LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.04 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.OCT.2003 (02) * 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: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: phonology

Hi guys

a lot of you have spoken about finding a standard
writing system for Low Saxon and Scots - and indeed
North Frisian could fit into this category. There are
enough speakers of these languages out there on this
list. Why don't you try and work something out between
you. A start would be to make a list of the different
phonemes (sounds) in your own dialect with plenty of
examples for each and then comparing the differences
with other speakers.

An example from British English - standard English
phonology gives 'meet' and 'meat' as /mi:t/ - however
there are dialects where they are pronounced
differently as /mi:t/ and /me:t/ - perhaps this should
be represented as they form an unpredictable minimal
pair. Whereas there are dialects that do not split the
vowels 'but' and 'put', whereas others do - this
however is already - quite rightly - represented in
the standard phonology.

However, differences from my own phonology should
perhaps not be represented as they are predictable
from the morphology. For example 'bored' and 'board'
are both /bO:d/ in standard English (not sure about
symbol - I know the correct phonetic one - but how to
represent it here??). In my dialect I have 'bored' as
[bO:d] and 'board' as [bUud] - however this is
predictable because 'bored' is morphologically
'bore+d' whereas 'board' cannot be split - a final
/O:/ from standard English is left as [O:] in my
dialect, whereas non-final /O:/ becomes [Uu].

I realise that to work out what should or should not
be represented in an all-encompassing phonology would
be a difficult task - but with the variety of dialects
represented on this list, surely some progress could
be made. It would also be good to see a phonology and
therefore to work out an orthography corresponding to
this phonology that represents all dialects of a
language as opposed to just one 'dominant' version as
does standard British English.

Gary

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Thanks a lot for all the food for thought above, Gary.  I think you raised a
few really interesting points.  It reminded me that an interdialectal
orthography might be argued to bear a measure of responsibility in honoring
and preserving underlying differenciations, given that orthography can and
will influence phonology.

This reminds me of a discussion Kenneth Rohde Christiansen and I had in
private the other day.  Kenneth asked me why in my proposed/experimental
"Neo-Hanseatic" system for Lowlands Saxon (Low German) I differentiate
between <oo> and <ou> when most other systems do not.  It is true that most
German-based systems do not make this difference, do so only in cases of
dialects that pronounce /ou/ as [aU] instead of [oU] (hence <oo> vs. <au>).
In fact, in some instructional texts it has been said that the difference
between /oo/ and /ou/ need not be made, but I have found no explanation for
that, and the implication seemed to be something like "it's insignificant,
so let's not bother."  Kenneth asked if not all occurrences of <oo> are
pronounced as a diphthong.  The answer is "yes, in some dialects, not in all
of them," i.e., some dialects still preserve the difference.  This raises
the questions if it should be observed should a standard orthography be
created, much like in your case of English <meat> vs. <meet>.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the LS case is a chicken-or-egg case,
that differentiation faded away *because* of orthographic
non-differentiation in writing /oo/||/ou/-type dialects.  So, writing for
instance <doot> ~ <dood> 'dead' and <doon> 'to do' may gradually cause
generalization of[doUt] and [doUn] or even [do:t] and [do:n] respectively
(or [daUt] and [daUn] respectively in _au_-type dialects), as the number of
true native speaker diminishes and true native speakers adapt to changing
(lowered?) standards.  In many dialects, true native speakers still
differentiate [do:t] 'dead' from [do.Un] ~ [doU at n] ~ [da.Un] ~ [daU at n] 'to
do'.  Thus, following your and my suggestions, in an interdialectal standard
orthography one ought to write something like <dood> (-> <dode>, etc.) and
<douen> (generalization of infinitive _-en_) respectively, which is what I
try to do.

Opponents may argue that this type of orthographic differentiation would
amount to some dialects burdening the speakers of other dialects with
written differences that do not exist in the phonologies of the latter.
This is where it becomes politically interesting, in my opinion.  What do
our Lowlanders think about it?  Should differentiation be dictated even
where it exists only in a minority of dialects?  Or should it be played as a
numbers game?  Remember that orthographic non-differentiation is likely to
lead to generalized phonemic non-differentiation.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

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