Just a few final remarks from me on the Dutch Low Saxon issue.
Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated.
Ok, now I can understand the meaning. Once again, a very good idea. Once again, very academic, too. Reinhard "Ron" Hahn seems to be a very intelligent man. If articles are written in his phonetically more correct way, it surely won't do any harm. But does he really think, you can talk a majority of volunteer, amateur editors into using a method of spelling they are not used to? That "" is not even on their keyboard.
According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
Does '"better" Platt publications' mean publications written _in_ Platt or academic publications written _on_ the subject of the Low Saxon language? Linguists often have different ways of writting things down, due to the specific needs of their science. By the way, did you know "th" stands for two different sounds in English? So what about a spelling reform at en: ?
I think if Wikipedia in Low Saxon is supposed to flourish you'll have meet people were they are.
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 10.07.05 07:44:03:
Boris,
Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
From Ron:
"Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated. In ordinary spelling, people do not distinguish the diphthong /ei/ (written <e(e)>) from the monophthong /ee/ (written <e(e)>), and they do not distinguish the dipthong /öi/ (written <öö>) from the monophthong /öö/ (written <ö(ö)>). As a result of this overly casual spelling method, most learners -- which includes most younger people -- mispronounce numerous words on the basis of spelling. Thus, continuing this spelling in a reference resource would be tantamount to serious neglect and perpetuation of mispronunciation. So far, these distinctions are made only in better publications, in which the monophthongs are written <ä(ä)> and <> (or <oe>) respectively. (In some academic conventions they use <e(e)> and <ö(ö>) with an _ogonek_ (hook), which, however, is typographically awkward.)"
And then later, this:
"They do reflect important distinction both phonemically and phonetically.
For example:
/leev-n/ ["le:v=m] ~ ["lE:v=m] <Läven> 'life' /leiv-n/ ["leIv=m] ~ ["laIv=m] <Leven> 'loving' Spelling without distinction: Leven
/beed-n/ [be:d=n] ~ ["bE:d=n] <bäden> 'to beg', 'to pray' /beid-n/ ["beId=n] ~ ["baId=n] <beden> 'to offer' Spelling without distinction: beden
/veet-n/ ["ve:t=n] ~ ["vE:t=n] <Wäten> 'knowledge' /veitn/ ["veIt=n] ~ ["vaIt=n] <Weten> 'wheat' Spelling without distinction: Weten
/ööv@r/ ["2:v3`] ~ ["9:v3`] <ver> ~ <oever> 'over', 'across' /öiv@r/ ["9Iv3`] ~ ["OIv3`] <Över> '(river/lake) bank) Spelling without distinction: över, Över
/lööv-t/ [l2:ft] ~ [l9:ft] <lvt> ~ <loevt> 'praises' /löiv-t/ [l9Ift] ~ [lOIft] <löövt> 'believes' Spelling without distinction: löövt ~ lööft"
From what I can tell, though, it's definitely not an exaggeration to
say it was "fake" before and is real now -- things that were awkward, German-syntax-based ways of saying things were modified to more natural, genuinely Platt/Nedersaksisch ways of saying things.
Mark
On 09/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Hi Mark!
Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "kelnaam" for no visible reason.
Best, Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
Hi all,
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=185...
Mark
On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet they have a single Wikipedia.
I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see people using the second-person singular conjugations for both second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites, read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to a lesser degree.
Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for something.
Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is surmountable.
Mark
On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Servien!
Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
"Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
Boris
Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
Hi Boris,
The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are completely unknown to me...)
Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system: As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
And here in the traditional one: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
This is the one I use: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
(Translation of the text: If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look, but will be pale white.)
Servien
2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de:
Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography: Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
Hmm...
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
Hi Boris,
I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch".
Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna actually ken the leid. (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
"It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms, but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language, the grammar and the authentic idiom."
Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ... would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ... and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient, German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Hmm...
Best Mark
On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Mark!
I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
_________________________________________________________________________ Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
I agree :-) you can start using the same spelling but people will just use the German-based spelling instead...
My point about this discussion was that it's not even called Low Saxon it's called Platt and that's only German it only has the code for Low Saxon, weird or what?! I bett that if I changed the mainpage of NDS that it would be changed back as fast as you could say: "eh look".
Servien
P.S. Gerard, je hoeft de berichten niet te lezen, het is tenslotte ook niet bedoeld voor de gezelligheid en als je op de Meta-Wiki kijkt bij aanvraag voor talen wordt er duidelijk aangegeven dat je dat hier moet doen, dus ga daar maar klagen!
