Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [folkspraak] Re: SASSschen Schreibregeln

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    Not a bad idea, but I m not sure if some of those vowel distinctions would be discernable. For example, how easy would it be for ordinary mortals to
    Message 1 of 35 , Feb 28, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Not a bad idea, but I'm not sure if some of those vowel distinctions
      would be discernable. For example, how easy would it be for ordinary
      mortals to distinguish between [O:] and [Q:] and [o:]? Maybe between a
      pair of them, but all 3?

      Perhaps a Swedish-like prosody with the consonants would help.
      eg
      flagg [flax:], plural ["flaG:@n]
      dag [dax], plural ["da:G@n]

      That is, the language has phonemic long consonants. I actually think
      that the language already does, it's just not perceived that way.


      Also perhaps the non-stretchy long vowels, (mostly based on PG long
      vowels and dipthongs could be spelled differently).
      eg long a from OS â could be "ao"or "oa" or "å".

      I think you could easily know how to spell a word, but you'd have to
      first hear both the singular/root and a derived form. If you hear just
      one form, you'd possibly get the spelling wrong initially.


      chamavian wrote:
      >
      > To make it more logical and regular, a different solution would work:
      >
      > Double final consonants after a short vowel that stays unchanged
      > (short), but a single final consonant when the vowel will be stretched
      > But the quality of the stretched vowel is different from already long
      > vowels.
      > The latter is actually the real situation in Low Saxon with its laeven
      > [E:], vagen [O:] vs. leven [e:], ogen [o:]
      >
      > Double vowels indicate vowels that are always long ee [e:], oo [o:],
      >
      >
      > bedd [E] bed
      > bedden [E] beds
      >
      > weg [E] way
      > wegen [E:] ways
      >
      > leven [E:] to live
      > leeven [e:] to love
      >
      > voss [O] fox
      > vossen [O] foxes
      >
      > God [O] God
      > goden [O:] gods
      >
      > good [o:] good
      > gooden [o:] good ones
      >
      > I also think of
      >
      > ratt [a] rat
      > ratten [a] rats
      >
      > dag [a] day
      > dagen [a:] days
      >
      > laat [Q:] (I) let
      > laaten [Q:] we let
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "anjarrette" <anjarrette@...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > To make this work (to make a ortho that was reasonably learnable,
      > rather than full of arbitrary words that have to be learned
      > individually), you'd need orthography where "stretchy" words ended in
      > a single consonant. Words where the vowel stayed short would have to
      > end in a doubled consonant.
      > >
      > > This was my proposed orthography several messages back. I invited
      > comment but no one bit.
      > >
      > >
      > > > I've been thinking about ways to incorporate the Low Saxon
      > "stretchy" words (eg weg / wegen) into a reasonably regular language.
      > It also goes with the issue of whether you want to de-voice final
      > consonants.
      > > > It seems that the stretching could also be applied to
      > multi-syllable Romance words.
      > > > For example the vowel in Station/Stacion/Stazion would be short in
      > the singular, but long in the plural:
      > > > sing Station [sta"sjOn]
      > > > plur Stationen [sta"sjo:n@n]
      > > >
      > > > NOT
      > > > plur *Stationnen ["sta"sjOn:@n]
      > > >
      > > > BUT compare:
      > > > sing Billet [bI"ljEt:]
      > > > plur Billetten [bI"ljEt:@n}
      > > >
      > > > NOT
      > > > plur Billeten [bI"lje:t@n]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > also
      > > > Advokat [advo"kat]
      > > > Advokaten [advo"kA:t@n]
      > > >
      > > > Planeet [pla"ne:t]
      > > > Planeten [pla"ne:ten]
      > > >
      > > > proces [pro"sEs]
      > > > processen [pro"sEs:@n]
      > > >
      > > > To make this work (to make a ortho that was reasonably learnable,
      > rather than full of arbitrary words that have to be learned
      > individually), you'd need orthography where "stretchy" words ended in
      > a single consonant. Words where the vowel stayed short would have to
      > end in a doubled consonant.
      > > >
      > > > Such an orthography would be one where the spelling incorporated
      > the total concept of the word. Not simply a phonetic transcription.
