LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.03 (08) [A/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.MAR.2005 (08) * 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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.02 (09) [E]

Liewe Darrin, Ole Stig, Ron;

Onderwerp: "Intelligibility"

> When my wife and I were in Belgium and The Netherlands, we could
> understand the Dutch and Flemish that was spoken, but they had a hard time
> understanding our Afrikaans.  We realized later that if we told them we
> were speaking Afrikaans and that we suspected they should be able to
> understand it, then they could understand it.

Ek deel met julle die einste ondervinding, betreffende Flaams en Nederlands,
maar ek het nie so vêr gedink as om die geselskap te oortuig hulle behoort
te
verstaan nie!

Maar ons het 'n ander probleem. Laat ek dit met die verhaaltjie uitlig. Eens
sit ek aan tafel in 'n jeug-hostel en iemand versoek iets oorkant. Ek gee
dit aan, en 'n Amerikaanse meëreisiger vra vir my, "What language is he
speaking?"
Ek antwoord, "I don't know."

"You don't know, but you know what he's saying?!!!"

> Conclusion: There can be no meaningful objective measure of
intelligibility,
> just as there is no measure of correctness

I beg to differ with you there. There is an absolute, objective measure of
intelligibility: Communication, or a failure to communicate.

Yrs (en Groete),
Mark

----------

From: Ben Bloomgren <ben.bloomgren at asu.edu>
Subject: LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.03 (01) [E]

Jacqueline and list, how then can the Ethnologue and others give percent
intelligibility between languages? I definitely was not expecting all the
different little factors. Does the Ethnologue treat these languages?

----------

From: Þjóðríkr Þjóðreksson <didimasure at hotmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.02 (09) [E]

>From:  Ole Stig Andersen <osa at olestig.dk>
>Subject: LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.01 (10) [E]
>
>Also
>
>(3) Intelligibility varies from situation to situation, and from
>subject/theme/topic to ...
>
>(4) Intelligibility is enhanced/diminished by beliefs and ideology.
>Case:
>Until recently Danes, Norwegians and Swedes were uniformly taught in school
>to believe that their three (well, four) lgs were mutually understandable.
>And so they were/became, and still are, to a large degree.
>
>(5) Intelligibility is asymmetrical.
>Case:
>Norwegians understand Danish best, then Swedish, both well
>Danes understand Norwegian best, then Swedish (many not)
>Swedes understand Norwegian best, then Danish (most not, despite the
>ideology)
>
>Summary:
>Norwegian is Danish pronounced in Swedish (an old interScandinavian
lg-joke)

Bokmål at least ;) but Bokmål-speakers get very angry at you when you state
such things. Seems to be very sensitive a subject.

I was told that the better understanding by the Norwegians was due to their
more dialectical environment: as they come into contact with speakers of all
the different dialects very often, their ears are more trained, whereas
Danish and Swedish (I was told) dialects have been leveled out more, making
everyone speak more alike.

The same might be in the Dutch area: I have no proof for it but I think
Belgians are better in understanding different language-varieties than
Netherlanders, as in Belgium the dialects are still more alive and people on
TV don't all speak alike.
My view might be biased by prejudgement though, as for Belgians "A
Netherlander" is usually someone from the Randstad area.
When I speak Standard Dutch with a Belgian accent a lot of Hollanders (as we
call them) don't understand me and have to ask one or two times to repeat my
sentence or a word. When they talk to me with their typical accent, I have
to be very attentive sometimes but usually I'll understand them without too
many difficulties.

What disturbs me is that Belgian programmes are sometimes subtitled in the
Netherlands and reversed.
This certainly does not improve people's ability of understanding their
neighbours ;)

Diederik Masure

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