LL-L "Grammar" 2002.04.07 (04) [E]

Sun Apr 7 22:16:57 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 07.APR.2002 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.04.04 (10) [E/S]

Nigel Smith wrote:

>My own (East Lothian) experience would suggest 'the' is obligatory when
>used with _schuil_ [skIl] but not with _school_ [skUl]/[skül],
>suggesting (I think) that it is more strongly a feature of Scots rather
>than of Scottish English.
>
>Matthew McGrattan>I'm not sure if this holds in situations where a
>question
>is being asked:
>"D'ye go tae church?" (general rule)
>"Huv(hae) ye been tae the kirk?" (specific event)<

I agree with Nigel that 'the' is obligatory with 'schuil' but not with
'school'. In the above examples, 'school' and 'church' are English loan
words, and have obviously brought the English grammar along with them.
To put it another way, 'tae the Kirk' and 'tae the schuil' are Scots
phrases, whereas 'tae church' and 'tae school' are essentially English
phrases spoken with a Scottish accent ('tae' rather than 'to'). The fact
that these may be said by the same person without conscious
code-switching illustrates the fact that many Scots speak a mixture of
Scots and English.

As an aside, I have noticed that, in my part of the North East, people
who go to church tend to use the word 'church' even when they otherwise
speak broad Scots. I don't know whether, being church-orientated (or
should that be 'oriented' nowadays?) people, they regard 'kirk' as not
being respectful enough. If there is an institution/building
distinction, I have failed to pick it up. On the other hand, in Shetland
when I was young, nobody used the word 'church' unless they were
consciously speaking English.

Interestingly (I hope!), although I don't say 'church' at all unless
consciously speaking English, I do say 'kirk' when speaking English, but
probably this is derived from consciousness of 'kirk' as a name' For
example, when speaking English I would say 'to the Kirk over there', but
at the back of my mind is probably the fact that is is called Doune Kirk
or Gairdner Kirk. But in Scots I would say 'we gaed tae the Kirk whan we
wis in England' but 'we gaed tae St Mary's Church whan we wis in
England.' In other words, to me, 'kirk' is general in Scots and 'church'
is only used as a name (may be related to Nigel's use of 'church')
whereas in English, 'church' is general and 'kirk' is a name.

As Nigel points out, the distinction between _schuil_ (variously [skIl],
[skil], [sk2l], ie, with the original /2/ vowel which has become merged
with [I] and [i] in some areas) and _school_ ([skUl] or [skul] - ie,
with a vowel ranging from [u~U] and perhaps in some areas even further
towards [y]) is a Scots/English distinction, in the same way (though not
for the same reasons) as Kirk/Church.

>Interesting... to me the two sentences below would mean different
>things:
>huv ye been tae the kirk? = have you attended a church service of
>worship
>huv ye been tae the church? = have you visited a (possibly hitherto
>unfamiliar) church, or perhaps indicating a specific purpose, e.g. huv
>ye
>been tae the church tae dae the flooers yet?

Would this be an example of the English word _church_ being borrowed
into Scots with a different connotation from _kirk_, and thus a
different case from the contrast between _at the kirk_ and _at church_?
An example I have seen quoted is the borrowing of the English _home_
with the meaning 'old folks home', so that a Scots speaker might say:
'Whit wey did thay pit her in a home whan she haes a hame o her ain?' In
other words, is it that, in certain dialects of Scots, the word 'church'
has been borrowed with a connotation which does not exist in Braid
Scots, where 'the Kirk' means either the building or the institution?

It seems to me that, in Matthew's usage, 'tae church' is a direct
borrowing of the English phrase, which has meant that 'tae the kirk' has
been restricted in meaning, becoming less general. On the other hand,
Nigel's usage has borrowed 'church' with a particular connotation which
does not exist in either traditional Scots or standard English. The
basis of both usages seems to be the underlying traditional Scots, where
you have only  'the kirk' with all meanings, ie:

Div ye gang tae the Kirk? - do you go to church? (habitually)
Hiv ye been tae the Kirk? - have you been to church? (for a service)

In Matthew's usage, the English phrase 'to church' seems to have
replaced the first of these, leaving 'tae the Kirk' with the second
connotation. In Nigel's usage, 'tae the Kirk' also has the second
connotation, but 'church' seems to have been borrowed to lend another
connotation which in traditional Scots would be expressed by eg: 'Hiv ye
been tae the Kirk _yet_ (or with some other addition depending on
context) indicating a more specific purpose, or 'Hiv ye been tae the
Crathie Kirk', indicating a specific church.

Does this make sense?

>So with 'go/gae', church is the building and kirk is the institution, if
>you like. Doesn't seem to apply when 'go' is not used: in the names of
>buildings, 'kirk' is the common word, e.g. Yester Kirk, the kirkyaird
>and so on.

Sorry - I don't follow the go/gae reference here, Nigel. Could you give
examples?

Many dialects of Scots seem to have lost 'gae'. It's common in
Shetlandic, but quite rare in the area of the North East where I live,
where both 'go' and 'gang' (with pronunciations [gjang] and [gIng] ) are
common. In Shetlandic, 'gaeng' [geng] and 'go' are used as well as 'gae'
- whether this means that 'gae' is slowly being replaced by 'go' I'm not
sure. There is a slight distinction of meaning between go/gae on the one
hand and 'gang' on the other ('gang' can sometimes have the explicit
meaning of 'walk') but in most contexts they are interchangeable.
>
>I suspect Scots and Scottish English may have a tendency to make nouns
>more
>definite (i.e. add 'the' or a possessive). We have seen lots of examples
>with 'the' but it also happens with e.g.
>Ah huvnae had my denner yet = I haven't had lunch yet
>What did you get for your Christmas = What did you get for Christmas
>I'm on my holidays = I'm on holiday (You find the last one in Welsh too:
>Dw
>i ar FY ngwyliau 'Am I on my holidays').
>
>Or is this a question of formality/informality, and unconnected?

In the first of these cases, I would say:

North East Scots: I hinna haen ma denner yet
Shetlandic: I'm no hed mi denner yit

To omit the possessive ma/mi from either of these sentences would sound
completely wrong to me. On the other hand, I would say either 'for my
Christmas' or 'for Christmas'. I'm scratching my head a bit about the
third one. In Shetlandic, I don't think I would use 'on' with 'holiday'
- it would be something like 'I'm here for mi holidays' or 'we'r juist
here for wir holidays'. The possessive adjective 'my/ma/mi' would be
obligatory in these phrases, and I think 'on holiday', if I used it at
all, would be an English loan-phrase. I'm not sure about the North East
here - that is, although phrases like 'my holidays' are certainly used,
I'm not sure about 'on holiday'. Colin?

This raises an interesting question about the reasons for certain
features being obligatory in Scots, and opens a whole can of worms about
different interpretations of the demarkation of Scots .

Incidentally, my erratic use of capitals on 'church' and 'kirk' means
nothing, except showing that I don't know which should be used!

John M. Tait.

==================================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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================