LL-L "Orthography" 2002.12.12 (01) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 12.DEC.2002 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: <admin at lowlands-l.net>
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 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>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2002.11.23 (01) [S]

Sandy wrate:
>
>But ar thae examples comprehensive? Whit aboot:
>
>mat - mate - material, maternal
>rat - rate - fraternity
>fat - fate - fatal
>fad - fade -
>rap - rape - papal
>
>How div ye describe thir:

The'r twa things here.

(a) some o thaim dis (happen ti?) fit the reul - in 'fatal' an 'papal' the
single consonant shaws at the 'a' is [e] - or in ither words, at the 'magic
e' is implicit. fate gies fatal, but fat gies fatted - cp fated.

(b) Maternal, material an fraternity is aa Latin wirds, an sae disna follae
the reul. Like I'v been sayin aa alang, if ye'r gaun ti adapt English-type
spellin ti Scots (an that's no the same thing as describin English spellin
as it staunds) ye maun recognise thae etymological spellins as bein ootwi
the reul.

Nou, of coorse, 'fate' an 'papal' is Latinate wirds as weel - ye coud say at
thay only follae the reul bi a happen! But that disna maiter - cause we'r no
tryin ti justifee English spellin here. Whit I'm arguin is no at English
haes a reul at ye can uise ti generate English spellin, but at _if_ ye want
ti adapt English-style spellin ti Scots, _than_ the'r reuls aboot consonant
dooblin at ye can apply ti words like 'maiter', 'hame' an the like. Thae
reuls is identifiable in English spellin - the fact at the'r a fouth o
exceptions in English spellin disna alter the fact at ye can uise thae reuls
ti spell Scots words at's no common wi English, an thay'll than mell wi
ither English words at's spelt wi the same conventions. Sae 'maiter' like
'waiter', 'hame' like 'same', 'hale' like 'pale', etc. Coorse ye need ither
spellins for Scots tae, at disna kythe in English - for example, ye'v the
initial consonant cluster 'skl' in Scots at ye dinna (I dinna think) hae in
English, an gin 'aiple' wis an English pronunciation it wad likely be spelt
'aple' - cp 'maple' - but it's still faur mair homogenous nor the kynd o
Scots spellin at comes oot wi pairs like 'muckle' an 'bukkil' or 'skart' an
'scar'.

An that's the rael pynt. The affcome o no daein whit I'm sayin is no at a
faur better spellin will kythe - it's at aabodie will juist cairie on uisin
spellins like 'maitter' , 'haill' an 'skart' at's _mair_ inconsistent nor
the feck o English anes.
>
>natural - nature
>national - nation
>feral - federal
>rational - rationale
>lapidary, lapel - ape
>age - agar
>radical - radiation
>&c &c &c
>
>Ye can come up wi a description for thir, but yer rules juist
>multiplies tae whaur they're wirth naething. Aa ye can describe
>wi general rules is the simple cases.

Na na - ye'r completely ignorin whit I'v sayed aa the time (an I dinna ken
whit wey - it's no like I hinna sayed it aften eneuch!) at thae fremmit
words (includin _agar_, at's Malay) disna conform ti the consonant dooblin
reuls. This is whit wey - ti repeat mysel again - I say at ye need ti
recognise Etymological spellins as bein different frae the lave. O the
ithers, the spellin 'lappel' is leetit in Chambers dictionar, sae the'r nae
raison whit wey that coudna be uised in Scots; an _ape_ an _age_ is regular.
>
>> I canna see at <able> disna faa inti the uisual doobled consonant reul -
>> compare able, maple, table, noble, bogle wi apple, babble, rabble,
nobble,
>> boggle. Here the <le> is juist a conventional wey o writin final
>> [l], no the
>> 'magic' e, but the convention for shawin the vowel soond is
>> obvious eneuch.
>
>Like afore, it seems tae wirk gin ye wale aesy examples. What
>happens whan ye rin intae the likes o <maplet>, <goblet>, <ugly>
>(cf <lady>, <juggling>), <Argentina> &c?

Again, I'm no tryin ti justifee English spellin per se - raither ti
identifee reuls at lats ye ken hou ti spell onie wird (or e'en maist wirds
wad be a impruvement!) in Scots. Anither thing I'v aye sayed is at, even
whan ye'v sortit oot the Etymological (nation, etc.), morphological
carefu  - wi the 'fu' pronunced different in different airts, an spelt as a
morpheme) an phonological ('glaikit', etc) spellins in Scots, ye'v still the
problem o the English spellins at disna faa inti onie o thir categories -
door, tongue, etc. It's than a strecht (Hobson's?) chyce whither ye spell
thaim as they ar in English, or conform thaim ti the reuls ye'v identifeed
for the sake o spellin Scots (doar, tung). But except ye identifee an decide
on thae reuls first, ye canna conform thaim.

