LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 30.AUG.2000 (07) [E/S]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 30 23:42:27 UTC 2000
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 30.AUG.2000 (07) * 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: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 30.AUG.2000 (01) [S]
At 07:32 30/08/00 -0700, Andy Eagle wrote:
>Whan A wis leukin in tae the maiter o -ie or -y, a gaed through the SSD an
>compeart aa adjectives an adverbs wi -ie or-y endins.
>A coudna finnd rhyme nor raison ahint whit for some wis spellt -y on
>ithers -ie. (A tak aa diminutives tae be wrutten -ie.)
>It wisna ocht adae wi etymology. Tho A jaloused that wirds that comes ower
>as 'parteeclar' tae Scots wis maistlins wrutten wi -ie.
>An monie latinate wirds wi -y. For tae be conseestant A juist decidit
>on -ie. Tae me 'mair' Scots nor the English -y. A purely 'ideological'
>deceesion.
Whit dis awbodie think aboot this idea: tae keep "-ie" as a merker
for endins that's liable tae vouel harmony, an tae yuise "y" for
whan it's jist a fixt soond at the end o a wird, lik in "bonny"
or "harmony". There's three o thon endins that's liable tae vouel
harmony, an here's whit "Stertin Oot in Scots" says aboot it:
In some varieties of Scots, a phenomenon known as "vowel harmony" occurs.
Specifically, the vowels in
a. the negative particle -na;
b. the diminutive particle -ie;
c. the ending -tie in numbers such as ninetie; and
d. the adverbial particle -lie
all vary in pronunciation, in accordance with the neighbouring vowel
in the word to which they are added. This phenomenon takes place in
north-eastern Scots. The variations are of little consequence as far
as understanding is concerned, but a reader interested in hearing
examples of vowel harmony might ask a north-eastern speaker to say
the pairs canna and dinna; mannie and wifie; echtie and ninetie;
and maistlie and likelie.
Jist ma ain thochties.
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
**********************************************************************
----------
From: Andy Eagle [Andy.Eagle at t-online.de]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 30.AUG.2000 (06) [S]
Sandy wrate:
> Subject: "Standardization"
>
> Andy wrate:
>
> > An monie latinate wirds wi -y. For tae be conseestant A juist
> decidit
> > on -ie. Tae me 'mair' Scots nor the English -y. A purely
> 'ideological'
> > deceesion.
> > A'm aye still sweir tae uise -ie in latinate vocabular, but A wadna
> denee
> > that A whiles micht dae.
> >
> > Yer airgiement that -ie scomfishes monie fowk is certies a guid ane,
> an A
> > canna denee that.
>
> A can, houever, poor a bittie mair watter ower the -ie airgument an
> stap a bittie mair kinnlin on the -y!
>
> Ti start wi, A wad say that the "consistency" airgument is nae
> airgument, for that altho consistency is a guid idea, it could gae aither road
> - ye could decide ti write aither aa -ie or aa -y.
That wis the decesion A cam tae an A waled -ie.
> You say that yer decision ti wale -ie is "purely ideological". Against
> this ideological decision A'd like ti pit some purely _practical_ pynts.
>
> 1. The'r the airgument A pit forrit afore, that A winna repeat here.
>
> 2. Ae airgument that's aften pit forrit in favour o "illogical" English
> orthography is the fack that beuks in English is up ti 15% bigger than
> needs be wi hou the'r that mony gaist letters a body could ding. In fack
this
> is aften agreed as the strongest airgument against current English
> orthography, wi it bein that doutsomeless a measurement. Hivin ti write
the
> fower letters o "onie" insteed o the three letters o "ony" micht seem a
smaa
> pynt if ye'r juist leukin at thae things a wird at a time. It micht seem
fine
> at a time whan the only reglar printit Scots is a thrice-yearly Lallans
> magazine an twathree ither the like. But that's no the future we hae in
mind
> for the langage, is it? What aboot a future whan Scots is written an
published
> on a national scale? What aboot me, a writer an online publisher typin oot
> hunders o thoosands o words a year? Div ye think A'm awa ti type oot a
extrae
> hunder thoosand "e"s for the sake o a tentatively-held ideology? A hiv ti
tak
> plenty preventative measures for RSI as it is! Div ye think thae future
> writers, typesetters, journalists an publishers is gaun ti thank ye for
this?
>
A recent read a history o English orthography an it wis pyntit oot that
monie a publisher drappit letters for thon verra raison. Less wirk, ink,
paper, time an siller.
A dae eneuch typin masel an whit ye're sayin deserrs bein taen sairious.
> 3. A smaaer pynt o pure orthography is the readability o certain words.
> A'v seen efforts like "corbiein", "mairiein" an "cairiein" that's a lot
> haurder ti baith read an type richt than the mair mensefu corbyin, mairyin an
> cairyin. For shuir this could be sortit bi gaun wi the English rule -
> "carried" but "carrying" &c. But some seems that set on bein "Scots",
> they'll no dae it!
>
> 4. At the last, the'r the question o is the "ideology" o -ie bein "mair
> Scots", as ye say, raelly mair Scots? The'r different weys o bein Scots.
Is it
> mair Scots ti lat yersel be dunched in the ruch direction a
> irraiglar spellin tradition seems ti be pyntin, or is it mair Scots ti set
> furth a orthography thats kenspeckle ti native Scots spaekers (gaun back
ti
> pynt 1 again), that'll mak the production processes o the written langage
mair
> efficient?
A pit 'idological' in invertit commas akis A e'en think it a shooglie basis
for makkin deceesions.
