LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.22 (09) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

22 December 2005 * Volume 09
=======================================================================

From: Theo Homan <theohoman at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.22 (03) [E]

> From: Global Moose Translations

> Who is feeling threatened here? Just you, obviously.
> Try "bothered" on my
> part, by the utterly unesthetic look of what I am
> supposed to accept as "my"
> language. I know that orthographies change, but that
> is usually a gradual,
> logical process over centuries (rest assured, even I
> no longer write
> Luther's German), and developed by those to whom the
> language "belongs", not
> the baby of an avid professional  linguist who, for
> whatever reasons, thinks
> that he ought to change the look and feel that
> native speakers love to yet
> another soulless , "logical" construction. >
Gabriele Kahn
===========================

Hello,

Sorry to blow my trumpet in this passionate
discussion.
But the 'orthographical love' of the natives is THE
thing if an orthography will work.
I remind of quite a lot of 'usa-indian orthographies'
in the 19th century that were worked out very well,
but just didn't work because of the native-loveliness
origins.

vr.gr.
Theo Homan

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.22 (06) [E]

> From: Kevin and Cheryl Caldwell <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.21 (10) [E]
>
> I can sort of identify with what you are describing. While I can't say
> that I actually "see" every word I speak or hear (sometimes I "see"
> them, especially when I'm trying to come up with the right word; I
> also used to work as a transcriber, which may have helped to hone this
> ability to some degree), I _do_ do something sort of the opposite: I
> "hear" every word I read. That is, when I'm reading, I pronounce every
> word in my head. That's probably why I've never been able to master
> speed reading - I like to savor the sound of what I'm reading (that
> and, as my mother puts it, the writer put all those words there for a
> reason!).  This probably makes me a good proofreader too. And I
> suppose it could be linked to my musical talents (music, of course, is
> a language all its own).

It's a bit of a myth that subvocalising hampers speed reading. In fact I
believe that developing good subvocalising skills is considered to be a
cornerstone of speed reading these days. The idea is simply to practice
subvocalising very fast! This technique creates a barrier at about 800
words per minute, but that's still pretty fast. It's said that some
people break this barrier and get to where they read everything simply
by glancing down each page, but that's still a mystery to me.

I find that hearing the words in my head is also a good way of
remembering what I've read - I wouldn't worry about not missing
information as a result of reading too fast, just as you tend to
remember what you hear, you tend to remember what you subvocalise.
Therefore consciously practising subvocalisation can help with
remembering the material, just remember to subvocalise at speed. And
with speed reading you also have the option of reading the thing quickly
again to reinforce your memory.

Speed reading is one of those things that comes partly from a few good
pointers but mostly with constant practice. In theory you should speed
read everything (and if you feel you're missing too much information,
the answer to that isn't to read it slowly, but to speed read it twice
or thrice!), but in practice most people are uncomfortable with it
because they don't practice enough. It's just one of those things where
you have to keep at it until the results come through. Maybe comparable
to live comprehension in language learning - it seems like you'll never
get there, until one day you realise you've arrived!

There are of course various other pointers - such as taking in text in
as large chunks as your field of vision will allow, but this doesn't
stop you from subvocalising.

I would suggest that there are some things you probably do want to read
slowly. If I'm reading a novel I'm enjoying (rather than just for a book
report!), I'll read it at a speed where I can enjoy more than just the
information content - one does after all want to visualise Cthulhu
rising from R'lyeh, not just learn the fact of it! But I read factual
narratives, such as biographies and historical narratives, at speed.
Heavier stuff like technical books I read at variable speed, depending
on whether the bit I'm at is actual technical information that needs
thinking about, or just the author's waffle. Things like the "How to Use
This Book" section take me exactly zero seconds to read!

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Henry Pijffers <henry at saxnot.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.22 (03) [E]

Gabrielle schreev:
>
> Try "bothered" on my part, by the utterly unesthetic look of what I am 
> supposed to accept as
> "my" language. I know that orthographies change, but that is usually a 
> gradual,
> logical process over centuries (rest assured, even I no longer write
> Luther's German), and developed by those to whom the language "belongs",
> not the baby of an avid professional  linguist who, for whatever reasons,
> thinks that he ought to change the look and feel that native speakers love 
> to yet
> another soulless , "logical" construction. Well, there already is such a
> thing, as standardised as any linguist could wish for. It's called
> "phonetics", and that should be enough.
>
Gabrielle, ever had a look of earlier writings in Saxon? They looked a
lot more like Ron's way of writing than most of the other systems.

> I must very strongly object to the allegation that you have raised several
> times now, that anyone who prefers the current LS spelling does so because
> it resembles German
 >
They just prefer it because they're used to the German (or Dutch)
spelling system. It's just that, and nothing else, no nationalism or
anything else involved.

> You are very welcome to play around with any orthography as much as you
> like, as well as make it public, discuss it, have fun with it in all those
> special ways that linguists enjoy (just like Tolkien's Elbish and Ingmar's
> Middelsprake), but please do not try to push it as an actual standard in
> "real life", that's where the fun ends for me and many others.
>
A lot of fun could start if we were to be able to easily interpret
eachother's writings, which were a standard orthography comes in.