      > This is in some ways similar to the French spelling. French spelling
      > initially seems utterly insane. Why have all those final consonants in
      > words, if they're not going to be pronounced. But once you understand
      > something more of the morphology of French words, it makes more sense.
      > Those silent consonants are there to be pronounced if the word aquires
      > an affix or is in liaison with the following word.
      > > >
      > > > I've often also pondered Dutch spelling conventions. When a "v" is
      > word final, it's spelled with a "f". Or a "z" is spelled with a "s".
      > eg leef/leven, ons/onze This is to reflect the de-voicing that happens
      > to the word final consonant. But why don't they extend this convention
      > to other voiced consonants. Why don't they have lant/landen or
      > wech/wegen or krap/krabben?
      > >
      > > In Middle Dutch, Middle Low German, and Middle High German, this
      > convention did apply to other voiced consonants. Thus it *was*
      > lant/landen, wech/wegen, and in MHG, e.g. wîp/wîber (and tac/tage). I
      > don't know why Dutch selectively abandoned this convention.
      > >
      > > Andrew
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Oh you have to click in the left frame "orthography"
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Here another, and imho much better example of a Low Saxon
      > orthography
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://www.plattdeutsch.net/english/frame-english.htm
      > <http://www.plattdeutsch.net/english/frame-english.htm>
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Thanks Bjoern!
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I see that Sassspelling has a lot in common with my
      > Volkspelling, but the main difference is that VS is less dependent of
      > Standard German orthography. VS is based on the Low Saxon language, so
      > why would its spelling system be based on a different language? Sass
      > however does the latter, there is no logical reason to write Stohl/Koh
      > and bloot/Boom in Low Saxon or Volkspraak, when we're dealing with the
      > same long o sound, just because of a different language's
      > irregularities. Same goes for aa/ah, ee/eh, uu/uh etc.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > In rule 7 b, we see the two long E sounds: dääl [E:] vs deel
      > [e:],
      > > > > > > for Volkspraak that is: dael vs deel.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Rule 10 is strange, because it says that after a short
      > vowel, the consonant must usualy be doubled: Katt, Kopp etc.
      > > > > > > But that is completely unnecessary, because long vowels are
      > already indicated by doubling the letter. So when we see a singel
      > vowel, we know it has to be short, why then the double consonants as well?
      > > > > > > So in Volkspraak it is just: kat, kop.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > A really stupid thing of Sass is that there are two
      > spellings for one single word: vör and för. This only depends on the
      > High German equivalent: LS vör = HD vor, LS för = HD für.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Also stupid is that Sass has Tiet, Broot, Bett with -t
      > instead of -d, because of Standard German, but at the same time Kind,
      > Kleed with -d because of German Kind, Kleid. In Low Saxon, all those
      > words end in reality in -d, so why write it with -t? It is so
      > illogical to have goot, but gode.
      > > > > > > Volkspraak just has: tied, brood, bed, kind, kleed, good, gode.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I can understand that Sass wanted to keep his spelling close
      > to Standard German in the fifties, to avoid protests of parents who
      > might be afraid their children would be confused and unable to learn
      > the High German Rechtschreibung.
      > > > > > > But an orthographic system should be based on the language
      > it spells, not on a different language with different rules and phonology.
      > > > > > > That is why Volkspraak spelling is based on Low Saxon
      > itself, and (almost) completely regular.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Ingmar
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "nordslesviger"
      > <nordslesviger@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Here is the SASS rules for spelling. I hope it can be of
      > help for some of you.
      > > > > > > > Bjørn
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > ----
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > SASSschen Schreibregeln für die plattdeutsche Rechtschreibung
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Vereinbarung vom 11. Februar 1956
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 1. Es werden nur solche Schriftzeichen verwandt, die auch
      > im Hochdeutschen gebräuchlich sind. (über eine mögliche Ausnahme vgl.