2005/7/10, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de:
Just a few final remarks from me on the Dutch Low Saxon issue.
Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated.
Ok, now I can understand the meaning. Once again, a very good idea. Once again, very academic, too. Reinhard "Ron" Hahn seems to be a very intelligent man. If articles are written in his phonetically more correct way, it surely won't do any harm. But does he really think, you can talk a majority of volunteer, amateur editors into using a method of spelling they are not used to? That "Œ" is not even on their keyboard.
According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
Does '"better" Platt publications' mean publications written _in_ Platt or academic publications written _on_ the subject of the Low Saxon language? Linguists often have different ways of writting things down, due to the specific needs of their science. By the way, did you know "th" stands for two different sounds in English? So what about a spelling reform at en: ?
I think if Wikipedia in Low Saxon is supposed to flourish you'll have meet people were they are.
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 10.07.05 07:44:03:
Boris,
Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
From Ron:
"Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated. In ordinary spelling, people do not distinguish the diphthong /ei/ (written <e(e)>) from the monophthong /ee/ (written <e(e)>), and they do not distinguish the dipthong /öi/ (written <öö>) from the monophthong /öö/ (written <ö(ö)>). As a result of this overly casual spelling method, most learners -- which includes most younger people -- mispronounce numerous words on the basis of spelling. Thus, continuing this spelling in a reference resource would be tantamount to serious neglect and perpetuation of mispronunciation. So far, these distinctions are made only in better publications, in which the monophthongs are written <ä(ä)> and <œ> (or <oe>) respectively. (In some academic conventions they use <e(e)> and <ö(ö>) with an _ogonek_ (hook), which, however, is typographically awkward.)"
And then later, this:
"They do reflect important distinction both phonemically and phonetically.
For example:
/leev-n/ ["le:v=m] ~ ["lE:v=m] <Läven> 'life' /leiv-n/ ["leIv=m] ~ ["laIv=m] <Leven> 'loving' Spelling without distinction: Leven
/beed-n/ [be:d=n] ~ ["bE:d=n] <bäden> 'to beg', 'to pray' /beid-n/ ["beId=n] ~ ["baId=n] <beden> 'to offer' Spelling without distinction: beden
/veet-n/ ["ve:t=n] ~ ["vE:t=n] <Wäten> 'knowledge' /veitn/ ["veIt=n] ~ ["vaIt=n] <Weten> 'wheat' Spelling without distinction: Weten
/ööv@r/ ["2:v3`] ~ ["9:v3`] <œver> ~ <oever> 'over', 'across' /öiv@r/ ["9Iv3`] ~ ["OIv3`] <Över> '(river/lake) bank) Spelling without distinction: över, Över
/lööv-t/ [l2:ft] ~ [l9:ft] <lœvt> ~ <loevt> 'praises' /löiv-t/ [l9Ift] ~ [lOIft] <löövt> 'believes' Spelling without distinction: löövt ~ lööft"
From what I can tell, though, it's definitely not an exaggeration to
say it was "fake" before and is real now -- things that were awkward, German-syntax-based ways of saying things were modified to more natural, genuinely Platt/Nedersaksisch ways of saying things.
Mark
On 09/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Hi Mark!
Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "œ" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "Œkelnaam" for no visible reason.
Best, Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
Hi all,
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=185...
Mark
On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet they have a single Wikipedia.
I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see people using the second-person singular conjugations for both second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites, read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to a lesser degree.
Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for something.
Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is surmountable.
Mark
On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Servien!
Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
"Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
Boris
Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
Hi Boris,
The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are completely unknown to me...)
Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system: As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
And here in the traditional one: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
This is the one I use: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
(Translation of the text: If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look, but will be pale white.)
Servien
2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de:
Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography: Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
Hmm...
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
Hi Boris,
I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch".
Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna actually ken the leid. (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
"It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms, but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language, the grammar and the authentic idiom."
Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ... would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ... and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient, German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Hmm...
Best Mark
On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Mark!
I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Boris,
As Ron noted in the messages I copied here, "œ" varies to "oe", since of course not everybody has that keyboard.
Servien says people will just use the German-based spelling instead. In fact, the distinctions added by Ron _are_ part of the German-based spelling.
When he says "better publications", I'm sure he means _in_ rather than _on_, but if you need clarification I could ask.