> I think that for one thing, with all those Ys
 >
Look at some older texts, please, just for fun.

grooten,
Henry

----------

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

Thanks, Henry, buddy.

Let me just add that, while not actually preferring it, I have, contrary to 
false conclusions and rumors that have been bandied about on this list, no 
fundamental objection to a partly German-based orthographic system for Low 
Saxon.  (I am sure that folks in the Netherlands wouldn't be too happy about 
it, but that's a different matter, and being, in my experience on the whole 
more openminded than people east of the border, even the reputedly 
conservative people of the eastern provinces, they would probably tolerate 
it and at least learn to read it.)

At the end of the day it doesn't matter so much what orthographic devices 
one uses, as long as they are consistently employed.  This can not be said 
about most of the systems used in Germany at the present time.  What's more, 
there is no excuse for it, less excuse even for blanket rejection of any 
tweaking attempts.  Why is there no excuse for it?  The makers of the 
systems actually designed it to allow consistency, and in their outlines 
they recommend that this consistency be maintained at least in print.

Foremost, there is the supposedly devine Johannes Saß, on whose outline the 
two currently most popular systems (Fehr and Loccum) are based.  Saß built 
into the system a device that allows you to distinguish monophthongal /ee/ 
and /öö/ from diphthongal /ei/ and /öü/ which otherwise would be written 
alike.  He recommended an ogonek (hook) underneath the <e> and <ö> for the 
monophthongs, and many more "serious" publishers, especially publishers of 
teaching material, have followed this.

For instance, ...

Weeg' ~ Weg' [vE:IG] 'cradle' (AS <weyg'> ~ <weyge>)
Węęg' ~ Węg' [ve::\G] ~ [vE::\G] 'ways' (AS <weeg'> ~ <wege>)

anbeden ["a:\nbE:\d=n] 'to offer' (AS <an-beyden>)
anbęden ["a:\nbe:d=n] ~ ["a:\nbE:d=n] 'to adore' (AS <an-beden>)

However, since this ogonek is typographically cumbersome, especially with 
regard to <ö>, it tended to be omitted, initially in texts between or for 
native speakers who would understand the meaning from contexts and 
automatically pronounce the words correctly.  This spread to low-budget 
publications that fell into the hands of non-native speakers and learners, 
and this is where the problems arose, for these non-native speakers would 
mispronounce relevant words and would thus learn them in that form, even 
pass them on.  More "serious" publishers are aware of this and insist on 
differentiation one way or another.  In some dictionaries, a parenthesized 
vowel with ogonek follows a word to signal monophthong pronunciation.  More 
common these days, not only among publishers but also among individual 
writers, is the compromise solution to write the monophthongs as <ä> and <œ> 
(~ <oe>) respectively; thus ...

Weeg' ~ Weg' [vE:IG] 'cradle' (AS <weyg'> ~ <weyge>)
Wääg' ~ Wäg' [ve::\G] ~ [vE::\G] 'ways' (AS <weeg'> ~ <wege>)

kööm [k9:\Im] 'came' (AS <koym>)
Kœm ~ Koem [k9:m] 'caraway', 'caraway schnaps>

In texts without distinctions these are <Weeg>, <anbeden> and <kööm>/<Kööm>. 
(The drawl tone, too, tends to be omitted in writing (hence the 
mispronunciation [vEIC] instead of [vE:IG] 'cradle' and [ve::\G] 'ways'), 
but that's yet another matter.)

These alternative devices are by no means new.  They had been employed 
already in the 19th century, even by the beloved Klaus Groth.  The new Sass 
(_Der neue Sass_) is a small dictionary that was published not long ago, is 
supposed to be an update of the old Sass and is widely used now.  It, too, 
uses <ä> and <œ>, albeit as alternative spelling, at least gives the user, 
including the learner, these essential hints.

Despite this, ignoring of the distinctions continues.  While you may be able 
to shrug it off in the case of "light" literature, I consider it a serious 
flaw in reference and teaching material.  Even Saß and Groth would agree. 
In some cases it is merely because of ignorance, carelessness or sloppiness 
that the differentiations are not made in print.  I can think of other 
reasons, but I won't go into that now.  At any rate, I would expect that 
makers of reference and teaching material, dealing with lots of details and 
having certain obligations with regard to standard and education, would take 
this seriously, since they automatically share in the effort of recording 
the language and setting or maintaining standards.  This is why I was peeved 
and disappointed when our Heiko -- bless him, though, for his heart is in 
the right place -- and some of his cohorts rejected my tweaking proposal 
outright, even though it would have been a small thing, and I had even 
offered to help with the revisions.  In my view, there is no excuse for 
this, for it is not as though they can plead ignorance after I presented the 
facts and my arguments (as presented here).  It is not as though I was 
asking to use the AS system or anything else "weird." This was a case of the 
same German-based orthography, just the whole thing instead of part of it. 
I was suggesting the use of an old device within the system they were using.

So obdurate attitudes abound and seemingly defy reason, not only with regard 
to stuff they can dismiss as "lunatic fringe" "playing around" but in fact 
with regard to *any*thing that requires change or even just slight 
adjustment.

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