LL-L "Orthography" 2006.03.24 (02) [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)
=======================================================================

24 March 2006 * Volume 02
=======================================================================

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

Hi again, Roger (Hondshoven)!

You wrote under "Etymology":

> Now it has become clear to me. I suspected a connection with 'vreten', but 
> I
> was put off by that -sch. I now get the impression from what you write 
> that
> it is pronounced like ch- in Dutch chocola. If that is correct I think it 
> is
> a needlessly complicated spelling. Why not simply write 'vreetsj'?


Great question (even though it leads to "Orthography," a different thread)! 
Depending on the dialect, <sch> stands for [S] (as in "shore," "sheep" and 
"dish"), for [sG] (like <s> followed by Flemish-pronounced <g>), for [sx] 
(as in Dutch <schoon>) and as [sk] (as in <scate> and <skit>).  So it's a 
cross-dialectical symbol combination, and it has historical roots.  In Dutch 
it corresponds to <sch> at the beginning of a syllable.  In precontemporary 
Dutch it was <-sch> at the end of syllables as well (e.g., <nederduytsch>, 
<hollandsch>, <vla(a)msch>, <engelsch>, <fransch>, <hispaansch>).  This 
latter one has now become _-s_ (thus <Nederduits>, <Hollands>, <Vlams>, 
<Frans>, <Spaans>).  Now, since Dutch does not have native /S/, 
Netherlanders and Belgians want to write it as <sj> when they come across 
the sound [S] in Continental Lowlandic language varieties, because that's 
how their orthography has been handling "exotic" /S/ (e.g., in Indonesian 
languages).  And this has rubbed off on speakers of Low Saxon and Limburgish 
in the Netherlands and Belgium and has been disrupting the old orthographic 
continuum.  For instance, the reflexive verb meaning 'to befit' used to be 
spelled <schicken> in all related varieties.  Now it is <schikken> in Dutch 
and Netherlands LS, <skik> in Afrikaans, <schicken> in Germany LS, and 
<sjikken> in Limburgish.  Cross-variety reading would be a lot easier if the 
same symbol (combination) were used, such as <schik(ken)>, to be pronounced 
according to native phonological rules.

Groeten,
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.
======================================================================