LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.27 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2003 (10) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

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

> From: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Orthography
>
> Well, in my view one of the markers of a competent
> Scots writer is that they use a consistent system -
> rather than making up each spelling as they go along.

So Burns was an incompetent Scots writer? Ramsay?
Montgomerie? Fergusson? Practically everybody else?
ME?!?!? How dare you!!  :)

I've written a fair amount of proofreading software to
help me with my ScotsteXt stuff, and when I run it on
my own writing I invariably keep coming across
inconsistencies. I don't think this makes a person an
incompetent writer, it's the content that's important,
the spelling can always be fixed by an editor. Asimov,
Wolfe and many others in English depended on their
editors for this sort of thing.

Moreover, just because some few have devised a system
that enables them to spell Scots consistently doesn't
mean their spelling is good. It certainly doesn't mean
their writing is good!

I'd also say that this sort of thing isn't as important
as you might think. Most Scots writers are found to be
wildly inconsistent by my software (many words having
typically three or four spellings), but in actually
reading the text, the inconsistencies in most of them
are hardly noticeable unless you're really looking out
for them.

Incidentally, I'm not even consistent in English. I use
both -ize and -ise endings, even with the same word,
because I've never really made up my mind about them.
What does it matter?

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.26 (13) [E]

Some comments:

1. After all the differences in orthography between UK English, USA English
and other variants are limited. However limited they are, the whole thing of
"allowed variations" is very annoying in quite some cases: as for
dictionaries, computer programming, web searches, trademarks.

As for trademarks / trade-marks I had some issues raised when depositing
Euro-Support, the trade-name / tradename of my little company at the:
U.S. Department of Commerce / Patent and _Trademark_ office in Arlington, Va
(without hyphen)
and at the:
CIPO (Canedian Intellectual Property Office) dept. _Trade-marks_  (with
hyphen)

At the US department, I learned "Euro-Support" with hyphen would also
protect "EuroSupport" without hypen. Though in countries, with protected
internet domain names, on the basis of my trademark / trade-mark deposit in
that country, I can get e.g. "euro-support.tm.fr" etc. but not
"eurosupport.tm.fr", since they consider that only the first orthography
entitles claim for the domain name.

2. Allowance of variation creates confusion. In '54 the Dutch and Belgian
specialists could not decide whether using c or k in hundreds of words. So
they decided to list more (I guess just 2 most of the time) versions, one
"preferred", the other "allowed". Some newspapers adopted the the progessive
"allowed" version, others the conservative "preferred" version. A new still
more progessive proposal of 1967 (the "odeklonje" orthography, for
"eau-de-cologne) has been used by some newspapers, as e.g. De Standaard, for
a few years but it was never officially approved. In 1995 finally decisions
were made for one single allowed orthography.

One just desperately needs a computer spell check program for knowing how to
spell.

Some samples:

1954 voorkeurspelling / 1954 toegelaten spelling / 1995
'54 preferred / '54 allowed / '95

antikrist / antichrist / antichrist
fotocopie / fotokopie / fotokopie
produktie / productie / productie
elektrotechnicus / electrotechnicus / elektrotechnicus
I studied electronics, but elektronika / electronica / elektronica /
electronika was not yet listed in the '54 green book; in '95 it became
"elektronica".

I guess those language scientists are bribed by the computer industry for
maintaining a market for tools helping us decide between "paddestoel" and
"paddenstoel", "pannekoek" and "pannenkoek" where the famous n is not
pronounced anyway.

3. The issue of how to write "regional, non-standardized" languages is a
difficult one and may lead to deep divisions amoung the few people still
defending dying regional variants.

- or one tries to be phonologically as correct as possible for each variant,
the morphology may become completely unrecognizable, and hardly anybody -
except for people from the local parish - understands what it all means.
This explains why books printed in the Maastricht variant can be printed in
500 copies, while books printed in the Gulpen variant do well if 150 copies
get sold: except for a few freaks: one reads only what's published in one's
own parish variant.

- or one promotes a particular variant as standard, example (for Limburgish)
the Sittard variant. Just Gulpen kids already have to learn Dutch + English
+ German + .. at school. At kindergarten Gulpens is also used. But should
one add Sittads? I guess this is a political issue. It worked for
Luxembourgish; but can one force Hamburg people to write in the variant of
Kiel or Edinborough people to write in the variant of Glascow.

- or one just keeps the common morpological base: no vowels, just (most of
the) consonants. Readable? As one pleases, everybody reads in his own way.
And if a stranger wants to study the language, how should he do? On one
appoints an Academy for drafting an artificial esperanto-like koiné?

So I think it only really works within a country with an army (The
Luxembourgish army though is not yet screened though by WSJ, Wall Street
Journal)

In 1844, for Dutch, the Belgians decided to keep spelling distance with the
Dutchmen (with ae, y etc.; AR Jan 1 1844, Moniteur Jan 9 1844). this was a
compromise between
the anti-Dutchmen (defending Des Roches with oo/oó ee/eé)
and the pro-Dutchmen (defending Siegenbeek).

The creation of a common dictionary (WNT, Woordenboek der Nederlandsche
Taal) gave the opportunity to come to one single orthography for both
counties (The De Vries & Te Winkel orthography) (AR Nov 21, 1864, Moniteur
Nov 22, 1864). This avoided words to be listed twice in the dictionary.
Curiously the Belgians kept a few issues undecided,
quote from the annex of the Royal Decree of 1864: "Men schrijft
naar verkiezing drie of drij, bie of bij, iever of ijver")

Even with a common orthography, the vocabulary was not completely common.
All Northern words were also standard for the South, but some Southern
words, though generally not used in the North, were allowed in the South and
were marked "Z.N." or "Zuidn." (Zuid-Nederlands or Southern Dutch) in
dictionaries.

So guess transborder language unification is still more difficult than
stardadization within a single country.

I think the dilemma is: what concessions do we have to make when
standardizing. The Belgians standardized (or tried to standardize) to Dutch
in the 19th century for surviving against French.
But what of one's own "diets" culture survives at the end? A few words
brandmarked as "Southern" in dictionaries? Some (ridiculized)
particularities in pronounciation or "singing" patterns when speaking?

The parish as close community, with an own language variant, not influenced
by radio and TV, virtually without migration, does not exist anymore. some
(older?) people remain with a dying language heritage.

Regards,

Roger

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings 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.
 =======================================================================