Interestingly enough, the distinctions are actually made in "Der neue Sass" the orthographical « bible » of nds.wiki... and yet HeikoEvermann, whose own self-declared nds-competency is only "nds.3", reverted the changes anyways and was quick to send me a series of very stern messages in Hochdeutsch when I changed back suspecting a misunderstanding. I don't know Hochdeutsch well but I know enough to know that Heiko was cross.
Mark
On 10/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Just a few final remarks from me on the Dutch Low Saxon issue.
Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated.
Ok, now I can understand the meaning. Once again, a very good idea. Once again, very academic, too. Reinhard "Ron" Hahn seems to be a very intelligent man. If articles are written in his phonetically more correct way, it surely won't do any harm. But does he really think, you can talk a majority of volunteer, amateur editors into using a method of spelling they are not used to? That "Œ" is not even on their keyboard.
According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
Does '"better" Platt publications' mean publications written _in_ Platt or academic publications written _on_ the subject of the Low Saxon language? Linguists often have different ways of writting things down, due to the specific needs of their science. By the way, did you know "th" stands for two different sounds in English? So what about a spelling reform at en: ?
I think if Wikipedia in Low Saxon is supposed to flourish you'll have meet people were they are.
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 10.07.05 07:44:03:
Boris,
Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
From Ron:
"Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated. In ordinary spelling, people do not distinguish the diphthong /ei/ (written <e(e)>) from the monophthong /ee/ (written <e(e)>), and they do not distinguish the dipthong /öi/ (written <öö>) from the monophthong /öö/ (written <ö(ö)>). As a result of this overly casual spelling method, most learners -- which includes most younger people -- mispronounce numerous words on the basis of spelling. Thus, continuing this spelling in a reference resource would be tantamount to serious neglect and perpetuation of mispronunciation. So far, these distinctions are made only in better publications, in which the monophthongs are written <ä(ä)> and <œ> (or <oe>) respectively. (In some academic conventions they use <e(e)> and <ö(ö>) with an _ogonek_ (hook), which, however, is typographically awkward.)"
And then later, this:
"They do reflect important distinction both phonemically and phonetically.
For example:
/leev-n/ ["le:v=m] ~ ["lE:v=m] <Läven> 'life' /leiv-n/ ["leIv=m] ~ ["laIv=m] <Leven> 'loving' Spelling without distinction: Leven
/beed-n/ [be:d=n] ~ ["bE:d=n] <bäden> 'to beg', 'to pray' /beid-n/ ["beId=n] ~ ["baId=n] <beden> 'to offer' Spelling without distinction: beden
/veet-n/ ["ve:t=n] ~ ["vE:t=n] <Wäten> 'knowledge' /veitn/ ["veIt=n] ~ ["vaIt=n] <Weten> 'wheat' Spelling without distinction: Weten
/ööv@r/ ["2:v3`] ~ ["9:v3`] <œver> ~ <oever> 'over', 'across' /öiv@r/ ["9Iv3`] ~ ["OIv3`] <Över> '(river/lake) bank) Spelling without distinction: över, Över
/lööv-t/ [l2:ft] ~ [l9:ft] <lœvt> ~ <loevt> 'praises' /löiv-t/ [l9Ift] ~ [lOIft] <löövt> 'believes' Spelling without distinction: löövt ~ lööft"
From what I can tell, though, it's definitely not an exaggeration to say it was "fake" before and is real now -- things that were awkward, German-syntax-based ways of saying things were modified to more natural, genuinely Platt/Nedersaksisch ways of saying things.
Mark
On 09/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Hi Mark!
Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "œ" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "Œkelnaam" for no visible reason.
Best, Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
Hi all,
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=185...
Mark
On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet they have a single Wikipedia.
I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see people using the second-person singular conjugations for both second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites, read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to a lesser degree.
Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for something.
Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is surmountable.
Mark
On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Servien!
Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
"Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
Boris
Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
Hi Boris,
The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are completely unknown to me...)
Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system: As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
And here in the traditional one: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
This is the one I use: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
(Translation of the text: If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look, but will be pale white.)
Servien
2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de:
Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography: Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
Hmm...
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
Hi Boris,
I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch".
Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna actually ken the leid. (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
"It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms, but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language, the grammar and the authentic idiom."
Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ... would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ... and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient, German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Hmm...
Best Mark
On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Mark!
I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want.
