LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.03 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.OCT.2003 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Holger Weigelt <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
Subject: "Orthography"

> From: Anja Meyfarth <anja-meyfarth at t-online.de>
> Subject: "Orthography"
>
> Moin Lowlanders!
>
> Kenneth wrote:
>
....
> In East Frisia an
> orthography of its own is on its way because the "Diesel"
> (www.diesel-online.de) is promoting it. It might become more widespread as
> more readers are getting used to it even when living elsewhere i Northern
> Germany.
>
> Greetings from Kiel,
>
> Anja
>
Hello Anja !
"Diesel" !?  What's the difference to the orthography we just discussed?
"Diesel" (it should be "dissel" = thistle G. Distel) uses and promotes the
same odd German based orthography as the "Ostfriesische Landschaft" does.
Maybe deep in their hearts the writers may know better (
in the past I discussed the matter with them and received some explanations
that made me believe so) but in their paper they explicitly follow the rule
to make the written word as German as possible.
OK it doesn't really matter how You write a language as long as the reader
knows how to handle the written words but what speaks most against the
German based orthography for Low Saxon is the inconstancy of the writing
that makes it difficult to recognize a word because of the many possible
ways to write it.
If we want to do something good for the language to ensure its further life
we should have a standardized orthography because in future the role of
written texts can potentially increase while the spoken language decreases
and a literary language with a fixed and standardized orthography will be
held in a higher esteem and regarded as a language of its own in difference
to an only spoken one which could hardly be written with a provisional
system which originally is created for an other language.
If then we are on the way to create such a standard orthography why not
finally throw away all the German burden not only fixing one obligatory way
of writing for every word but give it a look that also fits the demands of
its special phonology and grammar, too.
Kind regards
Holger

================================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.
=======================================================================