LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 31.AUG.2000 (05) [E/S]

Thu Aug 31 19:57:51 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 31.AUG.2000 (04) * 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: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Standardization

Colin Wilson explained:

> 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.

And Sandy Fleming wrote:

> We'll see
> what Colin says aboot the idea o vowel harmony bein governed bi
> morphology.

Vowel harmony presents an interesting problem when it comes to spelling.
Usually, it is assumed that in alphabetic writing phoneme-based spelling is
preferable or should be aimed at for the sake of consistency and
interdialectal comprehension.  Vowel harmony, which is rare in Indo-European
(and I am surprised to see it apply in Scots), presents a bit of a gray area
in this regard.  Permit me to briefly go outside the Lowlands area to explain.

Vowel harmony is particularly widespread and frequently discussed in Uralic
languages (i.e., Finnic, Ugric and Samoyedic) and in Altaic languages (i.e.,
Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic, probably also Korean and Japanese which have no
vowel harmony and may be seen as having split off at a pre-Altaic stage).
Turkic languages represent the "purest" forms of vowel harmony, and this group
has a whole dialectal range of different types of vowel harmony.  Common
Turkic harmony is more aptly named "palatal-velar harmony," because it
involves not only front vs back separation of vowels but also front vs back
separation of at least _k_ vs _q_.  The basic rule in these agglutinating
languages is this: "If the stem has a front vowel (i, ä, ü, ö), then the next
syllable must also have a front vowel.  If the stem has a back vowel (y, a, u,
o), then the next syllable must also have a front vowel."  In other words, a
suffix vowel harmonizes in terms of front or back with the vowel in the
preceding syllable, but it must not change height (though there *is*
additional height harmony in a few of these varieties); e.g.,
/köl+lAr+Im+Iz+dA/ -> _köllärimizdä_ 'in our lakes' (from /köl/ 'lake') vs
/kol+lAr+Im+Iz+dA/ -> _qollarymyzda_ 'in our hands' (from /kol/ 'hand')
(ROOT+pl+1st.sg+pl+loc).

As you can see in my example, I am using /A/ and /I/ as harmonically
uncommitted or neutral phonemes, i.e., as phonemes that are yet to undergo
harmonization.  In an official phonemically based writing system, we need not,
strictly speaking, show the output of the harmonization rule because this
output is predictable.  Thus, we could write for instance _köllarimizda_ 'in
our lakes' and _kollarimizda_ 'in our hands', and the reader who is familiar
with the morpho-phonological and orthographic rules will pronounce these words
correctly, because of the presence of front /ö/ vs back /o/.

However, this is almost never the case.  In other words, the output of
palatal-velar harmony is almost always represented orthographically.  Why?
Because somehow people consider it important to be written.  Some people have
tried to come up with arguments saying that the introduction of non-harmomic
loanwords have disturbed the native system and thus necessitate orthographic
representation.  However, this can virtually always be shot out of the water,
because no matter what phonological analysis model you want to use, Turkic
harmony is consistently governed by the root vowel or, in loanwords, by the
vowel in the last syllable.  This means that people *want* harmonic output to
be reflected in spelling even though there is no actual need for it.  This is
the case in Altaic as well as in Uralic (e.g., in Finnish and Hungarian).

To return to Scots orthography then, we have Colin's examples:

FRONT   BACK
dinna   canna
wifie   mannie

The spelling above makes no difference, even though vowel harmony is involved
in certain dialects; i.e., _-na_ and _-ie_ are pronounced differently in the
front and back categories.  Need you *write* the difference, though?  Let me
make up something for demonstration purposes:

FRONT   BACK
dinnä   canna   (< /-A/)
wifie   manny   (< /-I/)

The answer is "No".  In Northeastern Scots the speaker will apply the
phonological rule irrespective of the way the suffixes are written.

My question is "Do Scots speakers at large *want* it to be represented?  My
prediction is that they do not, because it applies only in a few dialects, not
in the entire language.  If, however, these dialects are considered very
important or influential, then it could very well be that the difference comes
to be written.  If it does so, and if it does so in the writing of *all*
dialects or a possible literary standard language, then, perhaps, this
orthographic differentiation will trigger phonological differentiation even in
dialects that originally did not have it.

Any comments?

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
 =======================================================================