      > Nummer 7.)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 2. Das Auslassungszeichen (Apostroph) tritt auf
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > a) bei verkürztem Geschlechtswort (an 'n Haven, 'n beten),
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > b) bei Zusammenziehungen (dat kann 'k nich),
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > c) gegebenenfalls zur Bezeichnung einer Überlänge (dat
      > Huus, aber de Müüs'), s. dazu Nummer 13.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 3. Das Dehnungs-h steht nur in solchen Wörtern, deren
      > hochdeutsche Entsprechungen es enthalten (Stohl, Koh).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 4. Endsilben werden ausgeschrieben (hebben). Auch
      > Beugungs-t nach auslautendem t-Laut werden mitgeschrieben (ik sett, he
      > sett't, wie sett't, ik smiet, wie smiet't). Abschleifungen werden
      > möglichst nicht berücksichtigt (du büst).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 5. Die Länge des Selbstlautes in offener Silbe wird nicht
      > bezeichnet, es sei denn, daß die entsprechende hochdeutsche Form ein
      > Dehnungs-h hat. Das lange i in offener Silbe wird ie geschrieben,
      > sofern nicht im Hochdeutschen einfaches i steht (Tide, Bibel).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Die Länge des Selbstlautes in geschlossener Silbe wird
      > durch Verdoppelung des Selbstlautes, bei i durch ie bezeichnet. Ist
      > nach Nummer 3 ein Dehnungs-h zu setzen, so entfällt die Verdoppelung
      > (Straat, Straten, Hahn, Höhner).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 6. Auch die Umlaute ö und ü unterliegen der Verdoppelung;
      > ä kann verdoppelt werden (de Bööm, de Schüün, dääglich, däglich).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 7. Bei der Unterscheidung von einlautigem und zweilautigem
      > e bestehen folgende Möglichkeiten:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > a) keine Unterscheidung (Deel - Diele, Deel - Teil),
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > b) ä für das einlautige e (Däl bzw. Dääl - Diele, Deel -
      > Teil),
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > c) ...1)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Bei der Unterscheidung von einlautigem und zweilautigem ö
      > bestehen drei Möglichkeiten:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > a) keine Unterscheidung (Köök, gröön),
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > b) einlautiges ö wird oe geschrieben (Koek, aber gröön),
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > c) ...2)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 8. In kurzen, wenig betonten Wörtern und in unbetonten
      > Nachsilben unterbleibt die Verdoppelung (blot = nur, aber bloot =
      > nackt, dar dal, för, gar, los, mal, ok, vör, ut, -bar, -sam, -dom),
      > ebenso in en als Geschlechtswort.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 9. Das auslautende volltonige e wird, falls es nicht durch
      > ein -h als lang bezeichnet wird, verdoppelt (Snee, dree, Snackeree).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 10. Kürze des Selbstlautes wird durch Verdoppelung des
      > nachstehenden Mitlauts bezeichnet, falls nicht eine Mitlautverbindung
      > folgt (Katt, Kopp, Snack, gramm, Küll, Hoff). Die Beugungsendung wird
      > dabei nicht dem vorhergehenden Mitlaut zugerechnet (du bliffst, he gifft).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 11. Bei kurzen, wenig betonten Wörtern tritt die
      > Verdoppelung nicht ein (af, as, al = schon, bet, bün, dit, ik, sik,
      > op, wat).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 12. d und t, g und ch im Auslaut richten sich in der
      > Schreibung nach dem Hochdeutschen (goot, root, Bruut, Tiet, Bett,
      > Gott, aber Kind, Kleed, Hund, Dag, Tog, weg).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 13. Auf Überlänge eines Selbstlauts folgt weicher Mitlaut.
      > Die Überlänge kann durch einen Apostroph noch verdeutlicht werden
      > (in'n Huus', de Duuv', de Lüüd', Weeg' = Wiege).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 14. Anlautendes v oder f entspricht dem Hochdeutschen (för
      > = hd. vor, för = hd. für, aber nach allgemeinem Schreibgebrauch Voss,
      > Fuchs).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 15. Der stimmhafte v/b-Laut wird, wenn er als Reibelaut
      > gesprochen wird, v, wenn er als klares b gesprochen wird, b
      > geschrieben (leven = leben). Die Schreibung f oder v im Auslaut
      > richtet sich nach der Aussprache (Wief, die Leev').
