline it in stages at later
points in time?  Doesn't that sound like some sort of compromise solution?
I think that's what I am tending toward lately, after having gone through a
more radical phase.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: mathieu van woerkom [mathieuvanwoerkom at hotmail.com]
Subject: Standardization

Reinhard/Ron schreef:

>>(Voor het Fries heeft een standaardtaal ook goed gewerkt,
>>dit moet voor het Limburgs toch ook kunnen?)

>En ook voor het Nedersaksisch (Nederduits)?  Is de
>Oost-Nederlands--Noord-Duitse samenwerking in dit opzicht een >realistisch

>verwachting?

Ik denk dat Oost-Nederland en Noord-Duitsland haast wel moeten samen gaan
werken, gezien de taalkundige overeenkomsten tussen de gebieden. Een
Instituut voor de Nederduitse Taal komt eigenlik niet echt geloofwaardig
over als het geen notie neemt van de Oost-Nederlandse Nedersaksische
dialecten. Of samenwerking echter een realistische verwachting is, weet ik
niet. Tot nu toe zijn er volgens mij namelijk nog niet echt veel
initiatieven.
Toen ik schreef dat een standaardtaal voor Limburgs zou kunnen werken,
bedoelde ik vooral het feit dat de (Limburgse) dialecten wederzijds goed
verstaanbaar zijn, net als in Friesland. Of dit voor het Nedersaksisch ook
geldt, denk ik eigenlijk van niet. Bijvoorbeeld: een eventuele
Nedersaksische standaardtaal zal door sommige Oost-Nederlanders niet worden

geaccepteerd, omdat standaard-Nedersaksisch waarschijnlijk evenver of zelfs

verder van hun eigen dialect af zou komen te staan dan het
standaard-Nederlands nu. Als daar nog bijkomt dat iedereen natuurlijk
gewend
is aan het schrijven van het Nederlands, lijkt het me een hele opgaaf om
iemand zo'n standaard-Nedersaksisch te laten gebruiken. Het is natuurlijk
niet onmogelijk, maar in Limburg zie ik het veel sneller gebeuren, omdat de

dialecten nu eenmaal veel dichter bijelkaar liggen.
Dit neemt niet weg dat ik wel hoop dat het op de een of andere manier toch
lukt om de taal te standaardiseren, zoals ik dat ook hoop voor het
Limburgs.
Ik denk namelijk dat het van belang is vor het behoud van een taal, een
taal
die niet goed gedocumenteerd wordt, kan makkelijker *uitsterven*. Het
Nederlands kreeg ook pas landelijke *macht* toen het eenmaal
gestandaardiseerd was.

Mathieu

----------

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Standardization"

> From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 16.AUG.2000 (05) [S]
>
> I fairly gree wi this, but the'r an awfu practical problem wi't,
> an that is
> at, gin fowk is ti accept this kynd o spellin, thay (or thaim at
> lairns thaim)
> haes ti understaund the principles ahint it. For example, whit wey
Muirfit
> shoudna be spelt Mairfuit depends on understaundin at the UI
> phoneme is sayed
> 'ai' an 'i' in Central dialects, but ithergates ithergates (!).

Weel, ay - for adults, espeecially teachers, ye wad hae ti say what
the lugic ahint some o thae things is.

> <ruid> for 'rid') is no mensefu spellins. In ither words, aa the
> influential
> craeturs in Scots _disna accept_ whit we tak for grantit. Cause

Like A says, the'r nane sae deif as winna hear, nane sae blinnd as
winna see!

As A see it, we hae a _responsibility_ ti pass on this kin o knowledge.
It's no guid eneuch ti gie in ti ignorance wi the excuise that we need
the support o thaim as haes influence. As D. Gibb Mitchell says
(http://scotstext.org/Factual/Sermons/hamelythochts.asp) "We'v
_nae_richt_ ti soom in wi the lave." Ye hae ti mind that Scots isna
tocht in schuils onywhaur near the wey English is, an that's likely ti
gae on for the foreseeable future. It disna maiter if spellins in
English is aa irreglar, bairns is ti learn ti them hou thay'r telt
onywey. This isna true wi Scots, whaur the attitudes you'r describin
can dae black scaith ti the langage if thay dinna uphaud the idea
that mainland Scots _can_ be written as aa ae langage.

> the SNDA's ad
> hoc spellins is likely ti be the only anes at haes muckle influence
(for
> example Colin - richt me gin I'm wrang, Colin - haes decidit ti haud
wi
> spellins like <buik> in his Stertin Oot in Scots) the diaphonemic
> principle
> canna be seen ahint onie Scots spellin evenou.

A ludged ma complaint wi Colin a while back aboot this in his beuk.
A ken fine that Colin's a richt mensefu chiel that wadna made a
decision like this athoot some richt guid raeson that A canna see
masel; but A see Colin's beuk as a keystane in the advancement o
the Scots langage, an a muckle opportunity ti set thae wrangs richt,
syne he seems (as faur as A can see) ti fling it awa. Obviously,
the'r a lot mair ti Colin's beuk nor guid spellin, but ti me it's
a muckle shame.

Mind, tho, that the'r naething wrang wi the spellin "buik" in itssel -
it is uized even in the maist mensefu traditional texts. But it dis
introduce irregularities an teachin/learnin difficulties that's juist
no nott.

> spellins like (as faur's I can mynd) fuit, wuid (Scotscrieve), luik,
tuik
> (Scotscrieve an RWS); buik (aa o thaim?), an yiss (n), yaise (v),
uisless,
> yuisfae, usual (SNDA). Sin thir is wha lairns fowk ti spell

As for the SND itsel, A dinna see onything wrang wi it listin aa kent
spellins. This wad be seein it as _the_ muckle dictionary o the
langage,
an a decision ti record variant spellins isna wrang (at laest in want
o a settled orthography - an the wee dictionaries haes nae excuise for
joukin the responsibility o settin a example).

A wonder if the folk at the SNDA haes ever heard o a dictionar caad
the "SND"? A'm gittin sarcastic nou! - but the truith is that thae
kin o attitudes isna uphaudit in the dictionar itssel. Ti tak "fuit"
as a example, it lists this spellin because it's fund in the literatur
(1920 seems ti be the aerliest instance, if A'm readin it richt). But
it states an aa that the'r nae evidence for the existence o sic a wird.
What wey can ye write "fuit"? Victorians an Edwardians never wrate it.
In dialecks whaur it can be distinguished fae "fit", it's never sayed.
Thay folk should try an toot on their ain horn!

Ae thing aboot the SND itssel, tho, is that it disna list aa kent
spellins, as faur as A can see. Whaur the strechtforrit, mensefu,
fair readable diacritic spellins o some o the greatest Victorian
writers like Stevenson an Hunter, for example?

(John's comments on "fowk/folk" &c aa taen in an agreed on, as
uizual! "Ruid" for "reid/rid" wad be a grand thing an aa - the
want o a diaphonemic wey o spellin this haes been drivin me up
the waa in ma ain writin an editin for a guid while nou!)

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
  Things in this subloonary warld bein far frae
perfeck, 'No that bad' is the maist that mortal
man can venture tae say while here ablo.
             - Catherine P. Slater, 'Marget Pow'

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