LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.04 (06) [E/LS/German]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.OCT.2003 (06) * 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: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth at gnu.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.04 (02) [E]

This is the same with /oa/ and /è/. In Stellingwarvian (probably not
other dialects) the old short/lax germanic a became è, thus 'waeter' and
not 'woater' - this only happened with this laxed vocal so they will
still use oa in other words, like proaten.

-Kenneth

> 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
--
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth at gnu.org>

-----

From: daniel <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.16 (09) [LS]

From: Friedrich-Wilhelm Neumann <Fieteding at gmx.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language contacts" 2003.09.15 (01) [LS]

Gau'n Oobend, Holger,

Du schreevst:

> From: Holger Weigelt <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
> Subject:  "Orthography"

> ...Däi annern söölen wal näit altau fööl gelēgenhaid hebben um plat tau
> prōten
> un däi köönent wī dan 'n büelt bēter mit sğrēven wōrden möyten.
> Ōk däi jungen bünt bēter tau ōwertüügen mit sğrēven wōrden. Dat tielt däi
> tól amhōğ in höör achtung.
> 'N sğrēven tól mit ferkloert rēğels dat is doch häil wat anners as
> "kausğît
> un mäes koeren", dor kan 'n bī hōğ kīken un ōk 'n ērnsthachterğ tēmó in
> ofhanneln.
> Näj tīden bünt näj wêğ nööderğ - mit prōten aläien hol' wī 't plat näit
> lēbennerğ.
> Kumpelment
> Holger

... un hesst mii all haalf övertüügt! Dat lücht mi woll aalns in.

Man- watt mii jümmer noch oppstööten deiht, is, no 'n allmeend-giltich'
Schriivwiis tau drachten.
Deei Ünnerscheeiden un Oorigkeeiden mang daei verscheeiden Rabeeiden dürt ne
platt mookt waarn!

Is dat ne aalns 'n lütt beeten tau theoreet'sch? Woveel Schriivwiisen föör
Platt schöllt wii denn woll leiern? Door waard de jungen Gest an'n Innen
noch bang vöör!
Woveel Lüü von Diin Klüftichkeeit un Engaschment schöllt wi woll finnen?
Wokeein kann woll Diin Schrift lees'n, wenn hei/sei Oostfreesenplatt ne
höört un lebennig beleevt hett?

Wees ne düll: mi dücht, uns "hauchdüütsch" Baukstooven geeft 'nauch
Meuglichkeeit her, wat elkein in siin eeigen Munnoort schriiven un watt de
Noober in Oostfreesland or inne Löönbörger Heiden em ook noch lees'n kann.

't allerbest
un Kumpelmenten

Fiete.

(Friedrich W. Neumann)
Not Lucifer I fear
but those almighty Gods

Lieber Fiete,

   Ich finde es schade, dass du dich so gegen eine stadardisierte Form des
Plattdeutschen sperrst. Hier geht es nich um Gleichmacherei oder
Uniformierung, sondern für eine Sprache, die, wie die meisten anderen
Sprachen auch, Dialekte hat, eine Schreibung oder ein eigenes systematisches
Rechtschreibsystem zu schaffen.

   In mainer Erfahrung ist ein solcher schriftlicher Standard für die
Bweusstseinsbildung sehr wichtig. Das mag mir auch manchmal unverständlich
erscheinen, aber heutzutag, fungiert ein geschriebener Standard als eine Art
Sanctus für die Bezeichnung Sprache, gegenüber dem Dialekt.

  Wenn Niedersächsisch weiterhin in einer Schreibung geschrieben wird, die
and die Hochdeutsche angelehnt ist, wird die Sparche ewig eine Art
Wurmfortsatz des Hochdeutschen bleiben, und als lokale Kuriosität
weiterleben, bis die älteren Generationen weggestorben sind.

Dan

----------

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

Dan, folks,

Fiete is no longer in our midst.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Mike <botas at club-internet.fr>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.04 (02) [E]

> From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: phonology
>
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Orthography

Most interesting subject, fascinating
postings, Gary and Ron.
I´m not a linguist, so what I am going to contribute
may be noise, it comes from a born LS who
observes how another ethnic group (the Occitans)
with similar problems - diversification of dialects -
has solved the problem.
The first writer of the renaissance of the language
in the 19th century, Mistral, wrote phonetically based
on French. He got the Nobel prize for his work,
although he could only be read in his home area
(the Provençe, that´s why Occitan is still called
Provençal by people who don´t know better).
With the Mistral experience in mind, the Occitans of
all regions got together and considered that basing
a pan-occitan orthography on phonetics would open
an unmanageable can of worms, given the dialectical
diversification of the language. So they decided to go
back to their sources, 12th-century Occitan
and write etymologically. And, oh wonder, speakers
from the extremes of the geographical range of the
language who can speak to each other only with great
difficulties, can write to each other once they learn
the new, old orthography.
Writing like the Hanse merchants did might fit the
bill or at least be a good starting point.
Mike Wintzer

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