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 16. w steht nur im Anlaut (Water, swemmen).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 17. g und gg bleiben in der Biegung unverändert (seggen -
      > he seggt, steigen - he stiggt, mögen - he mag).
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 18. Dem verbreitetsten Schreibgebrauch folgend schreibt
      > man nix, fix, Büx, Hex, Lex, Ext.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > 19. Fremdwörter schreibt man möglichst nach hochdeutscher
      > Schreibweise.
      > > > > > > > 1) Die dritte Möglichkeit, einlautiges e und ö mit Füßchen
      > zu schreiben, wird in Bremen nicht angewendet.
      > > > > > > > 2) Die dritte Möglichkeit, einlautiges e und ö mit Füßchen
      > zu schreiben, wird in Bremen nicht angewendet.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2712 - Release Date: 02/26/10 19:39:00
      >
      >
    • anjarrette
      I don t know the (broad) Amsterdam accent. When I have listened to Dutch speakers here in Canada (immigrants usually), I ve failed to ask them what part of
      Message 35 of 35 , Mar 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't know the (broad) Amsterdam accent. When I have listened to Dutch speakers here in Canada (immigrants usually), I've failed to ask them what part of the Netherlands (or Belgium) they're from. Most often I've heard Dutch "water" as [Pa:t@r] (actually to me I think I'm hearing [va:t@r]), with an [a:] that to me sounds just the same as Canadian "short a" in e.g. "batter" only longer, i.e. these Dutch speakers' /a:/ sounds like our /æ/ (but not the sound that many Canadians use for /æ/ before nasals or /r/, which is a completely different sound, much higher and long or diphthongal. I don't use this sound, nor do a sizable minority). However I've heard at least one Dutch immigrant pronounce Dutch "water" as [PAt@r] or even [PQt@r] with a comparatively short vowel that is very far back and possibly even a little rounded. I failed to ask her what part of the Netherlands she is from. This sound sounded similar to our [Q/A] which we use in our (Canadian, not British) pronunciation of English "water", but it was possibly even further back than our sound.

        I must say from the Dutch I've heard here in Ottawa and on the internet, Dutch /a:/, in the varieties I've heard, is pronounced sometimes central, but more often very far forward, more forward than in German, and way more forward than the sound in English "father". That's what I was saying earlier, that officially in the IPA, [a] is not a central sound, it's a front sound. And I really think that British and Canadian /æ/ (apart from before nasals and /r/ in parts of Canada) is really this sound, IPA /a/, the lowest possible front vowel. It's the same as the commoner pronunciation of Dutch /a:/ that I've heard, only it is always short in Britain and often short in Canada (in Canada its length is often dependent on the following consonant, short if a voiceless plosive or /l/, long otherwise, I believe).

        The German /a/ is central, both long and short. It's thus further back than British /æ/ and usually further forward than British /A:/, and further back than Dutch /a:/ as I've mostly heard it. British /V/ is more open than in North America, and can sound similar to a short /A/ or even central /a/ sometimes, and thus tends to approximate the German short /a/ (and Dutch short /A/ as well, from what I've heard). In North America however, this pronunciation of /V/ by foreigners (as central /a/ or as /A/) sounds definitely like a foreigner approximating as best he can the English sound. The North American sound is usually higher, higher enough that this foreign pronunciation definitely sounds foreign. Similarly the common foreign pronunciation of /æ/ as /E/ always sounds definitely foreign, though it's a pronunciation we've grown used to. Since it's hard to exactly imitate the pronunciations /Ea/, /ea/, /E@/, /E:/, /I@/ that are found in various regions of the U.S., I think it would be most recommendable for foreigners to substitute their version of (short) /a/ for our /æ/. It usually sounds less foreign, perhaps because such a sound is indeed used in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and in England, Canada, and the Caribbean, the /æ/ is definitely very much closer to this sound than it is to /E/. Here in Canada the French-speakers of Québec usually substitute their /a/ for our /æ/ (never their /E/), and it sounds completely natural, non-foreign. I suspect though that the Québécois /a/ is perhaps a little more forward or higher than the France /a/, which may be due to English influence. But there is always a very clear distinction from /E/. This distinction is unclear only when /æ/ is in low stress (which is uncommon, usually only in forms of "to have") or before nasals, in both cases it may be pronounced closer to /E/. Before /r/ the pronunciation /æ/ (which I believe is really official IPA /a/) is standard in Britain, reasonably common but dwindling in Canada, and rare in the U.S., where it's usually /E:/ (as also increasingly in Canada, probably under U.S. influence).

