LL-L "Grammar" 2002.09.10 (08) [E]

Tue Sep 10 19:39:15 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 10.SEP.2002 (08) * 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 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 D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Grammar"

> From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.09.08 (04) [S]
>
> Sandy wrate:
> >
> >It could be that A'm wrang aboot this - aiblins A'm gittin
> >mixed up wi the like o "Wis ye..." that's gey uizual.
>
> Ay, I'm fameeliar wi that - that seems ti be peculiar ti 'wis', tho. But
> thare coud aesy be some ither uiss at I'm no acquant wi frae your airt.

A wis thinkin aboot this this mornin, an doutit A'd gotten ma verbs a
bittie fanklt here. A'd been thinkin on the "'s" in the like o "Hou's
A tae..." as staunin for "haes", but in fack it stauns for "is"! Like,
"Hou's A tae..." is anither wey o sayin "Hou am A tae...". It micht be
that it's juist the verb "tae be" cannin gae aither wey like wi is/ar,
micht it no?

That wad explain how we dinna hear it that aften - cause "am" wad be
fine an aa here, an likely mair uizual. A canna tie it in wi aathing
else, tho - wad it be richt tae say, "A's tae gaun tae Ternent the
nicht"? A dinna think sae. At the same time, A still thinks "Haes A
tae gaun..." soonds naitral, but no "A haes tae..." - sae aiblins it
is something tae dae wi'd aither bein a question, or wi the verb bein
afore the pronoun.

(A bittie a caveat thare: it wad be aaricht tellin a story and sayin,
"...sae A haes tae gaun tae Ternent that nicht..." but "A haes tae
gaun tae Ternent the nicht" disna soond richt.)

Ye'll notice A'm uizin "gaun" here for "gang" wi the wey A hae tae
think in ma ain dialeck for tae juidge if a thing's naitral or no!

> Mynd, ye div get hine orra uisses in onie language at disna seem ti fit
> onie reuls - like 'aren't I' in English.

That could aye be it - as lang's we dinna faa back on this ower suin!

> think is a bittie 'heavy'. For example, 'whilk' is aaricht frae the pynt
> o view o grammar, but it belangs a style mair formal nor I wad like ti
> write mysel. Same thing wi pittin -na on the end o verbs at's no modal -
> the likes o 'bedditna'.

A think this is Lorimer sayin that he sees hissel as in the
historical tradition o Scots Bible translation - the translators
afore him wrate this wey an aa. In this case he's no tryin tae be
a model for fowk writin modern Scots, an no juist dis this dae nae
herm (at least tae thame as kens their Scots!), it uphauds an
develops a important writin style in traditional Scots that
itherwice fowk micht loss aathegither.

> I'm feart at, gin ye'r leukin for a authoratative spellin, the only
> candidate is the SNDA spellin in the Scots School Dictionary and the
> Concise English Scots Dictionary. Colin's takkin this on for his beuk
> shaws this - he haed a chyce ti mak, an he nae dout waled oot this,
> maugre it's fauts, juist cause o the authority o the SNDA. Sae,
> typically o Scotland, ye get spellin bein determined bi thaim at disna
> really haud wi spellin.

Whan it comes tae spellin, thae dictionars is nae uiss as faur as A
can see. It's no exackly "authority" A'm efter for the novel, it's
mair for what A'm gaun tae say whan fowk say A'v spelt a wird a wey
they dinna haud wi. Gin A bases the spellin on Lorimer A can say,
"Lorimer spelt it that wey." This seems tae me tae be better than
sayin "It's spelt like that in the SND," - aabody kens the SND lists
aa kin o antrin spellins.

As weel, Lorimer haes twathree muckle advantages ower Hunter, the SND
an aathing else - it's the ae beuk that's aesy gotten an describes
hou its spellin wirks. This means A could refer fowk tae Lorimer for
a description o the spellin system. In practice, o coorse, A'd mair
like explain it in the beuk, for fowk that disna hae Lorimer, but it
micht be the first step on the road tae readers no haein tae lairn a
new system for every beuk they read!

> I wad say the same thing wad gang for grammar. Maugre Lorimer, an
> certainly maugre you, me, Andy, an likely even Colin, gin thare's onie
> standard grammar iver proponed for Scots it'll be the James Robertson
> type - written bi defaut bi fowk at disna haud wi grammar, an sae can
> only write English. Bi refuisin ti tak pairt in the spellin comatee, the
> SNDA made shuir at thair existin ad-hoc approach ti spellin gaed
> unchallenged. The same wey, bi refuisin ti consider grammar, the likes o
> Robertson gets the richt ti estaiblish thair ain unconsidered grammar as
> a standard.

But we div hiv Colin nou!

> Naething wrang wi diacritics as lang's thay'r optional. Houaniver, it's
> better ti uise digraph equeevalents - eg: _ie_ for i-acute, etc. An
> exception wad be the grave accent at he uises on words like _ava_ whaur
> it shaws the stress on the last syllable, an possibly on words like
> _want_. It depends, tae, on whither ye want ti emphasise the 'ee' soond
> in words like 'tradeetion', or leave it optional the wey it's faan oot o
> uiss in maist Mainland Scots nou (a guid uiss for the diacritic) or
> juist leave the etymological <i>.

A think the guid thing aboot the i-acute diacritic is it can
be read aither wey (Lorimer's son says this in his spellin crib).

Whatanever, A div agree that diacritics tae shaw certain stresses
(same as in Welsh) is never a bad idea.

> The boddom line is at nae extant spellin is saitisfectory wi'oot some
> interficherin.

Ay, this leaves me wi the question o whether tae fouter aboot
wi'd or no. We shuirly kens bi this that exack, consistent spellin
o every wird is never possible, an there comes a time tae say,
richt, this is guid eneuch, we'll tak it wi aa its fauts. For example,
A dinna like the wey Lorimer writes "storie" insteed o "story" (or
for that maiter "I" insteed o "A"), but what dis it maiter what A
dinna like, if the readers disna like ma preferred spellins ony mair
than Lorimer's?

It micht be that nou we'v a New Testament in a spellin that's
no aathegither ignorant, we'v landit at the place whaur gin
we dinna settle on this, we'll never settle on onything.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

==================================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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================