I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
As it so happens, it appears Heiko sends all communication in Hochdeutsch, occasionally proceeded by "moin moin" to make it sound more Platt-ish. Slomox, the other most active current admin, is also not a native speaker of Low Saxon (but rather Hochdeutsch),
With these people running this nokieksel op 't patentplatt, it's no wonder it's... in patentplatt.
I'm sure they're also the ones deciding orthographic policy...
Also, the nds.wiki mainpage says it's in Plattdüütsch (ie, flat german)... and in parenthesis after it says "Plattdüütsch", it says "neddersassisch un oostnedderdüütsch" (Low Saxon and East Low German).
Hmm... according to the ISO, "nds" does not include East Low German. Only Low Saxon. Seems this Wikipedia is not in accordance...
Hmm.
Mark
On 10/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,
As Ron noted in the messages I copied here, "œ" varies to "oe", since of course not everybody has that keyboard.
Servien says people will just use the German-based spelling instead. In fact, the distinctions added by Ron _are_ part of the German-based spelling.
When he says "better publications", I'm sure he means _in_ rather than _on_, but if you need clarification I could ask.
Interestingly enough, the distinctions are actually made in "Der neue Sass" the orthographical « bible » of nds.wiki... and yet HeikoEvermann, whose own self-declared nds-competency is only "nds.3", reverted the changes anyways and was quick to send me a series of very stern messages in Hochdeutsch when I changed back suspecting a misunderstanding. I don't know Hochdeutsch well but I know enough to know that Heiko was cross.
Mark
On 10/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Just a few final remarks from me on the Dutch Low Saxon issue.
Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated.
Ok, now I can understand the meaning. Once again, a very good idea. Once again, very academic, too. Reinhard "Ron" Hahn seems to be a very intelligent man. If articles are written in his phonetically more correct way, it surely won't do any harm. But does he really think, you can talk a majority of volunteer, amateur editors into using a method of spelling they are not used to? That "Œ" is not even on their keyboard.
According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
Does '"better" Platt publications' mean publications written _in_ Platt or academic publications written _on_ the subject of the Low Saxon language? Linguists often have different ways of writting things down, due to the specific needs of their science. By the way, did you know "th" stands for two different sounds in English? So what about a spelling reform at en: ?
I think if Wikipedia in Low Saxon is supposed to flourish you'll have meet people were they are.
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 10.07.05 07:44:03:
Boris,
Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
From Ron:
"Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated. In ordinary spelling, people do not distinguish the diphthong /ei/ (written <e(e)>) from the monophthong /ee/ (written <e(e)>), and they do not distinguish the dipthong /öi/ (written <öö>) from the monophthong /öö/ (written <ö(ö)>). As a result of this overly casual spelling method, most learners -- which includes most younger people -- mispronounce numerous words on the basis of spelling. Thus, continuing this spelling in a reference resource would be tantamount to serious neglect and perpetuation of mispronunciation. So far, these distinctions are made only in better publications, in which the monophthongs are written <ä(ä)> and <œ> (or <oe>) respectively. (In some academic conventions they use <e(e)> and <ö(ö>) with an _ogonek_ (hook), which, however, is typographically awkward.)"
And then later, this:
"They do reflect important distinction both phonemically and phonetically.
For example:
/leev-n/ ["le:v=m] ~ ["lE:v=m] <Läven> 'life' /leiv-n/ ["leIv=m] ~ ["laIv=m] <Leven> 'loving' Spelling without distinction: Leven
/beed-n/ [be:d=n] ~ ["bE:d=n] <bäden> 'to beg', 'to pray' /beid-n/ ["beId=n] ~ ["baId=n] <beden> 'to offer' Spelling without distinction: beden
/veet-n/ ["ve:t=n] ~ ["vE:t=n] <Wäten> 'knowledge' /veitn/ ["veIt=n] ~ ["vaIt=n] <Weten> 'wheat' Spelling without distinction: Weten
/ööv@r/ ["2:v3`] ~ ["9:v3`] <œver> ~ <oever> 'over', 'across' /öiv@r/ ["9Iv3`] ~ ["OIv3`] <Över> '(river/lake) bank) Spelling without distinction: över, Över
/lööv-t/ [l2:ft] ~ [l9:ft] <lœvt> ~ <loevt> 'praises' /löiv-t/ [l9Ift] ~ [lOIft] <löövt> 'believes' Spelling without distinction: löövt ~ lööft"
From what I can tell, though, it's definitely not an exaggeration to say it was "fake" before and is real now -- things that were awkward, German-syntax-based ways of saying things were modified to more natural, genuinely Platt/Nedersaksisch ways of saying things.