        I've always noticed that many Americans pronounce "hot" etc. with a vowel different than Canadians', i.e. the Americans say /hAt/ or even /hat/ with a central (definitely not front) /a/. Canadians either say /hQt/ with semi-rounded lips or /hAt/ with unrounded lips, but our /A/ sounds different from many Americans', it's further back in the mouth. Honestly many Americans' pronunciation of e.g. "lost" sounds like "last" to me and I think to many Canadians. However there are also broad regions of the U.S. where "hot" etc. are pronounced with the same vowels as in Canada.

        My parents' Trinidadian English distinguishes [a], [A:], [E], [E:], [e:], [I], [i:], [u:], [U], [o:], [O:], [Q], [V], [@:] as stressed vowels, none of them diphthongal (in addition to the diphthongs [aI], [aU], [OI]).

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@...> wrote:
        >
        > But in my ears, English long A as in father is always a darker sound than Dutch or German long A.
        > When the Dutch word vader is pronounced with the A of Engl. father, it would sound as if it would be said with a broad Amsterdam accent.
        > I think Afrikaans also has a dark long A, unlike Standard Dutch.
        > I would describe those pronos as [Q:], i.e, between [a:] and [O:].
        >
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "anjarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "anjarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > Only England has [A:] in "father", [Q](short) in "bother", and [O:] (noticeably higher than [Q]) in "boarder".
        > >
        > > Also Australia, New Zealand, and I think South Africa. [A:] can sometimes be more central in these varieties of English, I believe.
        > >
        > > > Andrew
        > > >
        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Well, [O:] is the sound of Engl raw and [Q:] that of father, but you're right that this distinction is not too easy when we add [a:] as well. It's about the same difficulty as between [{:] and [E:].
        > > > >
        > > > > But that "Swedish-like" solution is even more difficult, none of the other Germ langs have long consonants at all... So that is not an option imho
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, David Parke <parked@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Not a bad idea, but I'm not sure if some of those vowel distinctions
        > > > > > would be discernable. For example, how easy would it be for ordinary
        > > > > > mortals to distinguish between [O:] and [Q:] and [o:]? Maybe between a
        > > > > > pair of them, but all 3?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Perhaps a Swedish-like prosody with the consonants would help.
        > > > > > eg
        > > > > > flagg [flax:], plural ["flaG:@n]
        > > > > > dag [dax], plural ["da:G@n]
        > > > > >
        > > > > > That is, the language has phonemic long consonants. I actually think
        > > > > > that the language already does, it's just not perceived that way.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Also perhaps the non-stretchy long vowels, (mostly based on PG long
        > > > > > vowels and dipthongs could be spelled differently).
        > > > > > eg long a from OS â could be "ao"or "oa" or "å".
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I think you could easily know how to spell a word, but you'd have to
        > > > > > first hear both the singular/root and a derived form. If you hear just
        > > > > > one form, you'd possibly get the spelling wrong initially.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > chamavian wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > To make it more logical and regular, a different solution would work:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Double final consonants after a short vowel that stays unchanged
        > > > > > > (short), but a single final consonant when the vowel will be stretched
        > > > > > > But the quality of the stretched vowel is different from already long
        > > > > > > vowels.
