LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.07 (08) [E]

Fri Feb 7 20:08:42 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.FEB.2003 (08) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
<http://www.lowlands-l.net> * admin at lowlands-l.net
<mailto:admin at lowlands-l.net> * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
<mailto: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
<mailto: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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

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

> From: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.01 (02) [E]
>
> treated as an independent linguistic system. Scotch can't be independent
> because English is the norm. Other Scotch dialects of English

I know this was intended as satire, Andy, but is it possible
that you're parodying yourself? When I did suggest using an
spelling system independent of English (about the beginning
of last year, I think it was), you said it wasn't a good idea
because it wasn't familiar, and by familiar you meant what
was taught in schools, ie English.

> I assume the  represents something like 'ull'. But do some
> people not pronounce it 'ill' as well in some Scots dialects?

Yes but that's not a problem, since the diacritics are
just reminders to apply non-English pronunciation or stress.

> What about 'ever' as 'iver' ['Iv at r, 'iv at r, 'E"v at r]

Nah!  :)

The reason is that there's no precedent in the literature.
Of course, you could pile on all the diacritics you think
necessary, but I'm trying to tap into what two of the most
conscientious writers of Scots have found worthwhile in the
past. In this way I can draw on their wisdom and learning
instead of falling back on my own foolishness and ignorance.

> The diacritics may well simply be a representation of a pronounciation a
> particular dialect.

I don't think so. Most of these things can be seen in
written Scots from Berwickshire to Buchan, and in my own
area the older generation uses them more frequently than
the younger (my own generation is a sort of half-way house:
I often find myself talking with more English pronunciations
with strangers or those that talk more anglified Scots).

It's quite clear that these traditional diacritics act
as sentinels for pronunciations that are on the way
out because of the fact that Scots isn't taught. I think
it's a very good idea to supply these indications in
diacritic form so that they can be ignored by those who
don't care and yet leave the choice open for those who do.

> I can understand the need for some kind of aid for learners in order to
> avoid assuming because a spelling is similar or the same as in English the
> pronounciation is as well. Is this kind of aid of course not that
> which the
> Scots language experts advocate? Spelling Scots dialects based on
> the sound
> to letter correspondences of standard English. The norm with which most
> English speaking people are familiar.

What do you mean by "Scots language experts"? I haven't a
clue what you're talking about  :|

> How about simply using a kind of colour code for learner texts. Where the

I'm not talking about learner texts (though I may have given
the wrong impression with my two bullet points) - the fact
that the diacritics would be useful to learners is incidental
to the fact that modern Scots speakers who would like to speak
the best possible Scots need pointers due to the lack of their
education in Scots.

> isn't an option;-) . If people pronounce pull, bull etc. the
> English way its
> because they didn't RTFM. No amount of graphemes or colour coding will
> hinder that because such things will be in the 'manual'.

What manual? Nobody learns their mother tongue by reading
a manual, and few are given any further instruction in
Scots when they go to school.

> With a colour system the orthography remains the same so with
> time learners
> will learn to map the pronunciations of whole words where they
> deviate from
> the basic sound map i.e. they will learn the exceptions off by heart.

Similarly with the sort of optional diacritics used
traditionally in Scots, except the technological problems
with diacritics are far fewer.

One of the problems facing the language these days is that
many parents no longer bother to impart good Scots to their
children - they don't correct their pronunciation, for example,
if it contradicts the English pronunciation that everybody's
been learning in school. This isn't a phonological process -
it's a language choice which is one of the early stages in
giving up and losing the language altogether.

Unfortunately people who would pass on the best possible
Scots if they could (and there are definitely very many
Scots speakers with a strong desire to do so but not the
learning to do so with confidence) gradually sink into
the same sort of problems due to there being no-one who
can be bothered to remind them of the Scots pronunciation
when they unconsciously start absorbing English
pronunciations emanating from the schools.

Many Scots speakers pronouncing words like 'program' or
'matress' with the stress on the second syllable would
even find their pronunciation corrected, even by some
other Scots speakers. If a book, any book, with indicative
diacritics could be produced, the argument could soon be
settled even without a proper grasp of how the orthography
works.

Again there are Scots speakers who use familiar pronunciations
like 'meenister' or 'opeenion'; but with less familiar latinate
words that they've only encountered in their English reading,
don't have anything to reassure them about whether it would be
right to pronounce the stressed 'i' the same way. With a
diacritic, the principles (eg it's a pronunciation appropriate
to all latinate words, with a stressed 'i') are much clearer
and can be applied with confidence by those who so wish.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
<mailto: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
<mailto:listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org>> or at
<<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>>.
 =======================================================================