Mark
On 09/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Hi Mark!
Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "œ" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "Œkelnaam" for no visible reason.
Best, Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
Hi all,
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=185...
Mark
On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet they have a single Wikipedia.
I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see people using the second-person singular conjugations for both second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites, read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to a lesser degree.
Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for something.
Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is surmountable.
Mark
On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Servien!
Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
"Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
Boris
Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
Hi Boris,
The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are completely unknown to me...)
Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system: As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
And here in the traditional one: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
This is the one I use: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
(Translation of the text: If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look, but will be pale white.)
Servien
2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de:
> Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch.
Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt".
> A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography: > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt.
Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it:
Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack.
Hmm...
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13:
Hi Boris,
I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch".
Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna actually ken the leid. (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)"
"It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms, but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language, the grammar and the authentic idiom."
Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ... would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ... and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient, German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)."
This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia.
Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that.
A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography:
Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou.
Hmm...
Best Mark
On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote: > > Hi Mark! > > I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want. > > I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
That was exactly my point, also "Platt" is a very limited concept, it only refers to German-LS instead of internationally used LS, the ISO code is NDS but the name for the Wiki is Plattdüütsch and includes East-German, how do you get that right?
About the point being native speaker, of course you don't really need to be a native speaker as long as your knowledge of the language is good. What is a mothertongue exactly if you dream and speak in it, than I have a few mothertongues... I sometimes dream in Nds and I speak it sometimes but if I'm on another language Wiki I write in that language (of course)...
Servien
2005/7/10, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
As it so happens, it appears Heiko sends all communication in Hochdeutsch, occasionally proceeded by "moin moin" to make it sound more Platt-ish. Slomox, the other most active current admin, is also not a native speaker of Low Saxon (but rather Hochdeutsch),
With these people running this nokieksel op 't patentplatt, it's no wonder it's... in patentplatt.
I'm sure they're also the ones deciding orthographic policy...
Also, the nds.wiki mainpage says it's in Plattdüütsch (ie, flat german)... and in parenthesis after it says "Plattdüütsch", it says "neddersassisch un oostnedderdüütsch" (Low Saxon and East Low German).
Hmm... according to the ISO, "nds" does not include East Low German. Only Low Saxon. Seems this Wikipedia is not in accordance...
Hmm.
Mark
On 10/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,
As Ron noted in the messages I copied here, "œ" varies to "oe", since of course not everybody has that keyboard.
Servien says people will just use the German-based spelling instead. In fact, the distinctions added by Ron _are_ part of the German-based spelling.
When he says "better publications", I'm sure he means _in_ rather than _on_, but if you need clarification I could ask.
Interestingly enough, the distinctions are actually made in "Der neue Sass" the orthographical « bible » of nds.wiki... and yet HeikoEvermann, whose own self-declared nds-competency is only "nds.3", reverted the changes anyways and was quick to send me a series of very stern messages in Hochdeutsch when I changed back suspecting a misunderstanding. I don't know Hochdeutsch well but I know enough to know that Heiko was cross.
Mark
On 10/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Just a few final remarks from me on the Dutch Low Saxon issue.
Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated.
Ok, now I can understand the meaning. Once again, a very good idea. Once again, very academic, too. Reinhard "Ron" Hahn seems to be a very intelligent man. If articles are written in his phonetically more correct way, it surely won't do any harm. But does he really think, you can talk a majority of volunteer, amateur editors into using a method of spelling they are not used to? That "Œ" is not even on their keyboard.
According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
Does '"better" Platt publications' mean publications written _in_ Platt or academic publications written _on_ the subject of the Low Saxon language? Linguists often have different ways of writting things down, due to the specific needs of their science. By the way, did you know "th" stands for two different sounds in English? So what about a spelling reform at en: ?
I think if Wikipedia in Low Saxon is supposed to flourish you'll have meet people were they are.
Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 10.07.05 07:44:03:
Boris,
Ron's justification is given below. According to him, such distinctions are made in "better" Platt publications.