        > > > > > > The latter is actually the real situation in Low Saxon with its laeven
        > > > > > > [E:], vagen [O:] vs. leven [e:], ogen [o:]
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Double vowels indicate vowels that are always long ee [e:], oo [o:],
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > bedd [E] bed
        > > > > > > bedden [E] beds
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > weg [E] way
        > > > > > > wegen [E:] ways
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > leven [E:] to live
        > > > > > > leeven [e:] to love
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > voss [O] fox
        > > > > > > vossen [O] foxes
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > God [O] God
        > > > > > > goden [O:] gods
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > good [o:] good
        > > > > > > gooden [o:] good ones
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I also think of
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > ratt [a] rat
        > > > > > > ratten [a] rats
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > dag [a] day
        > > > > > > dagen [a:] days
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > laat [Q:] (I) let
        > > > > > > laaten [Q:] we let
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "anjarrette" <anjarrette@>
        > > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "David" <parked@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > To make this work (to make a ortho that was reasonably learnable,
        > > > > > > rather than full of arbitrary words that have to be learned
        > > > > > > individually), you'd need orthography where "stretchy" words ended in
        > > > > > > a single consonant. Words where the vowel stayed short would have to
        > > > > > > end in a doubled consonant.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > This was my proposed orthography several messages back. I invited
        > > > > > > comment but no one bit.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > I've been thinking about ways to incorporate the Low Saxon
        > > > > > > "stretchy" words (eg weg / wegen) into a reasonably regular language.
        > > > > > > It also goes with the issue of whether you want to de-voice final
        > > > > > > consonants.
        > > > > > > > > It seems that the stretching could also be applied to
        > > > > > > multi-syllable Romance words.
        > > > > > > > > For example the vowel in Station/Stacion/Stazion would be short in
        > > > > > > the singular, but long in the plural:
        > > > > > > > > sing Station [sta"sjOn]
        > > > > > > > > plur Stationen [sta"sjo:n@n]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > NOT
        > > > > > > > > plur *Stationnen ["sta"sjOn:@n]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > BUT compare:
        > > > > > > > > sing Billet [bI"ljEt:]
        > > > > > > > > plur Billetten [bI"ljEt:@n}
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > NOT
        > > > > > > > > plur Billeten [bI"lje:t@n]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > also
        > > > > > > > > Advokat [advo"kat]
        > > > > > > > > Advokaten [advo"kA:t@n]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Planeet [pla"ne:t]
        > > > > > > > > Planeten [pla"ne:ten]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > proces [pro"sEs]
        > > > > > > > > processen [pro"sEs:@n]
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > To make this work (to make a ortho that was reasonably learnable,
        > > > > > > rather than full of arbitrary words that have to be learned
        > > > > > > individually), you'd need orthography where "stretchy" words ended in
        > > > > > > a single consonant. Words where the vowel stayed short would have to
        > > > > > > end in a doubled consonant.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > Such an orthography would be one where the spelling incorporated
        > > > > > > the total concept of the word. Not simply a phonetic transcription.
        > > > > > > This is in some ways similar to the French spelling. French spelling
        > > > > > > initially seems utterly insane. Why have all those final consonants in
        > > > > > > words, if they're not going to be pronounced. But once you understand
        > > > > > > something more of the morphology of French words, it makes more sense.
        > > > > > > Those silent consonants are there to be pronounced if the word aquires
        > > > > > > an affix or is in liaison with the following word.
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > I've often also pondered Dutch spelling conventions. When a "v" is
        > > > > > > word final, it's spelled with a "f". Or a "z" is spelled with a "s".
        > > > > > > eg leef/leven, ons/onze This is to reflect the de-voicing that happens
        > > > > > > to the word final consonant. But why don't they extend this convention
        > > > > > > to other voiced consonants. Why don't they have lant/landen or
        > > > > > > wech/wegen or krap/krabben?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > In Middle Dutch, Middle Low German, and Middle High German, this
        > > > > > > convention did apply to other voiced consonants. Thus it *was*
        > > > > > > lant/landen, wech/wegen, and in MHG, e.g. wîp/wîber (and tac/tage). I
        > > > > > > don't know why Dutch selectively abandoned this convention.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Andrew
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > Oh you have to click in the left frame "orthography"
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > Here another, and imho much better example of a Low Saxon
        > > > > > > orthography
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > http://www.plattdeutsch.net/english/frame-english.htm
        > > > > > > <http://www.plattdeutsch.net/english/frame-english.htm>
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Bjoern!