At the end o the day maist fowk seemt tae want tae use -ie an A gaed alang
wi it. Gin maist fowk haed said we want -y (for whit iver reasons - nane,
sae faur as A ken come up wi airgiements alang the lines o yer ain) A wad
hae gane alang wi it. A'm certies mair interestit in braid concensus nor
blinndlins haudin tae an 'ideology'.
> Hivin says aa that, ye wull see some -ie endins in ma writin! A uise it
> for diminutives (originally suggestit ti me bi John, but as ye ken, gey
> uisual in written tradition). It disna seem unraesonable ti me for a
important
> inflection o the langage ti hae a distinguishin grapheme, even if it is a
> bittie less efficient - espeecially seein the "natives" likes it fine! A
think
> a certain amoont o representation o the actual structur o a langage micht
even
> mak it mair readable, or at laest help folk ti lift some o the structur o
the
> langage as they'r lairnin ti read an write.
A'm definitely aa for diminutives bein wrutten -ie.
Ye certies pit ower a pouerfu airgiement.
This verra problem raivelt the spellin comatee an aa.
"The Comatee recommends at final -ie be uised for the unstressed final "ee"
soond in aa words or forms o words unique til or characteristic o Scots,
includin verbs (cairie), nouns (mannie) [Is thon no a diminutive noun? Ma
comment!], adjectives (bonnie) an adverbs (aefauldlie)...
Final -ie is no recommendit in word endins siclike as -ity, -ology, -ography,
etc. nor in identical English cognates siclike as funny, silly."
A ken the abuin isna an airgiement, but shaws whaur ma thinkin is comin fae,
aa juist gaed the hale gate wi -ie, cept wi latinate vocabular.
A eikit it an aa, for thaim that's follaein this threid an micht whiles
winner whit we're whiles referrin tae.
A wad be interestit in whit ither fowk that writes Scots on this leet haes
tae say anent tha maiter o -ie v's -y.
Andy
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Standardization
Dear Lowlanders,
Andy explained above:
> "The Comatee recommends at final -ie be uised for the unstressed final
> "ee" soond in aa words or forms o words unique til or characteristic o
> Scots, includin verbs (cairie), nouns (mannie) [Is thon no a diminutive
> noun? Ma comment!], adjectives (bonnie) an adverbs (aefauldlie)...
>
> Final -ie is no recommendit in word endins siclike as -ity, -ology,
> -ography, etc. nor in identical English cognates siclike as funny,
> silly."
That's particularly interesting to me because it seems to be the same sort of
thing that has been happening in Low Saxon (Low German) orthography of
Northern Germany. Hinrich Fehrs and others instituted predominantly
German-based writing systems in which consistent spelling applies only in
"purely" Low Saxon words, namely in those words that have no "High" German
cognates or whose "High" German cognates are not readily apparent.
The best example of this is the use of the _Dehnungs-H_, an "h" that in many
German words is used to indicate that the vowel before it is long; e.g.,
_Hahn_ [ha:n] 'rooster', _zehn_ [tse:n] 'ten', _wohnen_ ['vo:n at n] 'to dwell'.
(However, this is inconsistent, for long vowels are often written singly,
e.g., _lahm_ [la:m] 'lame' vs _kam_ [ka:m] 'came', and in a few cases,
predominantly in Low Saxon loans, doubly, e.g., _Boot_ [bo:t] 'boat' ->
_Boote_ ['bo:t@] 'boat' vs _Bote_ ['bo:t@] 'messenger'.)
The traditional, inherited system of indicating long vowels in Low Saxon, on
the other hand, is the same as that used in Dutch and Afrikaans: a long vowel
is written singly in an open syllable (e.g., _later_ ['lQ:tA] 'later') and
doubly in a closed syllable (e.g., _laat_ [lQ:t] 'late'). Fehrs et al.
combined this system with the one used in "High" German, and this has
introduced inconsistency due to semi-dependence on "High" German spelling.
Specifically, the inherited system of vowel length representation is used only
in words that have no (generally apparent) "High" German cognate whose long
vowel is indicated by means of an "h"; e.g., _Paal_ [pQ:l] '(bean/pea) pod' ->
_Palen_ ['pQ:l(@)n] 'pods' (= German _Schote_ -> _Schoten_ or _Hülse_ ->
_Hülsen_). If there *is* a "High" German cognate whose long vowel is
indicated by means of an "h", then the Low Saxon cognate must also use an "h"
(provided it too has a long vowel); e.g., _Pahl_ [pQ:l] 'pole', 'post' ->
_Pahlen_ ['pQ:l(@)n] 'poles', 'posts' (= German _Pfahl_ -> _Pfähle_ 'poles',
'posts').
Thus, while Dutch and Afrikaans pretty much consistently use the traditional
"Lowlandic" system of long vowel representation, the major German-based
spelling systems for Low Saxon (Low German) in Germany are in part dependent
not only on German spelling principles in general but also on the spelling of
individual German words. The result is inconsistency. The counter argument
might be that it is not truly inconsistent since having one eye on "High"
German spelling is a consistent rule. This does not, however, deny the fact
that Low Saxon spelling is dependent on "High" German and that that may be
seen as an indication of Low Saxon being regarded as dependent on or contained
within German or ruled by "High" German, the standard variety of a separate
language. This is why some writers are beginning to ignore the "h" rule and
to use the inherited rule consistently now that more people realize and insist
that Low Saxon is a separate language, even if they otherwise use German-based
devices.
My personal view is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using German
principles in spelling Low Saxon (Low German), that spelling deliberately
un-German could be argued to be just another case of slavish German reference
(in the other direction), but that word-by-word dependence on German cognates
goes too far and that consistency is preferable.
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
==================================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
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list