LL-L "Grammar" 2002.09.14 (02) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.SEP.2002 (02) * 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 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: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Grammar"

> From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.09.10 (08) [E]
>
> It micht - is thare onie ither examples o 'is' swappin wi 'am'? Even i
the
> present historic, it's 'am' wi the first bodie, is it no?

That's richt.

> >
> >(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.)
>
> Is that no juist the present historic again? In Shetlandic I wad say -
'an
> dan I haes ta walk aa da wye tae da Sooth End...' or whitiver, but 'I'll
> laekly hae ta walk aa da wye...'

Ay, that's what A meant.

> I hae a feelin - for whit it's wirth - at the -s verb afore a pronoun is
> likely ta be a marginal uiss - it seems ti be haurd ti pin doun - an sae
> (except for whan it's the historic present) mair a dialogue nor a
> nairative
> strynd. Aa the examples ye'v gien me seems ti me ti be gey thirlt
> ti speak.

Graham Tulloch quotes at least ae Bible translator that uizes
this kin o thing, tho.

> The SNDA dictionars describes hou thair spellins wirks (or disna
> wirk, if ye
> like) tae, tho. Altho, come ti think on it, the description disna match
up
> wi whit thay actually dae.

Na, A'm juist spaekin aboot descriptions o spellin for readers,
no for writers. This is what Lorimer haes that naebody else dis
(weel, Robert Louis Stevenson dis, but it's nae guid!).

> Dis Lorimer's NT actually describe hou the spellin wirks, tho? The
> impression I get is at it tells ye hou ti pronunce the words, but

Like A says, this is the advantage.

> allocate the spellins. For example, whit wey haes he _ei_ in heiven an
> weill, but _ee_ in sheep an sheet, an i-acute in sick an scrive? Hou's a
> bodie ti figgur this oot? The difference seems ti be naither
etymological
> (sick/seek is a Auld English word) nor onie ither thing. An shuirly the
> 'seek' pronunciation is mair common still nor the 'ee' soond in words
like
> 'tradeetion'. Is it juist at he's haudin wi English spellins
> (sheet, sheep),
> an than uisin the 'Scots' <ei> whaur the pronunciation is
> different (heiven,
> weill) - but than, whit wey no _seik_? It seems ti me at, bi the time
ye'v
> raitionalised this eneuch ti can wirk it bi oniething ither nor memory o
> ilka word, ye'v gotten a different kynd o spellin aathegither. It's fine
> eneuch ti read, aince ye get the hang o't, but whit wad it be
> like ti write?

A'm aye forgettin that Lorimer taks nae tent o diaphonemics. This
is how A didna settle on uizin Lorimer's spellins the last time A
wis thinkin alang thir lines!

> it is - in ither words, whither ye can uise it kennin the principles,
> withoot haein ti leuk up ivery word - a thing ye canna dae
> oniewey, seein as
> it's a text no a word list, that mibbie bein ae raeson at it
> didna catch on
> better. If ye can naither apply principles nor leuk up words, but hiv ti

A think this is a important pynt, but it disna apply tae me,
wi the wey A writes saftware tae sort spellins automatic.
Some o the newer stuff on ScotsteXt haes haed improved spellins
applied automatic. This is duin wi a "spellin improvement"
dictionary, that replaces wirds in a batch o text files wi
improved spellins. A daud oot the dictionar (that's staunin at
aboot 10,000 wirds the nou) leuks like this:

aboon abuin
aboot aboot
aboot's aboot's
about aboot
above abuin
abroad abroad
absence absence
absurd absurd
abuin abuin

Like ye see, A rins this on a set o text files an it sorts
inconsistent spellins. This saftware haes features for
biggin dictionars fae texts an aa, sae in effeck A can hae
ony kin o spellin A want! What A'm thinkin is that A micht
set this up as "open saftware" an "open dictionars" on the
Wab sae's onybody can dae'd, syne haein tae leuk things up
wadna hae tae staun in folk's wey ony mair.


> lippen ti fowk myndin hou ti spell ilka word, I dout ye'r no backin a
> winner.

A dout no, altho the main airgyment against it for me is
Lorimer no haein a daecent diaphonemic system. This brings
me back tae a kin o scheme A aye seems tae settle on whan
A thinks aboot this:

  o  faa back on traditional spellin, but wale "James Inwick"
     as a example o a authoritative text for spellin (it's
     nae uise for grammar, tho the idiom's aa richt!);

  o  dae some obvious upgrades, the likes o takkin oot
     apostrophes an ither anglicisms like "maitter";

  o  shup a diacritic system takin tent o baith Lorimer's
     an Hunter's uise o diacritics.

  o  process "James Inwick" tae mak a dictionar;

  o  apply the dictionar tae "James Inwick" (efterhaun the
     dictionar can be boukit wi ither texts);

  o  uize the diacritic text tae mak samples o alternative
     orthographies automatic;

  o  pit texts on display for fowk tae vote on their preferred
     orthographies (that's ae idea, anither wad be tae ask the
     publisher tae wale fae the samples).

The guid thing aboot this is that the diacritic form is thare
for in case some o yer decisions isna as weel-liked as ye thocht
they'd be - ye'r no stuck wi them.

Examples o the diacritics that's wirth takkin fae Lorimer,
an the kin o spellins that could come fae them is:

generâtion -> generâtion, generation, generaution
awà -> awà, awa
spírit -> spírit, spirit, speerit

Examples fae Hunter (thir's adaptit bi masel, wi the wey
Hunter uizes them mainly tae mak the spellin leuk English):

güd(e) -> guid (this is juist nott if we're fashed aboot
                wirds like "guide")
päce -> paece, peace
bûll -> bûll, bul, bull

(Hunter uizes a caron for this "u"; "û" wis as near's
 A could git athoot wide characters).

The pynt is, o coorse, that wi computers we can experiment
wi orthography - we dinna hae tae set it in stane till it
comes tae settin it doun on paper!

If ye think this is aa a bit faur-fetched, think again, cause
ye'v seen mair o it than ye ken - it's no juist ScotsteXt stuff
that gits automatic processin, the last batch o poems A submittit
tae this list whaur they aa haed SAMPA versions - the SAMPA wis
generatit automatic fae the text, uizin the same saftware wi a
different dictionar! Ye didna think A sat an typit aa that oot
masel, did ye?  :)

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