LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 20.AUG.2000 (03) [E/S]

Sun Aug 20 23:15:22 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 20.AUG.2000 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
  Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
  Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
  User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
  =======================================================================

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 19.AUG.2000 (01) [D/E/S]

Ron hef schreven:
>
>Surely "Ugh" only because it's new or different.  Right?
No, not right. I don't know, I can't explain myself very well, but it just
doesn't
feel right to write all the i-sounds with just "ii" or "y".

>If you are dealing with the same sound in all the
>dialects (i.e., _y_ and _ie_ representing the same sound in each dialect,
>not necessarily between dialects),
>
No, it's not both the same sound, it's different. Can't really say how, but
it is.
I was just comparing it to Dutch and noticed that 1 sound could be coupled
to Dutch "ie" and the other to Dutch "ij".

>On the other hand,
>yes, the majority of people *are* conservative and afraid of anything
"new"
>and "foreign", and that can't be ignored or easly overcome.
>
I'm not, if I were, I'd use a Dutch-based orthography, but I don't :)

>Have you considered a two- or multi-step spelling program in which you
>start with a "moderate" (i.e., partly conservative, Dutch- and/or
>German-based) system with the plan to streamline it in stages at later
>points in time?  Doesn't that sound like some sort of compromise solution?

>I think that's what I am tending toward lately, after having gone through
a
>more radical phase.
>
I was rather thinking of something else. You could start with your first
step for
most people, while people who are willing, go directly ahead to step 2,
thereby perhaps inducing the people of step 1 to proceed as well.
How's that sound?

grooten,
Henry

----------

From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 19.AUG.2000 (01) [S]

Sandy wrate:

<sned>
> Mind, tho, that the'r naething wrang wi the spellin "buik" in itssel -
> it is uized even in the maist mensefu traditional texts. But it dis
> introduce irregularities an teachin/learnin difficulties that's juist
> no nott.

Spellins lik 'buik' an 'tuik' is fae aulder Scots. Spellins lik 'buik' an
'mune' wis ( A jaolouse) pronounced /Slashed O/ an /y/ respectively. In
modren Scots we hae <ui> pronounced in central dialect /e:/ whan lang an
/I/
whan short. NE Scots haes /i(:)/ some bylieds aye still haes /y(:)/ an
/e(:)/.

Afore /k/ an /x/ the oreeginal /Slashed O/ an /y/ becam /(j)u/ or /(j)V/
dependin on dialect. Nou spelt <eu>.

A Dinna see muckle pynt in haudin wi Middle Scots spellins that disna
represent the modren pronouciation.

> As for the SND itsel, A dinna see onything wrang wi it listin aa kent
> spellins. This wad be seein it as _the_ muckle dictionary o the
> langage,
> an a decision ti record variant spellins isna wrang (at laest in want
> o a settled orthography - an the wee dictionaries haes nae excuise for
> joukin the responsibility o settin a example).

Leetin aathing in dictionars that records uissage isn a a problem.Thon's
uisfu whan readin sindrie texts.
Its whan ye hae a English/Scots dictionar that's fu o contradeections wi
its
reccomendit Scots spellins that's no sae guid.

> A wonder if the folk at the SNDA haes ever heard o a dictionar caad
> the "SND"? A'm gittin sarcastic nou! - but the truith is that thae
> kin o attitudes isna uphaudit in the dictionar itssel. Ti tak "fuit"
> as a example, it lists this spellin because it's fund in the literatur
> (1920 seems ti be the aerliest instance, if A'm readin it richt). But
> it states an aa that the'r nae evidence for the existence o sic a wird.
> What wey can ye write "fuit"? Victorians an Edwardians never wrate it.
> In dialecks whaur it can be distinguished fae "fit", it's never sayed.
> Thay folk should try an toot on their ain horn!
>
> Ae thing aboot the SND itssel, tho, is that it disna list aa kent
> spellins, as faur as A can see. Whaur the strechtforrit, mensefu,
> fair readable diacritic spellins o some o the greatest Victorian
> writers like Stevenson an Hunter, for example?

A hae A feelin that the fowk that pat the SND thegither spak Scots
thairsels
an haed a guid ken o't .
A dout the fowk at the SNDA the nou canna or winna speak Scots. A think
thay
dinna seem tae hae a richt guid ken o the (phonological) relationship
atween
the
sindry strynds o the tung - an gin thay dae, thay obviously see nae pynt in

pittin siclike ken tae guid uiss whan reccomendin spellins. Thay kin o like

the 'mixter-maxter, its aa orra dialects oniewey' approach tae Scots.

Monie a time A hae wrutten tae thaim shawin thair inconsistencies but A hae

A feelin thay're no wantin tae tak tent tae siclike. O coorse gin thay
chynge nou it means admeettin thay wis wrang in the bygane. Nae bodie likes

tae admeet thay wis wrang.

> (John's comments on "fowk/folk" &c aa taen in an agreed on, as
> uizual! "Ruid" for "reid/rid" wad be a grand thing an aa - the
> want o a diaphonemic wey o spellin this haes been drivin me up
> the waa in ma ain writin an editin for a guid while nou!)
>
'ruid' for rid/reid is a nanesterter. It haes nocht adae (etymologically an

phonologically)wi thae ither <ui> wirds. Jist thole the twa spellin
variants, 'reid' is mair tradeetional an 'rid' mair modren.