Ye micht write it as a (kynd o) algorithm:

1. Spell Latin, Greek an (possibly) French words the same as in English
(nation, angel, touch), exceptin whaur ye get tradeetional spellins like
'speerit' whaur the Scots pronunciation is emphasised.

2. Mak a leet o words (maistly pronouns, preposeetions, thirlt morphemes an
the like) ti be spelt morphologically.

3. Spell ither words efter the English-type consonant dooblin reuls
(ootlined in the Spellin Comatee blad)

4. Hobson's chyce whither ye spell the hine orra spellins like 'door' the
same as English, or re-spell thaim efter (3).

Sae the'r nae pynt speakin aboot whit ti dae whan ye rin inti the likes o
'ugly' an 'juggling' or 'gobble' an 'goblet' unless ye (a) decide whit the
reul is - a thing ye'll nivver dae as lang's ye haud at this is nae uiss -
an than (b) whither ye conform the Scots spellin o thaim ti the reul, or
leave the English inconsistencies on the grunds o kenspeckleness.

The ettle o this is no ti cleck a haley consistent spellin - it's first o aa
ti evyte the haley inconsistent spellins the like o 'maitter' an 'haill'.
>
>> In <change>, the problem is at the 'e' baith alters the vowel frae [a] ti
>> [e:] (uisin Scottish Standard English pronunciations) an the
>> consonant frae
>> [g] ti [dZ] (or the group <ng> frae [N] ti [n(d)Z]. Compare:
>>
>> bang - change
>
>Again, it juist wirks gin ye watch yersel an no wale haurd examples,
>eg <banger>, <anger>, <angel>. Of course ye can describe aa thir but
>like I says afore, ye need mair an mair rules.

Nou hing on a meenutie! It wis you at cam up wi thae examples, no me!

If ye'r makkin up a spellin for Scots, ye can draw the line (as ti whit's a
reul an whit's an exception) whaurivver ye like. I'm speakin aboot follaein
English spellin whaur the reuls can be follaed, no whaur thay canna.
(Coorse, i the examples abuin, ye'v the addit complication o the English
[Ng] correspondin ti Scots [N] in certain wirds.)

'Banger' an 'stranger' is baith morphological spellins - 'bang-er' an
'strange-er'. (Ti be fykie, ye coud spell 'stranger' as 'strange'r', ti shaw
whaur the'r a 'e' hippit, tho 'strange' is French oniewey) 'Angel' is a
etymological spellin, frae the Greek.

It wad be possible ti mak a pronuncable spellin system for Scots bi cleckin
new conventions, like:

strangre (strang-re), angre, stranger (strange-r)
strangir, angir, stranger

Houaniver, for practical purposes ye dinna hiv ti tell fowk hou ti say words
at's areddies fameeliar in English - the problem is hou ti spell words at's
no (whither  no standard English ava, like _glaikit_, or English cognates
like _aiple_) sae at fowk kens hou ti pronunce words like 'strang-er'
different frae 'strange-r'. Oniewey, the extra problem caused bi the
final -e efter -g is a speecial case - ir the onie seemilar problems wi
ither consonants? Gin it's only final 'g' at causes the problem, it wadna be
impossible ti redd that up.

>> >This is whit wey yer "dooble-v" idea is wirthless, John -
>> >it's liftin ae shui whan the hale midden wants reddin.
>>
>> I canna see at it's wirthless ti dae somethin juist cause ye canna dae
>> aathing. Apply that wey o leukin at it ti life in general, an naething
wad
>> ivver be duin! Dooble <v> dis awa wi onie ambiguities aboot the
>> pronuncin o
>> words like 'ivver', 'rivven' an siclike bi uisin a convention
>> at's weel kent
>> in the likes o 'hidden'.
>
>But we'r no applyin it tae life in general, we'r juist applyin
>it tae English spellin - applyin it tae a system for writin
>naething mair than the 40-odd phonemes o English. It juist
>shows ye what a mire ye'v gotten yersel intae whan ye think
>the natur o life in general is a appropriate analogy for
>English spellin!
>
>Fowk haes tae can write, an write richt. Fowk wi nae spaecial
>intellectual pretensions should can maister a spellin system
>tae the pynt whaur they can write wi some confidence. They
>_should_ can dae aathing - it's only 40-odd phonemes!