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > I see that Sassspelling has a lot in common with my
        > > > > > > Volkspelling, but the main difference is that VS is less dependent of
        > > > > > > Standard German orthography. VS is based on the Low Saxon language, so
        > > > > > > why would its spelling system be based on a different language? Sass
        > > > > > > however does the latter, there is no logical reason to write Stohl/Koh
        > > > > > > and bloot/Boom in Low Saxon or Volkspraak, when we're dealing with the
        > > > > > > same long o sound, just because of a different language's
        > > > > > > irregularities. Same goes for aa/ah, ee/eh, uu/uh etc.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > In rule 7 b, we see the two long E sounds: dääl [E:] vs deel
        > > > > > > [e:],
        > > > > > > > > > > > for Volkspraak that is: dael vs deel.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Rule 10 is strange, because it says that after a short
        > > > > > > vowel, the consonant must usualy be doubled: Katt, Kopp etc.
        > > > > > > > > > > > But that is completely unnecessary, because long vowels are
        > > > > > > already indicated by doubling the letter. So when we see a singel
        > > > > > > vowel, we know it has to be short, why then the double consonants as well?
        > > > > > > > > > > > So in Volkspraak it is just: kat, kop.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > A really stupid thing of Sass is that there are two
        > > > > > > spellings for one single word: vör and för. This only depends on the
        > > > > > > High German equivalent: LS vör = HD vor, LS för = HD für.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Also stupid is that Sass has Tiet, Broot, Bett with -t
        > > > > > > instead of -d, because of Standard German, but at the same time Kind,
        > > > > > > Kleed with -d because of German Kind, Kleid. In Low Saxon, all those
        > > > > > > words end in reality in -d, so why write it with -t? It is so
        > > > > > > illogical to have goot, but gode.
        > > > > > > > > > > > Volkspraak just has: tied, brood, bed, kind, kleed, good, gode.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > I can understand that Sass wanted to keep his spelling close
        > > > > > > to Standard German in the fifties, to avoid protests of parents who
        > > > > > > might be afraid their children would be confused and unable to learn
        > > > > > > the High German Rechtschreibung.
        > > > > > > > > > > > But an orthographic system should be based on the language
        > > > > > > it spells, not on a different language with different rules and phonology.
        > > > > > > > > > > > That is why Volkspraak spelling is based on Low Saxon
        > > > > > > itself, and (almost) completely regular.
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > Ingmar
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>, "nordslesviger"
        > > > > > > <nordslesviger@> wrote:
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the SASS rules for spelling. I hope it can be of
        > > > > > > help for some of you.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Bjørn
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > ----
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > SASSschen Schreibregeln für die plattdeutsche Rechtschreibung
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Vereinbarung vom 11. Februar 1956
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Es werden nur solche Schriftzeichen verwandt, die auch
        > > > > > > im Hochdeutschen gebräuchlich sind. (über eine mögliche Ausnahme vgl.
        > > > > > > Nummer 7.)
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Das Auslassungszeichen (Apostroph) tritt auf
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > a) bei verkürztem Geschlechtswort (an 'n Haven, 'n beten),
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > b) bei Zusammenziehungen (dat kann 'k nich),
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > c) gegebenenfalls zur Bezeichnung einer Überlänge (dat
        > > > > > > Huus, aber de Müüs'), s. dazu Nummer 13.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Das Dehnungs-h steht nur in solchen Wörtern, deren
        > > > > > > hochdeutsche Entsprechungen es enthalten (Stohl, Koh).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Endsilben werden ausgeschrieben (hebben). Auch
        > > > > > > Beugungs-t nach auslautendem t-Laut werden mitgeschrieben (ik sett, he
        > > > > > > sett't, wie sett't, ik smiet, wie smiet't). Abschleifungen werden
        > > > > > > möglichst nicht berücksichtigt (du büst).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Die Länge des Selbstlautes in offener Silbe wird nicht
        > > > > > > bezeichnet, es sei denn, daß die entsprechende hochdeutsche Form ein
