LL-L "Phonology" 2008.06.09 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 08 June 2008 - Volume 06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: Marcus Buck <list at marcusbuck.org>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2008.06.09 (04) [E]

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

>
>   1. I would really love to get your analysis of the phenomenon of
>      lengthening as a result of apocope, a feature that goes by many
>      younger people who rely much on writing, most of which does not
>      indicate it. In other words, this feature, along with
>      distinction between diphthongs and long monophthongs, is in the
>      process of being lost in great part because of poor spelling.
>
>  Younger people relying too much on writing... Hm, this can only be aimed
against Wikipedia and the other online Low Saxon activities ;-) cause, I
don't think, that there are many young people relying on writing other than
those writing themselves. I don't think there are many young people who are
eager Low Saxon readers. At least not to that extent, that writing could
influence the language. Okay, perhaps people who try to learn the language
without any previous knowledge. But learning a language from scratch won't
work with any language. So, I say: Don't blame the spelling. The blame has
to go to the bad language transmission. Well, it too is unfair to blame the
older generation for not transmitting the language to their children, cause
I think, that they did, but we have to blame the whole society for creating
an atmosphere in which the younger weren't encouraged to imbibe the language
offered by the older generation.
This loss of language "subtleties" is a symptom of general language loss and
certainly not a symptom of suboptimal spelling.

> Please note that apocope does not apply in cases of grammatical marking;
> e.g. /Dat huus is groot /[groːt]/ un hoog/ [hoːx] 'The house/building is big
> and tall', /dat grote /[groːte]/, hoge /[ˈhoːɣe]/ huus/ 'the big, tall
> house/building'.
>
>  Depends. East Frisian does have apocope for grammatical markers. I cite
from <http://www.bis.uni-oldenburg.de/bisverlag/hv1/9a2-fort.pdf>:

/Auf Borkum und bei den älteren Emdern sind die alten Adjektivendungen - im
Gegensatz
zu den übrigen ostfriesischen Mundarten - teilweise erhalten. Man sagt de
grote
Kaap statt de grood' (d' bezeichnet das stimmhafte d im Auslaut vor
apokopiertem e)
Kaap; mien olde Mauder statt mien oael Mauder; dat braide Pad statt dat
braaid Pad;
de baide grote Klaasooms statt de baaid groot Klaasooms; en junge Fent; wie
binnen de
Groten, de Dummen, de Klauken, usw.

/Marcus Buck/

----------

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

Marcus, you responded:

Younger people relying too much on writing... Hm, this can only be aimed
against Wikipedia and the other online Low Saxon activities ;-)

Why?! "Only"?! I grant you that the Wikipedia activities are pretty darn
important and impressive, and I really mean it and, as you know, support
them. But they aren't the center of my universe or the be-all of "Platt",
nor are the participants the only ones (young or old) that ignore
"subtleties" that I consider as subtle as distinguishing English "bear" and
"beer", "bed" and "bet", or "loan" and "lawn," for example.

I hear many people speak, both competent and learning speakers, and I read
lots of people's written works. This goes far beyond the Wikipedia.

To competent speakers differences such as between [ˈbeːdn̥] ~ [ˈbɛːdn̥] 'to
pray', 'to request' and [ˈbɛˑɪdn̥] ~ [ˈbaˑɪdn̥] 'to offer' are as important
as is the difference between their German cognates *beten* and *bieten*.
When such speakers write to or for each other and omit the written
distinction they still make the difference when speaking. Omitting the
differences in reference material is an entirely different story.  In my
eyes it's the same as ignoring diacritic marks when writing Romance, Celtic
or Slavic languages -- not excusable. And yes, you guys ignoring such
"subtleties" is a gripe of mine, but it is only a part of a larger gripe,
and it doesn't mean that I poo-poo the overall effort you put forth with the
Wikipedia project.

Again, most competent native and near-native speakers still do make these
differences and better reference books do indicate them, at least the
difference between monophthongs and diphthongs. (Yes, even the much
poo-pooed New Sass!) So not only is there no excuse for ignoring them when
you are non-native speakers who should consider themselves learners, but as
writers and compilers of reference material ignoring these still existing
"subtleties" you miss an important opportunity and obligation. (If you
ignore the differences in your private writing is a different matter.)
Remember that many learners will take you at your word because you are
setting yourselves up as educators. And all you have to do is look up
questionable words and/or have them checked by people that do know the
differences. Dismissing them as old-fashioned, inconsequential subtleties,
as though they were dead and gone, and letting only non-native speakers
determine what is to be treated as a symptom of language loss is a cop-out
for the sake of convenience, a way of covering one's behind for
can't-be-bothered laziness. More importantly, it amounts to complicity in
linguistic deterioration. Reference material should present a living
language optimally, even if this requires additional work. Look for instance
at the Russian Wikipedia in which head words and phrases as well as foreign
names come with stress indication as well as with distinction between *е*and
* ё* even though this is never done in ordinary Russian texts, only in
textbooks for non-native speakers. If they can go that extra half mile, what
excuse is there in the case of a language in which a sizable number of
speakers and writers still do make the difference?

Yes, it is a gripe of mine, and tongue lashings will ensue when provoked.
(This is mostly because I think it is such a shame.) But it is by no means
directed only at the WikiPlatt team, for out there are plenty of textbooks
and dictionaries that are guilty of the same neglect. And yet again, apart
from this one (not insignificant) point I applaud you for your initiative,
effort and perseverance. And, Marcus, by now you ought to know that I am
also fully appreciative of the various things you do, not only as a member
of that team, and your willingness not to let disagreements kill
relationships.

Thanks for the note about the Emsland varieties! (You'd better not call them
"East Frisian"! I understand the old rivalry between the two areas is not
dead and gone.)

Kumpelmenten,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080609/afd7fe57/attachment.htm>