Ti begin wi, spellin is life in general - in Scotland, oniewey - cause it's
a maiter o psychology - no sae muckle hou the langage shoud be spelt, as
whit fowk will accept. In fact, ye coud compare it ti poleetical ideologies.
The'r some at believes (or uised ti) in bringin in Utopia bi violent
revolution (compare raidical spellin systems) an ithers at believes at ye'll
nivver hae perfection, an oniething ye dae maun be bi greement. The differ
is at it's _possible_ ti hae a nearhaund perfect spellin system the wey at
it's no possible ti hae a perfect society; but _successful_ spellin systems
haes aften no been perfect ava - like English, Faroese, Chinese. Whit thay
maun be is stable.

The thing aboot intellectual pretensions coud be sayed the ither wey. The
less intellectual pretensions fowk haes, the less thay'll likely can be
bathered wi oniething at's ower different frae the fameeliar English. Unless
ye can teach thaim it frae primary wan in schuil, that is.
>
>> >I dout we can say that English orthographic rules is descriptive,
>> >but asweel, that it's no possible tae mak a daecent description
>> >o'd the wey it stauns. Ye end up wi circular airgyments, aa in
>> >conflick wi ane anither.
>>
>> Ay, that's fairly true - but ye dinna need airguments ti describe
>> somethin.
>> Aa ye maun dae is describe whit's actually there - ie, ye can describe
the
>> mat-mate reul wi'oot tryin ti justifee it. Is it no tryin ti inhaud
things
>> at disna fit at maks maist o the fause threips? The 'dooble v'
>> reul is juist
>
>But ye _canna_ describe it. You'r giein ae rule, ignorin aa
>exceptions an speakin as tho ye'r describin English spellin.

Na - I'm ettlin ti describe juist eneuch o't ti shaw hou it's possible ti
spell non-English words ti mell wi't. Ti dae that, ye only hiv ti shaw the
braid conventions - exceptions disna maiter. Ye can aither juist ignore
thaim, or redd thaim up efterhaund if ye like. Ye canna decide whither or no
ti conform wirds til a reul except ye decide whit the reul is first. Gin the
dooble consonant reul can be shawn for maist aa consonants, than ye can
spell Scots words wi the same consonants that wey - an that's maistly whit
we dae oniewey, for example, whan we spell 'laddie' an 'tattie' an no
'ladie' an 'tatie'.

>Yer rule's insignificant compared wi what a richt description
>o English orthography wad tak.

But whit wad the proportions be? Hou monie words wad ye need ti redd up (or
ignore), compared wi anes ye wadna? In ither words, hou comprehensive a
description o English spellin div ye actually need ti come up wi reuls for
spellin Scots?

 Naither "description" is ony
>uise for onything - ane's ower simple tae help fowk tae spell
>mair than the simplest wirds, the ither's ower complicate for
>onybody tae apply.

But aften it's spellin the simple words - like 'aiple' an 'maiter' - whaur
the problems kythes.
>
>> flittin 'v' frae the list o exceptions whaur the dooblin reul disna wirk,
>> inti the 'body o the Kirk' as ye micht say, an it haes the advantage o
>> makkin it less likely at fowk is gaun ti rhyme 'ivver' wi 'fiver' raither
>> nor wi 'liver' (at wad than be 'livver' in Scots). It's a hauf-wey hoose,
>> recognisin at (a) even gin ye div spell words wi English-like spellins
(b)
>> ye still canna lippen on fowk ti pronunce the Scots words richt bi sheer
>> fameeliarity, like ye can in English.
>
>But it disna tak ye a significant step nearer a mensefu spellin
>system - ye'v hunders o rules an exceptions tae redd up yit.
>Bi the time ye'v redd aathing up ye'll be left wi a radical
>spellin system - ye'd a been a sicht better aff startin wi a
>radical spellin system in the first place!

I dinna believe this. Aince ye'v waled oot the Etymological an Morphological
anes, an acceptit at ye can aither ignore or redd the orra English anes, I
dinna believe it wad tak aa this ti come up wi a raisonable wey o spellin
onie wird ye come ower at's aither no fameeliar frae standard English, or at
haes ti be altert frae the English spellin. Juist for a experiment, I'll
gang throwe the abuin paragraph wird bi wird an pit thaim in categories
(whaur thay can belang mair nor ae catogory - eg: 'or' or 'ignore' - it
disna maiter - it's whaur thay dinna fit inti onie category at the'r a
problem; an the'r ithers at coud be spelt aither morphologically - duina -
or phonologically - dinna.)

Morphological spellins:

I, ye, ye'v, wad, wi, hae-s, the, an, ane-s, or, it, ti, up, a, o, no, frae,
be, for, I'll.

Etymological spellins (altert or no):

etymological, morphological, acceptit, ignore, raisonable (Fr raison),
fameeliar, experiment, paragraph, standard, aa (airguably, cause o the
hippit final /l/)

(dia)Phonological Spellins:

dinna, believe, wale, oot, can, orra, wey, spellin, onie, wird, ower,
aither, altert, juist, gang, throwe, abuin, (this).