From Ron:
"Even though the consensus is to go along with the German-based orthography (which alienates speakers in the Netherlands), I strongly suggest that the usual orthographic neglect not be perpetuated. In ordinary spelling, people do not distinguish the diphthong /ei/ (written <e(e)>) from the monophthong /ee/ (written <e(e)>), and they do not distinguish the dipthong /öi/ (written <öö>) from the monophthong /öö/ (written <ö(ö)>). As a result of this overly casual spelling method, most learners -- which includes most younger people -- mispronounce numerous words on the basis of spelling. Thus, continuing this spelling in a reference resource would be tantamount to serious neglect and perpetuation of mispronunciation. So far, these distinctions are made only in better publications, in which the monophthongs are written <ä(ä)> and <œ> (or <oe>) respectively. (In some academic conventions they use <e(e)> and <ö(ö>) with an _ogonek_ (hook), which, however, is typographically awkward.)"
And then later, this:
"They do reflect important distinction both phonemically and phonetically.
For example:
/leev-n/ ["le:v=m] ~ ["lE:v=m] <Läven> 'life' /leiv-n/ ["leIv=m] ~ ["laIv=m] <Leven> 'loving' Spelling without distinction: Leven
/beed-n/ [be:d=n] ~ ["bE:d=n] <bäden> 'to beg', 'to pray' /beid-n/ ["beId=n] ~ ["baId=n] <beden> 'to offer' Spelling without distinction: beden
/veet-n/ ["ve:t=n] ~ ["vE:t=n] <Wäten> 'knowledge' /veitn/ ["veIt=n] ~ ["vaIt=n] <Weten> 'wheat' Spelling without distinction: Weten
/ööv@r/ ["2:v3`] ~ ["9:v3`] <œver> ~ <oever> 'over', 'across' /öiv@r/ ["9Iv3`] ~ ["OIv3`] <Över> '(river/lake) bank) Spelling without distinction: över, Över
/lööv-t/ [l2:ft] ~ [l9:ft] <lœvt> ~ <loevt> 'praises' /löiv-t/ [l9Ift] ~ [lOIft] <löövt> 'believes' Spelling without distinction: löövt ~ lööft"
From what I can tell, though, it's definitely not an exaggeration to say it was "fake" before and is real now -- things that were awkward, German-syntax-based ways of saying things were modified to more natural, genuinely Platt/Nedersaksisch ways of saying things.
Mark
On 09/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to
convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Hi Mark!
Nice job. As far as I'm able to able to judge, the overall language quality of the article was clearly improved. But I think it's an exaggeration to say the article was written in a fake Platt before and is "real" now. Authenticity is often a matter of perspective. Most of the alterations made are not so much about real vs. phony but rather a matter of spelling, dialect differences or even a matter of taste. Some changes aren't really necessary e. g. replacing the very common "mooken" by a seldomly used "möken". One thing I really can't grasp is why Ron/Reinhard introduces the letter "œ" (which is never used in Germany), e. g. when replacing the authentic Platt word "Ökelnaam" by a weird-looking "Œkelnaam" for no visible reason.
Best, Boris
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 08.07.05 01:18:55:
Hi all,
Ron has done quite a job on the article [[Katt]], in a huge effort to convert it from Patentplatt to real Platt.
Diff: http://nds.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katt&diff=21797&oldid=185...
Mark
On 06/07/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
I personally think that if in that sample the only extreme differences are "mer" and the future tense, this should not be insurmountable.
Brazilian and Iberian Portuguese similarly have some vast differences in verb conjugations (although they use the same orthography...), yet they have a single Wikipedia.
I'm sure many Portuguese people are a little bit annoyed when they see people using the second-person singular conjugations for both second-person singular and second-person plural... but then, they're a little bit used to it since Portuguese often visit Brazilian websites, read Brazilian books, watch Brazilian movies... and vice-versa but to a lesser degree.
Nevertheless, the fact alone that you were able to identify it as the future tense (as opposed to just completely not knowing) counts for something.
Surely, although it might be a bit annoying at first, such a linguistic difference as use or non-use of the future tense is surmountable.
Mark
On 05/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote:
Hi Servien!
Thanks for informing me about that. I must admit, I've never heard or read about ANS. So, like the name suggests that's supposed to work in but countries? A good idea for sure. However (and that's a big however), as far as I can tell noboby in Germany ever writes that way. Just have a look a websites from Germany written in nds. You won't ever find all those y's and v's there. Neither in Plattdüütsch literature you can find in book stores in Northern Germany. While that ANS spelling system might be a good thing in theory, I think you just couldn't re-educate thousands of people in order to have one single nds Wikipedia. But I guess I don't have to convince _you_ anyway.
