LL-L "Orthography" 2002.03.21 (03) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 21.MAR.2002 (03) * 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 "Orthography" 2002.03.16 (02) [E]

Sandy wrote:

>> It would be quite possible to create an orthography which simply
>> systematised these elements, while using English-type conventions of
>
>This is easy enough to talk about, but can you actually devise
>a complete orthography of this kind and can you give an extended
>example to show that it can be made to work, like I did for mine?
>I appreciate that not everbody has the sort of text processing
>software I have, but if you pick a short story from ScotsteXt
>I'll send you a wordlist for it, which you can edit to your own
>orthography and send back, then I'll apply the substitutions
>to the story and post it for inspection. Without some sort of
>practical application like this, it's all just hot air.

Aye, but cleckin a frae-scratch orthographi is boond tae bee a hale lot
aesier nor dhe kynd o thing I'm thinkin aboot, qhaur pairt o dhe theori
is greement. It's nae (weel, less) bather tae cum up wi a spellin system
gin - like yersel - ye'r no bathered aboot qhit I caad dhe 'human
factor'. Qhit I'll dui, dho, is juist write in Scots, an try tae mack a
'maximalist' version o qhit I wis spaekin aboot. As ye can see, it's no
dhat muckle different, sae faur onywey, frae dhe wey I write normalli,
apairt frae <dh>, <qh>, an final <i>.

Sae faur:

<orthographi, theori, maximalist, system, version>, etc, is etymological
spellins.

<I, ye, wi> is exceptional spellins uized for frequent wirds, at ye coud
caa 'morphological'. (Ye could justifee 'be' as weel, maybe(e) - nae
waur nor <is> [Iz]). <Maybe(e)> wad be a morphological spellin as weel
(may-be(e)) raither nor <mibbie>.

Sum is awkward spellins in oni kynd o orthographi - like <write>, <ryt>,
<vreet>? Dhae'r nae aesi answer tae dhae problems qhaur dhae'r antrin
regional differs in spaek.

Aa ither thing is a ettle at (poly)phonological spellins uizin
Inglish-type spellin reuls adaptit for Scots (dho nae dout dhae'r a
puckle - or a fouth o - macks at I haena chynged awin tae dhe daimon
famieliariti.) Dhe theori inhauds haein mair nor ae grapheme for ilka
phoneme - sae <oo> an <ou> for /u/ (u-e coud be includit as weel - e.g.
<rule>, dho <reul> is baith etymological (Auld French _reule_; CSD gies
<rule, reule, rull, roule> as spellins, dho giein dhe [rjul]
pronunciation as conjectural) an mair like a typical Scots spellin (dho
u-e wis mair common in aulder Scots, an still in sum popular spellin,
but it gits raivled up wi dhe <ui> spellin - eg. <gude>).
>
>> tailored to Scots. It is true that the changes to traditional spelling
>> required to implement this meet with vehement resistance, but this
>
>I'll say it again - I'm really not interested in the resistance,
>at least not as far as compromising the orthography goes.

Soonds like somethin a general i dhe First Warld War micht hae said
juist afore tellin dhe lads tae gang ower dhe tap!
>
>You may remember that the new orthography postings arose directly
>from a discussion saying that even tiny changes to orthographic
>principles will meet with huge resistance, so we'd as weel be
>hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

Better hing on nor hing!
>
>> This type of approach is of course messy compared to a 1->1 system, but
>> it
>> can be made regular within its own presuppositions. So <y>, and <i> with
>> following <e> after one or more consonants, both have a defined
>> pronunciation, assuming that the long and short pronunciations are
>> allophones except finally, where they are normally distinguished as
>> <-y(e)>
>> and <ey>. What should be done away with is spellings such as _mind_,
>> _wind_, where there is no way to tell how the vowels are pronounced, and
>> spellings like <ay> v. <aye>, which conflict with other spellings such
>> as
>> <kye> and <gey> and should be spelled <aye> and <ey>.
>
>How would these suggestions you're making compare with Lorimer,
>then? Do you think a study of the principles in Lorimer's
>orthography would be a good start to devising the sort of
>orthography you have in mind?