Orra Anes

redd - tradeetional spellin - shoud be <red> follaein normal convention
tak - tradeetional spellin - shoud be <tack>
come - English spellin - shoud be <cum>
English - English spellin - shoud be <Inglish>
aince - airguably shoud be _ance_ cause o _ane_.

This seems ti me ti fit inti the scheme I'v been speakin aboot. The feck o
wirds is the wee 'morphological' anes, at can be leetit. Whan ye'v waled oot
thaim an the 'etymological' (Laitin, Greek, French) anes (whaur onie
alterations is foondit on the phonological spellins - eg: 'ignore' wi a
follaein 'e' at's no i the Laitin, an emphasis o 'ee' soonds in wirds like
'speerit') ye'r left wi maistly wirds at follaes fairly easy reuls. Onie
problems wi spellin thaim - like 'aither' 'either' or 'aether' - is
(dia)phonological questions at ye wad hae wi a raidical system an aa (except
'this' at I'v left here raither nor i the morphological category ti shaw up
the want o a sinderin atween [T] an [D] in English.) The lave - the orra
anes - ye can aither conform ti phonological spellins or
English/tradeetional fameeliarity. I wad jalouse at, in maist paragraphs o
this lenth, this wad be the case, wi only the odd ane thrawin up a anomaly
(or whiles juist conflict wi English pronunciations) like 'fin(n)d' or
'strang-er' at wad need mair raidical surgery - or wadna, gin ye decidit at
the Scots spellins wis a system in thairsels an shoudna need sindert frae
English pronuncins. In ither wirds, whaur ye finnd a heap o exceptions in a
dictionar, in actual texts I jalouse ye dinna finnd thaim that aften.

>> This is a hauf-wey-hoose airgument, but ye _coud_ cleck a mair regular
>> spellin foondit on English-like spellins. Here ye wad - for
>> example - spell
>> 'chainge' an 'aible', keepin the 'e' no cause it's a magic 'e' in
>> thir cases
>> but cause <le> final an <ge> =  [dZ] is ither orthographic conventions.
In
>> ither words, cause the final <e> canna wirk here, ye wad faa back
>> on anither
>> wey o shawin the vowel soond - bi a digraph. I canna see whit wey
>> this wadna
>> wirk, unless by 'wirk' ye mean at nae exceptions is allooed. It
>> still wadna
>> be completely regular, but it wad be mair regular nor the wey Scots is
>> maistly written evenou.
>
>It's no that nae exceptions can be alloued in a system - but
>a system that leaves us wi hunders o exceptions isna wirth
>onything. I think ye need tae try an git some perspective on
>juist hou mony rules the ar in English spellin (an traditional
>Scots is waur) an juist hou mony exceptions the ar tae maist
>rules.

Ay - but hou monie actual wirds is thae reuls takkin tent o? Aiblins a
puckle reuls dis for the maist feck o wirds, an it taks a fouth o reuls ti
tak tent o a puckle exceptions?
>
>A wad say that exceptions is mensfu for awfu common wirds - it's
>better tae write "we" an "be" an save the bather o extrae letters
>for things that ony reader uizes that aften he disna need rules
>tae mind them, an whaur the wirds is uized that aften that the
>letters saved is significant. Ye micht mak exceptions for antrin
>foreign wirds or even allou something like twice as mony rules
>wi the wey Scots an English is baith creoles wi Saxon an Latin
>strynds. But no hunders o exceptions tae vernear every rule!

Hou monie reuls can ye gie hunders o exceptions for? An whit div ye mean bi
a exception - is aa the words wi final 'g' coontit as single exceptions, for
example?

Insteid o reuls, ye coud think on it as analogies. Maist Scots words haes
conventional analogies in English, for example _muckle_ wi _buckle_. Whit
I'm tryin ti dae is recognise the common conventions sae ye can spell bi
analogy wi thaim. The exceptions disna maiter, cause ye dinna want ti spell
bi analogy wi thaim.

Oniewey, ye can tak it ye'v wun the airgument! Whit this aa pruves is at
onie spellin at's thocht up for Scots will be uised bi precisely ae bodie -
the ane at thocht it up. The consequences can be seen in this threip - at
insteid o wirkin til a common spellin frae a common approach, we'r wirkin
awa frae a common spellin frae differin approaches. Oniewey, the boddom line
is - aither ye'v ti spell Scots wi somethin like the tradeetional spellins
(at, for practical ettles, nou means maistly English-influenced anes), or
ye'v ti spell it some ither wey, an mak it less readable ti maist readers.
An wha's gaun ti dae that?

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

==================================END===================================
* 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>.
 =======================================================================