LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.11 [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 11.October.2003 * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
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
Archives: 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: Anja Meyfarth <anja-meyfarth at t-online.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.08 (02) [E]
>
> Moin Lowlanders!
>
> Holger wrote:
>
> > 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 (?).
>
> I fear you will get the problem of splitteringup the dialects. I once
again
> tell you that it is very hard for me to read your orthography because
> Im
not
> so used to the dialect you write. It is NOT in my ears. Of course
> speakers of East frisian Low Saxon don't have that problem.
> Splittering up the orthographies of the dialects even more than they
> are already today will make it impossible to sell books any longer.
> Low Saxon is in need of an orthography that can be read by speakers
> from the Netherlands till Vorpommern (and their descendants elsewhere
> in this world). That craves an orthography that is moving away from
> the specialities of a certain
dialect.
> You see my argument? Even today authors of a certain region don't sell
their
> books in other areas. That has to be changed.
>

Hello Anja !
Of course You are right but when I started my work years ago this was in
the course of a short "renaissance" of LS in Eastern Friesland which
made me (and some others) hope that I/we could do something good for our
language to preserve it and reinforce it's use. It was a very local or
regional thing and I didn't ever since want to come out with ideas in
the larger context of Low Saxon in general. The specialities of EFLS
provide enough work for me. But there are others who do similar things
for their local or regional dialect (have a look for example on the
website of K.-W. Kahl ) and if You compare You will find many
similarities and possibly with the help of some enthusiastics all these
attempts may grow together to a system we can accept for LS in general.

> > 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.
>
> Well, it's getting worse with a special orthography for EFLS. Than
speakers
> from Dithmarschen will refuse even more to read EFLS literature...
>
I won't refuse to write EFLS in an orthography speakers from
Dithmarschen can read also (if they understand what I wrote - an other
problem with books in regional language to be sold elsewhere) if this
fits the needs of my language as well as theirs. (See what I said
above.)

> > 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.
>
> That change has to be made in the heads as a principle. I don't think
> that
a
> change in orthography will help making that change. It is a very long
> way
to
> go still.
>
Having an orthography of their own can help people to acknowledge the
idea of having an own language and thus strenthen the process of getting
the principle into the heads.

> > A real literary language is much higher estimated and will increase
> in prestige.
>
> First you have to get them read "real literature". And see it on stage
> by the way...
>
> > A fixed orthography is one aspect to achieve this. The other is a
> system
> of
> > grammatical rules.
>
> There are grammatical rules. No language can be spoken without
> grammatical rules. They are already LS grammar(s), f.ex. in
> "Sprachführer
Plattdeutsch",
> Quickborn-Verlag, Hamburg, ISBN 3-87651-204-2.
>
Of course there are rules but people aren't concious of using rules
different from German ones. If You make them aware of that fact and show
the m how their orthography depends on these it will make them more
conscious of using a language of its own and on the other hand this
knowledge will help them to keep to the rules instead of constantly
breaking them in favour of German.
I don't know the book You mentioned but recently I studied the
"Niederdeutsche Grammatik" by INS, Bremen, and was disappointed because
of incompleteness and mistakes in many aspects. In some cases however I
guess it doesn't go wrong for LS in general but for EFLS in special.
That shows up an other problem: Possibly we can come to a general
orthography because the sound-system might be almost the same everywhere
but there are great differences in vocabulary and pronounciation that
make reading from an other region difficult as long as we don't create a
kind of general LS above all regional dialects for writing and there are
obviously great differences in grammatical structures and syntax which
would have to be misregarded for such a "High-LS". That in several cases
(like EFLS) can result in having a further language possibly also
destroying the genuine structures in the same way now German does.

> > 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 ~sg~~ 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.
>
> Quite a lot of them might do, as I am myself. Don't forget that it
> might
be
> a foreign language to many of them.
>
To whom it is a "foreign" language it is easy to excuse but native
speakers shouldn't do so. It is - as I wrote - one aspect of language
loss. Yet old native speakers have a special kind of
language-imagination that enables them to create the language while
speaking. Words and patterns are quite vague and receive their meaning
and distinctness from context and speaking manner while younger speakers
need fixed meanings and loose this fancy of language creation which
enriches the language and gives it a special charm.

> > 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.
>
> Well, the lack of a real big dictionary is sharply hurting me. As I
> wrote some time ago, I'm working with three dictionaries in the least,
> sometimes referring to other dialects as the one I've learned to get
> away from words sounding to much German.
>
> > 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 ? :))
>
> Because of all the poor guys in this list that are not speaking LS and
might
> find it hard to read it. *verybiggrinfromeartoear*
>

*verybiggrinfromeartoear*

> > 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).
>
> And again: Don't split up the dialects of LS more than they already
> are!
It
> will kill the language by dividing it. IMHO.

Yes, dividing kills the language and unsplitting kills the languages.
How do You think us to come out of this dilemma?
If we keep to our local language/s rising their reputation in the minds
of the people by making them aware of having an own language in its own
rights independant from German but belonging to a larger community (even
larger than LS) and keep in contact with all the other LS areas will
help a lot already. The rest must grow by time. I think we can't really
guide the developement which follows own laws.

Greetings
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.
======================================================================