Thanks for the sample phrase. Here's my try:
"Wenn <or "As"> en Minsch nich faken noog ruut <"na buten" would also work> kümmt ward he ook nich <equivalent for "höyl" would be "heel" but is usually not used here> bruun <future tense "wöyrden" also omitted here> sünnern blievt witt. <Note: I can`t really think of a word for "pale" now - you could possibly take "bleek" (without "witt" in that case) but I'm not 100% sure here>
Even though I have tried to stick to your wording as closely as possible, I think the differences are quite tremendous here. They go far beyond spelling. What was most striking to me was the use of the future tense in your sample phrase. The Plattdüütsch I know just doesn't have that - just like in spoken High German where that tense is not used either. But also the word "mer" (that's like "maar" in Dutch, isn't it?) wouldn`t be understood by readers in Germany. Other differences are less severe, of course. E. g. "genog" instead of "noog" would surely be understood, especially since we have "genug" in German. But take "kump" (do you speak an "ü" or an "u" there?) for "kümmt" for example or even "ie/y" instead of "he". If the decision about a Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia were in my hands and I had to make that decision solely based on this one example - I would most definately create it! Not because I want to separate Dutch and German wikipedians - it's the 21st century and thank God we're good neighbours - but only of the language facts.
Boris
Servien Ilaino servien@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 15:33:43:
Hi Boris,
The orthography used in that text seems to me is de Algemeyne Neddersassische Schryvwys'... I also used to use it, but people don't seem to understand it quite as well in the Netherlands and Germany, I must honestly say I understand the ANS writing system way better then the one you used at the bottom (of course there are words which are completely unknown to me...)
Here is a sample of DLS in ANS writing system: As 'n mins ny vaak genog buyten kump sal y ok ny höyl bruyn wöyrden mer sal y spyrwit blyven.
And here in the traditional one: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buut'n kump zal ie ok nie heul bruun wurd'n mer zal ie spierwit bliev'n/blyv'n.
This is the one I use: As 'n mins nie vaok genog buten kump sal ie ok nie heul bruun wurden mer sal ie spierwit blyven. (it's a mixture of the traditional one and a little from ANS, I don't use the apostrophes because like in the word blyv'n is pronounced as "bliem" and this is confusing because bak'n [bake] is also pronounced differently like "bakng".)
(Translation of the text: If a person doesn't go outside much then he won't have a tanned look, but will be pale white.)
Servien
2005/7/5, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de: > > > Ahh wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which is "based on Missingsch. > > Ok "Patentplatt" or "Fernsehplatt" (TV Platt) as it is called sometimes - that really seems to happen. I think that word is less misleading. Of course, different people will have different views on what is unique and what is not. Languages like German or French have had established unified standards for centuries, so there is hardly ever any doubt what's linguistically correct or not at de: or fr:. Obviously, at nds: you don`t have that degree of unambiguousness. I would really appreciate any efforts to improve the linguistic quality of the Low Saxon Wikipedia. After all, it is still at an early stage. Unfortunetaly, I can't really help here for, being a native in High German, I'd probably only worsen the problem of "Patentplatt". > > > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography: > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou. > > Where does that come from? The vocabulary is mostly alright. But the spelling looks awfully articifial to me. Never before have I seen anyone using "y" in written Platt. And why should you write "v" when you say "f". Just too make look "less German"? Also, the diphtong "ou" might somehow reflect the pronounciation but is certainly not usually used in Northern Germany. And why should one want to use "kk" instead of "ck"? Just because it's written that way in the Netherlands?? And why is there an apostrophe in " Elv' "? Just because the word is "Elbe" in High German. Complete nonsense, in my humble opinion. I don't want to comment comment on the "real Platt" word "kuntray" but the "I" at the beginning of the last sentence is either Bavarian or English but surely not Platt. > > Coming from the "Ünner-Elv'" myself, let me try it: > > Liek so kannst dat in'n poor Dialekten vun de Ünnerelv (in Hamborg un ümto) ook seggen. "Wat" kann dor in düsse/sükse Fällen liek as "dat" un "de" bruken. Ick/Ik do dat ook faken, man tomeest wenn ick/ik snack. > > Hmm... > > Boris > > Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org