LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.08 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 08.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: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Orthography


Beste Gabriele,

When you write

>But I can easily imagine many
>people who don't want their own local version of Platt "mixed in" with
those
>of other areas, because it's THEIRS, an old comfortable slipper that fits
>them nicely.

I think I understand your point of view. Everybody thinks he/she is
particular and special (and in some way, we all really are different after
all), but at the same time, there is something "bigger" that unites us too.
During the Middle Ages, in Brabant, most people's range of action was
limited to 20 km, because this was roughly the distance they could cover on
foot (round trip = 8 hours walk). Anything further than 20 km, was "the
great beyond" and going there was like crossing the "final frontier" and
moving into "outer space". Linguistically, everything usually remained
stable during one's lifetime. Yet, today, traffic is much more intense and
this dynamic situation will surely urge many people to "retire" and create
their own cosy nook where they can be "themselves". Using their mother
tongue of course. Fine, no problem. But maybe we can make this person feel
less lonesome, if we're able to show him that his personal language has
similarities with languages that are spoken in faraway places he has never
heard of. Sure, this won't alter his language immediately (I wouldn't want
to do that), but it might improve his attitude (towards "alien" influence);
and this I consider a noble ambition for everybody. Science always has two
sides, an analytic and a synthetic approach. The first method stresses
differences and can be very discriminating, the second one wants to separate
the essentials from the details, searching for the "Leitmotiv".
Both are necessary. Just like male/female or yin/yang they are complementary
I think.

>Maybe that's a good metaphor for those "closet" Lower Saxon
>speakers anyway - they wouldn't dream of getting themselves a different
pair
>of slippers, not even a newer version of the same model - but they also
>wouldn't dream of wearing them outside the house.

This reminds me of China. Quite a lot of people used to wear their pyjama's
in the streets...and their slippers as well of course. I've even seen people
have lunch in good restaurants wearing their night gear!
Why not? *s*

Greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: Anja Meyfarth <anja-meyfarth at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.06 (12) [E]

Moin Lowlanders!

> Hmmm ...  and the <h> is supposed to be a trace of the old /g/?!  I dunno

It is. The "g" going to be pronounce like "h" made the "n" vanish (in High
German: Nasalschwund vor Spiranz). In the imperfect the "g" remained and
with it the "n".

> But isn't /daan/  [dQ:n] ~ [do:n] the past participial form ('done'), and
> the infinitive ('to do') is /doun/ [do.Un]?

You are quite right. As a matter of fact I'm writing "doon" when using the
infinitive.

By the way: "Bescheidenheit ist eine Zier, doch weiter kommt man ohne ihr."
(Being modest is an ornament, but you get further without it.)

Greetings from Kiewl,

Anja

----------

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

> From: Anja Meyfarth <anja-meyfarth at t-online.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.02 (01) [E/LS]
>
> Moin Lowlanders!
>
> Holger wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> The main point to me is that they are NOT following the rules by Sass as a
> rule.
>
> > 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.
>
> Standardization is very difficult to make acceptable. You are aware how
> different the dialects sound to the NativeSpeaker's ears. And they want to
> write what they are speaking. You won't convince a speaker of Dithmarschen
> of your orthography. As a matter of fact you don't convince me, being an
> author myself. Your spelling is very hard to read to me!

Hello Anja !
If You had read my different postings on this matter You'd know that I never
insisted on convincing a speaker of Dithmarschen or elsewhere outside
Eastern Friesland. I always highlighted the fact that my proposals are based
in my experiences with and work about Eastern Friesland Low Saxon which in
some respect is different from LS of other regions possibly making my
orthography not interchangeable (?).
My experience with EFLS speakers is that of course for a first moment it
looks strange to them because it is not German-fashioned but they quickly
understand the (indeed very simple) rules even without explanation and soon
read fluently. The oldest person who tried was over 70 and the only problem
she had was the lack of capitals in nouns.

>I'm speaking a kind
> of "Mittelholteinisches Ausgleichsplatt" mainly taken from the west coast
of
> Schleswig-Holstein and from the area around Kiel. And I'm using words from
> other parts as well (like "faken"  = "often"). So, I'm more standardized
> than others.  And I don't believe that a standardized orthography would
ehlp
> the language. The only thing to do is using it in everyxday's live and, if
> you're an author, try to write poetry and prose of a high quality level. A
> standardized orthography will develop it let to do so.

Standardization mustn't be fixed in laws but I'm convinced it'll help if You
haven't up to six different possibilities to write the same word. That is
what speakers of EFLS tell me the difficulty to read LS is. But thats not
all. As long as we try to make written LS look as if it was German our
readers won't develop a feeling for having a language of their own instead
of a kind of falsified German.
A real literary language is much higher estimated and will increase in
prestige.
A fixed orthography is one aspect to achieve this. The other is a system of
grammatical rules.
Together these possibly can help to stop the actual process of language loss
in the only spoken language. This process is a combination of features like
replacing LS sounds by German ones (for example ~sğ~ more and more becomes
German ~sch~ [S]), loss of genuine vocabulary, replacing prepositions and
other short structural words which differ from German by those alternating
to German ones, using German syntax patterns and generally losing LS
thinking what means many actual LS speakers just do a kind of translation
from German while speaking.
About the interference of writing and speaking there already has been said
enough in recent postings (Ron's for example). If we have defined rules of
grammar it will be possible also to relearn how to make LS sentences or to
use genuine vocabulary and confirm speakers to stay in their language
instead of moving to German patterns.

>English orthography
> has never been put into an official writing by law and it works as well as
> good as a grown orthography can work.
>
> > 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.
>
> As for phonology, once again remember that there is a great variations of
> phonology! An important trait of Northern Germans is that there are
stubborn
> when it comes to there local dialect. The neighbour from a village some
> miles away doesn't speak Low Saxon correctly because it's different... :))

Of course You are right - Kiel is so far away from Eastern Friesland that
nobody there might ever speak LS correctly - why do You think me to write my
reply in English ? :))
Back to start: I did my proposal for EFLS only. This variant of LS was and
is written in an odd German based orthography which doesn't fit neither it's
phonology nor it's grammatical structures. Nevertheless it is told to be
based on the so called Brookmer Platt (the local variant of the Brookmerland
in the Aurich-area).
- hello Ron ! they write "dood" (dead) and "doon" (to do). "Dood" indeed is
spoken [do:d] all over EF but "doon" in Brookmer Platt is [doUn] - exactly
what You wrote - or in some cases of heavy "colouring" somewhat like [d at OUn]
in all the other areas it is [daUn] (I write it "daun") or if "coloured"
somewhat like [dœUn] with no touch of an -o- but a tendency towards the
diphthong I write ~öy~ (about Dutch ~ui~). This little example may show up
that the G-based orthography goes wrong even in the case of Brookmer Platt.
But that is not primarily what I wanted to tell.
One more difference between me and the supporters of the "old" orthography
is that I don't base my writing system on the Brookmer Platt because this is
the phonetically poorest variant of EFLS. I take the variant with the
highest degree of variation. Thus I reduce the number of homonymes and the
different word-pictures give a better chance to recognize the meaning. By
this "trick" my proposal fits every variant (of EFLS!) in spite of the
speakers real pronounciation.
This works best because even the speaker of Brookmer Platt realises a
difference between the ~o~ in "dood"/ _dōd_ and the [oU] in "doon"/_daun_ .

Greetings from Aurich
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.
=======================================================================