Aweel, dhare's a muckle graet questin! I haena analysed Lorimer's
spellin - juist merkit qhaur his practics is better nor qhit we'r
acquant wi, an <ey> insteid o <aye> is ane o dhaim. I think it's a peeti
at naurhaund naebuddi (hard word for me tae spell, cause I say [bOdi],
an [bo:di] for dhe bouk) tacks tent o his spellin, dhe same wey naebuddi
taks tent o his grammar. Sae, contrar tae qhit wis expectit qhan his NT
wis published - at it wid hae a big influence on Scots writin - it
haesna haen haurdli oni, as faur's I can see. Ae'n Ken Farrow's
translate o the Iliad hauds mair wi Purves-type macks an syntax nor wi
Lorimer's example.
>
>> Another problem with existing systems is that most people who are
>> involved
>> in them accept almost as if it were an axiom the idea that words that
>> sound
>> the same but have different meanings should be spelt differently - this
>> automatically creating spellings, such as _redd_ , which break normal
>> rules.
>
>It may be that some homographic avoidance makes sense with
>small, frequent words. For example, a distinction between
>"as" and "is", which are almost always pronounced the same,
>is possibly a good idea. Similarly, the vowel in pronouns
>such as "they", "their" and "them" could be distinguished
>from that in indicatives such as "thae" and "there".

I gree wi dhis. Thay, thair, thaim, thae an thare is qhit I write
onywey.
>
>But having said that, my own memories of grappling with the
>difference between "there" and "their" in English at school
>suggest to me that grammar distinctions aren't easy to learn
>and make spelling difficult. Other examples are "who's/whose",
>and "your/you're". Semantically contrasting distinctions such
>as "as/is" and "pair/pare/pear" seem a lot easier to work with.

My kynd o approatch/approach (hard ane, cause the <oa> is no
etymological onywey - aesier in Sheitlan qhaur it's said [@p'rOtS]) wid
dui awa wi macks like <redd> (no necessar tae sinder frae _red_ cause
dhat's no a Scots mack onywey) an <ti> (again, I wad spell dhe adverb
<tui>). Sum ither word groups like pair/pare/paer (sae?) micht hae
etymological raesons for dhe spellin at wid be uisfu diaphonemicalli in
sum airts.
>
>> readability for those literate in English - such as etymological
>> spellings
>> of Latinate and Greek words - which Andy and I would consider not so
>> much
>> important as inescapable. It would depend what your aims and objectives
>> were.
>
>This is still just the question of what you're used to.

Aye. An, mair tae dhe pynt, qhit ye'r _no_ uized til, an sae winna ried.
>
>> Well, I suppose I'm only speaking from my own perspective, where the
>> practical purpose of any orthography is that it be accepted widely
>> enough
>> to assist literacy in the language. This is a tall order in any case as
>> far
>> as Scots is concerned, as it would require some sort of official backing
>
>Things have changed a bit from the days of the Spelling Committee.
>Now we have huge numbers of texts in Scots on public display (I'm
>talking about ScotsteXt now) and the wherewithal to have them
>presented in an alternative orthography of our choosing. There is
>also the feeling that some things will never die, no matter how
>small the following - just try searching the Web for Klingon,
>Shavian, or even the Futurama alien font! There are even very
>popular websites on how to devise your own alien language, some
>of which I believe were written by professional linguists. If we
>could get a really good orthography I would build a dictionary for
>it so that the ScotsteXt texts could be converted automatically. I
>could put up a service (ie an HTML form where you can paste a text
>and have it transliterated automatically) and perhaps other Scots
>writers and editors would use it to present their own stuff as
>alternative texts on their own site. Like I said, it's not necessary
>to have a large following, it would be enough to have a small
>following either gradually growing or at least keeping the thing
>alive so that it's there if the time ever becomes ripe (cue evil
>laughter :)

I wid still haud at dhe oanli thing tae dui is big on qhit's dhare
areddi.