        > > > > > > Dehnungs-h hat. Das lange i in offener Silbe wird ie geschrieben,
        > > > > > > sofern nicht im Hochdeutschen einfaches i steht (Tide, Bibel).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Die Länge des Selbstlautes in geschlossener Silbe wird
        > > > > > > durch Verdoppelung des Selbstlautes, bei i durch ie bezeichnet. Ist
        > > > > > > nach Nummer 3 ein Dehnungs-h zu setzen, so entfällt die Verdoppelung
        > > > > > > (Straat, Straten, Hahn, Höhner).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Auch die Umlaute ö und ü unterliegen der Verdoppelung;
        > > > > > > ä kann verdoppelt werden (de Bööm, de Schüün, dääglich, däglich).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. Bei der Unterscheidung von einlautigem und zweilautigem
        > > > > > > e bestehen folgende Möglichkeiten:
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > a) keine Unterscheidung (Deel - Diele, Deel - Teil),
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > b) ä für das einlautige e (Däl bzw. Dääl - Diele, Deel -
        > > > > > > Teil),
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > c) ...1)
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > Bei der Unterscheidung von einlautigem und zweilautigem ö
        > > > > > > bestehen drei Möglichkeiten:
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > a) keine Unterscheidung (Köök, gröön),
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > b) einlautiges ö wird oe geschrieben (Koek, aber gröön),
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > c) ...2)
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. In kurzen, wenig betonten Wörtern und in unbetonten
        > > > > > > Nachsilben unterbleibt die Verdoppelung (blot = nur, aber bloot =
        > > > > > > nackt, dar dal, för, gar, los, mal, ok, vör, ut, -bar, -sam, -dom),
        > > > > > > ebenso in en als Geschlechtswort.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. Das auslautende volltonige e wird, falls es nicht durch
        > > > > > > ein -h als lang bezeichnet wird, verdoppelt (Snee, dree, Snackeree).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 10. Kürze des Selbstlautes wird durch Verdoppelung des
        > > > > > > nachstehenden Mitlauts bezeichnet, falls nicht eine Mitlautverbindung
        > > > > > > folgt (Katt, Kopp, Snack, gramm, Küll, Hoff). Die Beugungsendung wird
        > > > > > > dabei nicht dem vorhergehenden Mitlaut zugerechnet (du bliffst, he gifft).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 11. Bei kurzen, wenig betonten Wörtern tritt die
        > > > > > > Verdoppelung nicht ein (af, as, al = schon, bet, bün, dit, ik, sik,
        > > > > > > op, wat).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 12. d und t, g und ch im Auslaut richten sich in der
        > > > > > > Schreibung nach dem Hochdeutschen (goot, root, Bruut, Tiet, Bett,
        > > > > > > Gott, aber Kind, Kleed, Hund, Dag, Tog, weg).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 13. Auf Überlänge eines Selbstlauts folgt weicher Mitlaut.
        > > > > > > Die Überlänge kann durch einen Apostroph noch verdeutlicht werden
        > > > > > > (in'n Huus', de Duuv', de Lüüd', Weeg' = Wiege).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 14. Anlautendes v oder f entspricht dem Hochdeutschen (för
        > > > > > > = hd. vor, för = hd. für, aber nach allgemeinem Schreibgebrauch Voss,
        > > > > > > Fuchs).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 15. Der stimmhafte v/b-Laut wird, wenn er als Reibelaut
        > > > > > > gesprochen wird, v, wenn er als klares b gesprochen wird, b
        > > > > > > geschrieben (leven = leben). Die Schreibung f oder v im Auslaut
        > > > > > > richtet sich nach der Aussprache (Wief, die Leev').
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 16. w steht nur im Anlaut (Water, swemmen).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 17. g und gg bleiben in der Biegung unverändert (seggen -
        > > > > > > he seggt, steigen - he stiggt, mögen - he mag).
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 18. Dem verbreitetsten Schreibgebrauch folgend schreibt
        > > > > > > man nix, fix, Büx, Hex, Lex, Ext.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 19. Fremdwörter schreibt man möglichst nach hochdeutscher
        > > > > > > Schreibweise.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Die dritte Möglichkeit, einlautiges e und ö mit Füßchen
        > > > > > > zu schreiben, wird in Bremen nicht angewendet.
        > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Die dritte Möglichkeit, einlautiges e und ö mit Füßchen
        > > > > > > zu schreiben, wird in Bremen nicht angewendet.
        > > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > > > > > > Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2712 - Release Date: 02/26/10 19:39:00
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.