schrieb am 05.07.05 08:34:13: > > Hi Boris, > > I'm a bit perplexed as this accusation has been made by a number of > people on Lowlands-l, most of the accusers being native speakers of > Low German, and at least one (RF Hahn) also speaking Missingsch. Ahh > wait, I see here the accusation is that it's in "Patentplatt", which > is "based on Missingsch". > > Accusations: "Unalike the Laich Saxon edeetion whase warkers dinna > actually ken the leid. > (It's oor Jonny's pet plaint, his windmill faes, an that richtly.)" > > "It doesn't help that language competency is wanting in the current > WikiPlatt team. Those folks are enthusiastic, and I laud that. But > they don't know the language well enough. Much or most of it is > "Patentplatt" (based on Missingsch), i.e. invented on the basis of > German. I am not at all opposed to introducing technical neologisms, > but there needs to be first of all a firm grasp of the basic language, > the grammar and the authentic idiom." > > Information on Patentplatt: "The number of Lowlands Saxon speakers ... > would be large if it included people who are somewhat conversant ... > and it would be even larger if it included those who ... can really > only manage lexically, idiomatically and grammatically deficient, > German-based, "made-up Platt" (Patentplatt)." > > This is very concerning, and is clearly a major factor in the > difficulty people from the Netherlands are having reading NDS.wiki. I > just dashed off an e-mail to Ron to remind him that he is always > welcome to "fix" the Patentplatt, because of course it's Wikipedia. > > Obviously, this isn't the only factor, and I'm not sure if it's even > the greatest factor. But, I feel that we should explore that. > > A sample of 'real' Low Saxon written in "AGS" orthography: > > Lyk so kanst dat in 'n paar dialekten vun de Ünner-Elv' (in Hamborg un > kuntray) ook seggen. "Wat" kan daar in sükse vellen lyk as "dat" un > "dey" bruken. I dou dat ook vaken, man tou meyrst wen ik snakken dou. > > Hmm... > > Best > Mark > > On 04/07/05, Boris Lohnzweiger BorisLohnzweiger@web.de wrote: > > > > Hi Mark! > > > > I was quite perplexed to read that they write Missingsch in the Low Saxon Wikipedia. So I just went there and checked out ten random pages. Having grown up in a rural area near Hamburg, it`s easy for me tell apart Low Saxon from Missingsch. The whole issue seems to be very exaggerated. All ten articles I've read were without a doubt in Plattdüütsch. Of course single articles might not be - I haven`t checked the whole Wikipedia. However, one can note that depending on the subject of the article the share of words that very closely resemble standard German words or are even identical (in writing !) is sometimes quite high. But this is a usual phenomenon in Low Saxon. Generally speaking, the more scientific a text gets the closer it comes to Hochdeutsch. Surely, sometimes this can lead to the fact that certain passages of articles don`t look too much like Platt. This can been seen very clearly in this article: http://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilia . It has two sections, both written by the same author, as far as I can tell. The first ("Norddüütsche Slangen") is very "pure" Low Saxon. The second ("Systematik") looks very much like standard German, due to its topic. I think even without knowing both languages in detail you can easily tell the difference. But this is not to be confused with Missingsch. You just couldn`t say that differently or more "real", if you want. > > > > I don`t who actually brought up this Missingsch issue (native speaker? hobby linguist?). But as a matter of fact, nds-WP is written in Low Saxon. If individual pages are in other languages (which to some degree happens in many Wikipedias) the guys at nds can certainly cope with that. However, I disbelieve that this part of the reason native speakers of Low Saxon in the Netherlands ask for a separate WP.
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
As it so happens, it appears Heiko sends all communication in Hochdeutsch, occasionally proceeded by "moin moin" to make it sound more Platt-ish. Slomox, the other most active current admin, is also not a native speaker of Low Saxon (but rather Hochdeutsch),
With these people running this nokieksel op 't patentplatt, it's no wonder it's... in patentplatt.
I'm sure they're also the ones deciding orthographic policy...
Also, the nds.wiki mainpage says it's in Plattdüütsch (ie, flat german)... and in parenthesis after it says "Plattdüütsch", it says "neddersassisch un oostnedderdüütsch" (Low Saxon and East Low German).
Hmm... according to the ISO, "nds" does not include East Low German. Only Low Saxon. Seems this Wikipedia is not in accordance...
Yes offcourse Mark oh languagegod we all bow to your infinite knowledge
Waerth
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org