I dinna think things haes chynged muckle sin the Spellin Comatee, except
at, at dhat time, dhae wir a norie hauden bi fowk siclike as mysel at wi
dhe onset o dhe new pairliment dhare wid be a new chance for Scots i dhe
naitional consciousness, an at the ettle ti reform orthographi wid be
ane o dhe stages in it. In fact, dhae'r nae chynge frae dhe auld regime,
qhaur it seems at dhaim at's maist influential ae'n i dhe 'pro-Scots'
lobbi is maistli agin orthographi an for haudin on tae qhit James
Robertson caa's the 'unrespectable' perception o Scots. In ither wirds,
oni concessions at dhe government feels thay _hiv_ ti mack ti Scots will
be airtit inti dhe auld lieterari an linguistic preoccupations.

(Interestin tae see, i dhe airticle on Limburgish, at beuks in schuils
is tae be pitten oot in five different dialects. Dhis michtna be as bad
as it soonds - gin ye pictur Shetland, Orkney an Caithness aa haein
dhair ain beuks, an the Doric wantin dhair ain anes tui - like dhay wid
- dhair wad be five differin kynds o Scots on the go. But it coud be at
dhis is the kynd o approatch at I'v been girnin aboot, pitten throu bi
dhaim at hauds the posietions o influence. It micht be at dhe Fabro an
Hammarshaimb wey o daein it is unpossible i the ideological environment
at's tae the fore nou. In idher wirds, it coud be at the days o ae'n
ettlin tae pit forrit minoriti lieds as richt languages is nou by.)

I dinna think we can tack qhit we oorsels duis on dhe net as examples o
chynge. Is ettlin at a smaa follaein no juist aimin at dhe aidge o dhe
tairget? (Onywey, stertin wi a smaa follaein wirks best if ye'r
crucifeed first!)
>
>Of course there would have to be some supporting site describing
>the orthography, perhaps with exercises, word games &c. Perhaps
>the "Orthography" appendix of my grammar pages could be used:
>
>http://sandyfleemin.org/grammar/orthography/history.asp
>
>But the first step is to devise the orthography, not worry about
>the opposition.

I coud spaek aboot sittin inventin a new gun qhile dhe enemi sodjers is
lowpin in dhe windae!

Wid ye be sendin things tae Lallans an Chapman in a radical spellin?

I'm areddies fed up sinderin <dh> frae <th> - ye widna think I wid find
it sae hard, qhit wi Shetlandic <d> correspondin tae <dh> - but I did
say dhis wis ettlin tae be a maximalist version. I widna haud wi it. (I
dinna ken aboot <qh> insteid o <wh>, an final <i> insteid o <y>, cause I
pat dhaim in syne wi sairch an replace. I tried baith <fh> an <qh> -
baith haein dhe advantage at dhay dinna suggest the SSD [W]
pronunciation automatic-like, an sae ye coud lairn NE bairns tae say
dhaim [f], an idhers tae say dhaim [W]. Dhe problem, i coorse, is at i
sum airts oanly dhe interrogative wirds - like _qha_, _qhit_ is said
[f], an the idhers - _qhiski_, _qhistle_ is said [W].)

Be(e)ginnin frae hier, ye coud aither mack it mair 'adaptit' (eg: dui
awa wi sum o dhe variants, like <ou>, seein at it's juist uized qhaur
dhae'r nae conflict wi Inglish <ou> = 'ow') or less adaptit, like daein
awa wi <dh>, <qh> an final <i> cause naebody wad thole dhaim, an
inhaudin mair expliecit variants like <u-e> (rule) an <e-e> (here). Dhan
tack dhe vue at for practical ettles dhae'r nae differ atween rael
etymologi an famieliariti, an ye coud pit in dhe likes o 'tongue' an
'come' an 'view', an end up wi mair or less dhe wey I write onywey.

>I haven't answered your more detailed points as I'm still looking
>at them!

A ill day for dhe warld qhan I gat my typin airms back! Still, gin I
kerri on like dhis, dhai winna lest lang!
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
=======================================================================