Andy

----------

From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 18.AUG.2000 (03) [S]

John M. Tait wrate:

> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 16.AUG.2000 (05) [S]
>
> Theoretically, final [t] an [d] in waek verb endins shuid can be spelt
the
> same wey, sae accoontin for dialect differs, cause the differ atweem
thaim
is
> condeitional on the vowel afore, the same as plural <s> bein whiles [s]
an
> whiles [z]. Houaniver, this is complicate bi (a) the syllabic [@t] endin,

an
> (b) the fact at English haes different pronunciations for final <-ed>
frae
> Scots, an whiles uises final <t> spellins asweel. Sae gin ye spell thaim
aa
> the same wey ye'r apt ti get fowk sayin thaim wrang. For example, gin ye
spelt
> thaim aa <ed>, fowk wadna lift the syllabic Scots endin in words like
'happit'
> (gin ye spelt it <happed>). Gin ye spelt thaim aa <it>, fowk wad pit a
> non-existent syllable in words like 'freezit' (I still dinna ken gin
the'r
a
> pronunciation [skri:v at t] ti match the <screivit> at ye sae aften see.) I
hinna
> thocht whit wad happen gin ye spelt thaim aa <t>!
>
A thocht thir rules is nou weel descrieved an maist aabodie grees. Maist aa

writers that eiks <it> tae the wrang wirds is thaim that canna speak Scots.

Same wi the <ui> Ilka <oo> in Inglish is suddentlie <ui> in Scots. A e'en
seen *wuil for (w)oo in Lallans.

O coud some pouer the giftie gie us - tae lair thaim Scots sae guid as we
haes

Rabbie Girns

Andy

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 19.AUG.2000 (01) [D/E/S]

Sandy wrate:

>As for the SND itsel, A dinna see onything wrang wi it listin aa kent
>spellins. This wad be seein it as _the_ muckle dictionary o the
>langage,
>an a decision ti record variant spellins isna wrang (at laest in want
>o a settled orthography - an the wee dictionaries haes nae excuise for
>joukin the responsibility o settin a example).

Ay - but aa thon weys o spellin 'uise' etc. is the heidwords, at ye wad get
gin ye follaed thair ain advice on hou ti wale spellins frae the Scots
School Dictionary.
>
>A wonder if the folk at the SNDA haes ever heard o a dictionar caad
>the "SND"? A'm gittin sarcastic nou! - but the truith is that thae
>kin o attitudes isna uphaudit in the dictionar itssel. Ti tak "fuit"
>as a example, it lists this spellin because it's fund in the literatur
>(1920 seems ti be the aerliest instance, if A'm readin it richt). But
>it states an aa that the'r nae evidence for the existence o sic a wird.
>What wey can ye write "fuit"? Victorians an Edwardians never wrate it.
>In dialecks whaur it can be distinguished fae "fit", it's never sayed.
>Thay folk should try an toot on their ain horn!

Ach - ye'r inti kennin again!
>
>(John's comments on "fowk/folk" &c aa taen in an agreed on, as
>uizual! "Ruid" for "reid/rid" wad be a grand thing an aa - the
>want o a diaphonemic wey o spellin this haes been drivin me up
>the waa in ma ain writin an editin for a guid while nou!)

Ay - cause a diaphonemic spellin for rid/reid juist isna possible - thay'r
genuine dialect variants, an <ruid> is juist a feckless analogy wi 'guid'
etc.

John M. Tait.

---------

From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 19.AUG.2000 (01) [D/E/S]

At 14:52 19/08/00 -0700, Sandy Fleming wrate:
>A ludged ma complaint wi Colin a while back aboot this in his beuk.
>A ken fine that Colin's a richt mensefu chiel that wadna made a
>decision like this athoot some richt guid raeson that A canna see
>masel; but A see Colin's beuk as a keystane in the advancement o
>the Scots langage, an a muckle opportunity ti set thae wrangs richt,
>syne he seems (as faur as A can see) ti fling it awa. Obviously,
>the'r a lot mair ti Colin's beuk nor guid spellin, but ti me it's
>a muckle shame.

A'm thankfu tae Sandy for his guidwullie wirds, an A'm sorry gin
he or oniebodie feels louten doon. In ma defence A'll gie a cuttie
quote fae the introduction tae "Stertin Oot in Scots":

"The written Scots in this book is intended as a vehicle for presenting
and explaining the *spoken* material, and is not intended to serve as a
model for the learner's own written Scots"

A hope thon saftens the dunt o nae likin the spellin, A wee bittie
oniewey.

Colin Wilson.

*********************************************************************
                               the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
Colin Wilson                   the barra wadna row its lane
writin fae Aiberdein           an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
                               lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
**********************************************************************

==================================END===================================
  You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
  request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
  as message text from the same account to
  <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
  =======================================================================
  * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
  * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
  * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
  * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
    to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
    <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
  * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
    type of format, in your submissions
  ======================================================================