LL-L "Orthography" 2003.10.24 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.OCT.2003 (03) * 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: Orthography

Haj evriwan

Ron you wrote a couple of weeks ago:

'Dzhëëmën
uwthógrëfij an joëz hæv wan thing in komën: dhej
miks fëníjmik
prinsiplz
widh fënetik wënz'

I agree. What do you think is the best way to capture
a non-standard dialect? Many of the phonemes of my
dialect have different allophones (pronunciations)
depending on if they're followed by a vowel or a
consonant. All vowels, when followed by another vowel,
insert a glide, which does not exist when followed by
a consonant. For example:

bee = bii/bij
beekeeper = biikiipë
the bee is = dhë bij iz

Canada = Kænëdë(r)
Canada has = Kænëdë hæz
Canada is = Kænëdër iz

etc. The glides can be of the form j, w, r or l

should I be consistent and always show bee as 'bij'
and Canada as 'Kænëdër' or should I alternate the
spelling depending on whether a vowel follows, to more
closely represent what I say? Spellings of Canada with
a final r before a consonant might appear that my
dialect is rhotic, which it definitely isn't.

A problem arises with final t, k and p. Final t and k
(and often p) are neutralised to a glottal stop when
followed by a consonant, however when followed by a
vowel they are kept apart. 'k' and 'p' are pronounced
as a 'k' and 'p' in this position, 't' is alternately
pronounced as a glottal stop, an Estuary affricated
't' (i.e. one with a a slight 's' offglide) or a tap
as in American English depending on speed of talking.
Should this be shown phonetically, i.e. exactly as I
say it, or should it be portrayed phonemically, so
that the same word is always written consistently? The
affricated 't' poses the problem of how to represent
it phonetically. The s offglide in 'A bit of' is not
as strong as the s in 'bits of'. So for my eyes 'ë
bits ëv' for the first and 'bi's ëv' seems strange.

Another problem is with word final cluster reduction.
Again, before a consonant, clusters of consonants are
regularly reduced 'fast car' = 'faas kaa(r)' but no
reduction occurs before a vowel 'faster' =
'faastë(r)'.

When a standard is sought then I think the phonemic
approach is best for consistency, but with
non-standard dialects I'm not sure. In Colin Wilson's
'Luath Scots Language Learner' he makes differences
between emphatic and unemphatic words such as 'and'
being 'an' or 'and'. This sort of thing occurs (I
think) in all English dialects as well. Should this be
portrayed in orthography using Colin's example or
should the 'standard English' approach be used where
'and' is always written 'and' regardless of how it's
pronounced?

I know that Estuary English will never have a
standardised form that's widely accepted, as it's only
me who's at all interested ;) I'm just curious as to
what you all think is the best approach for
non-standard dialects/accents.

Gary

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
Subject: Orthography

Gary,

If you base your orthography on phonemic structure, then, yes, you ought to
write <bij>, <Kænëdër>, etc., to account for liaison versus final position.

> In Colin Wilson's
> 'Luath Scots Language Learner' he makes differences
> between emphatic and unemphatic words such as 'and'
> being 'an' or 'and'. This sort of thing occurs (I
> think) in all English dialects as well. Should this be
> portrayed in orthography using Colin's example or
> should the 'standard English' approach be used where
> 'and' is always written 'and' regardless of how it's
> pronounced?

I would probably treat the two as separate items in the lexicon, just like
"is not," "in't" and "ain't" are.  Like other lexical items, their choice is
determined by context, mode, style, etc.

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