LL-L "Orthography" 2004.10.14 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.OCT.2004 (10) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Ingmar,

You wrote under "Language varieties" today:

> But I wonder how these EI and OU are pronounced, maybe not so different
from
> Dutch EE [e:i] and OO [o:u] that are in fact diphthongs too.
> I noticed reading the translations of my scarry poem that Reinhard uses
> twodifferent ways too spell
> Lower Saxon: one with OO and EE ("German-based orthography"), the other
> with OU and EY.
> So Franz and Reinhard: what do you mean by that? Houdoe, Ingmar

First of all, let's reestablish the fact that Franz and I use different
languages: Low Franconian and Lowlands Saxon respectively.

What happened to "Low German" (or "Platt") in Germany is that Low Franconian
and Lowlands Saxon dialects all got lumped together under this one
convenient label.  This and the fact that similar unscientific lumping is
done in the Netherlands is why labels like "Platt" or "plat" simply won't
do, at least not on this list where we do recognize differences.

The stated aim of the movers and shakers in Germany in the past -- still
sheepishly followed by the majority of writers -- was to make written
"Platt" look as much German ("High German") as possible, even if this
resulted in inaccuracy -- and this was a part of reinforcing the myth that
they were simply German dialects, thus needed no special protection and
support and where bound for the scrap heap.  The overriding purpose was to
create a German look that reinforced the then current overall aim of giving
and perpetuating these languages German dialect .  Due to indoctrination of
this sort since the middle of the 19th century, many people in Germany have
knee-jerk reactions to "un-German" ways of spelling.

This is what I call "German-based spelling," and I call what you use for
Lowlands Saxon in the Netherlands "Dutch-based spelling."

The German-based spelling does the following main things:

(1) It ignores sounds that are not German and represents them by the closest
German equivalent.  Thus, both <o(o)> and <oh> stand for two phonemes:
monophthong /oo/ and diphthong /ou/, both <ö(ö)> and <öh> stand for
monophthong /öö/ and diphthong /öü/, and both <e(e)> and <eh> stand for
monophthong /ee/ and diphthong /ei/.  German does not have these diphthongs,
so they are orthographically ignored.  Some people do try to differentiate
them, though, using all sorts of German-based devices.  As a result of
non-differentiation, learners of the languages in Germany do not know about
these differences or cannot tell from writing what is a monophthong and what
is a diphthong.

(2) It forces the languages to conform with written German by using not only
German-style devices (such as _ß_ and post-vocalic _h_) but also using the
same word-final consonant final stop symbol as in German; e.g., (/kleid/)
_Kleed_ [klEIt] -> _Kleder_ ['klEId3`] (cf. German _Kleid_ -> _Kleider_),
(/tiid/) _Tiet_ (which should be _Tied_) -> _Tieden_ (cf. German _Zeit_ ->
_Zeiten_).

(3) It wants to write dialects "phonetically."  So you get for instance
_Rüch_ [rYC] 'back' but plural _Rüggen_ ['rYgN] 'backs', where spelling
_rüg_ and _rüggen_ would be phonemic, because there is a rule by which final
/g/ is pronounced both voiceless and fricative.  (By the way, this is a
fault in the orthography of Westerlawer Frisian also.)

Kenneth Rohde Christiansen and I count among those that would like to see
alternatives used for Lowlands Saxon spelling, and we are experimenting with
the ANS (Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys') that uses devices reminiscent
of those used in Middle Saxon literature (which happens to be similar to
Middle Dutch ones).  So when you see me providing two ways of spelling, one
of them is ANS and the other is a German-based one.

For more information please see the following site:
http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/ls-story.html

I am using the ANS here as well (under "Transliteration 2"):
http://www.geocities.com/grothwarken/

In ANS, we spell the above examples _kleyd_, _kleyder_, _tyd_, _tyden_,
_rüg_ and _rüggen_.

A description of the ANS system is still in the offing.

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