LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.08 (02) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 08.FEB.2003 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * 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
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archives: 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) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject:  LL-L "Phonology" 2003.02.07 (13) [E]

Sandy wrote:

>If it's that widespread perhaps it means that 'strong' is
>the better spelling in Scots. Certainly I've noticed, as
>I think I said, that this word is written 'strong' by
>various traditional writers who otherwise write 'sang' &c.

This would seem to be a good point. However, it is unlikely to carry much
weight with Scots writers at large, who are likely to fall into the two
camps of 'purist' (strang, alang) and 'street' (strong, along). Some may
even do it the wrong way round (strang, along) - I have seen some writers
who use a lot of what I call modern colloquial forms (eg: 'taen' and 'seen'
as preterites) also using forms which as far as I know are obsolete, such as
'anely' or 'alanerly' (of course, this could be /O/ being perceived as /A/,
but I dout whether the writers who do this would make that connection). This
creates what I call 'registerless' Scots. (Aften gangs alang wi
leet-lowpin! - see 'But 'n Ben...'). Any attempt to say that 'strong' and
'lang' were the 'best' forms would be derided as prescriptionism (thare bein
nae sic thing as guid, lat alane best) and if you said that 'strong' and
'strang' were equally good but 'lang' and 'alang' better than 'long' and
'along' you might as well be talking about Quantum physics - because the
field of reference (traditional usage, as expressed in existing traditional
dialects and traditional literature - some of it distilled into a handy form
by Lorimer) is not recognised as any more viable than an arbitrary mixture
of traditional, modern colloquial, English and obsolete forms.
>
>The only context in which I've heard 'Strang' is as a
>surname. This reminds me of something I've always wondered
>about - in Muriel Sparks' Edinburgh-based English-language
>novel "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", one of the characters
>(an Edinburgh girl with a Scottish father and English mother)
>is called 'Sandy Stranger' - is this meant to be pronounced
>/'stre:ndZ at r/ or /'stra:N at r/?

Your guess...
>
>Anent the closed versus open short 'o' and stress patterns
>in Scots, a pronunciation I haven't been able to establish
>(the SND is really useless for this sort of thing, at least
>on a word-by-word basis) is that of 'nottice' for 'notice'.
>This is a spelling used by some traditional Scots writers but
>I don't know what they're trying to indicate by it. Are they
>trying to indicate that this is a short 'o', or that the
>stress is on the second syllable? My guess is that it's a
>short 'o' - what I'd like to know is, is 'notice' pronounced
>with the 'o' open in dialects where short 'o's are pronounced
>open or is it pronounced as in English? If the 'o' were open
>in those dialects then I'd know that 'nottice' really is the
>better spelling for this word in Scots.

This is curious. In Shetlandic the pronunciation is ["nOtis], but as
Shetlandic - in contrast to Central Scots - often substitutes [O] for [o]
even in English cognate words (eg: coat as 'cot', road as 'rod') I have
always just assumed that this was a Shetlandism. I presume that your
references come from traditional and not 'enthusiast' Scots - it's not
unknown for Scots writers to put Shetland forms in willy-nilly just because
they happen to be different from the English forms, even though they might
contradict normal Scots phonology.

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

----------

From: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject:  LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.07 (08) [E]

Sandy Fleming wrote:
> > From: Andy Eagle
> >
> > 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.

What I mean is a system that is maximally internally consistant. There will
of course always be exceptions to any rules for various reason especially
where one 'rule' may conflict with another.
Just because some or many of the conventions used are similar to, or shared
with English is not the issue. It's whether they are applied in a maximally
internally consistant manner.
Of course maybe consistantly internally inconsistant is a form of internal
consistancy but is it maximal?

For example what is often seen in Scots writing is 'waiter' but 'maitter'
where because 'waiter' is shared with English it remains the same but an <i>
is inserted into matter to make it 'Scots'. This results in two spelling
conventions for /et at r/. (The Glottal is a realisation o /t/) Similarly
'hairy' - 'cairry', 'manner' - 'mainer' etc.
'swap', 'want' and 'wash' spellt 'swaap', 'waash' etc. but 'mak' (make)
where I would argue <a> for /a/ is internally consistant.
'spune', 'muin', 'aboon', 'flair', 'mair', 'muir', 'gweed' etc. and 'look',
'buik', 'neuk' etc. in one piece of writing each group with the same
underlying phoneme, though rendered differently in different dialects.
'minister' but 'meenit' or 'meinit' etc.
'buckle' but 'mukkil', 'houss' but 'about' and not 'aboutt' etc.
'ingle' but 'singil' etc.
Running words together 'gonnae' for 'gaun tae' , 'kinna' for 'kin o' cf.
English 'wanna' for 'want to', 'gonna' for 'going to' - classics of
'dialect' writing.
Phonological spellings instead of etymological ones 'awfie', 'offy', 'affi',
'affa' for what is 'awe' + 'fou/fu' e.g. 'awfu'.

I'm sure you are aware of many more.

<snip>

> 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).

I have difficulty talking 'broad' when 'broad' is not what I am getting
back.

> 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.

For arguments sake take 'mínister' with a diacritic (I hope it turned out).
Unless people who are interested make the effort to learn how the diacritics
are used they will probably be ignored. One could write 'meenister' an leave
it those who wish to say 'minister' to say so instead - not a very good
argument I admit.
Though it is certainly true such inconspicuous diacritics do not ruin the
legibility of a text. I always assumed Lorimer simply used them as a
pronunciation guide for those unfamiliar with Scots hence his 'gíe' in order
to avoid it being rhymed with 'pie'.

> > 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  :|

Try the following: (This list in no way either a positive or negative
endorsement of the persons concerned but simply a confirmation of the
existence of "Scots language experts")
http://www.sol.co.uk/m/merlinpress/questions.html "The Merlin Press has
access to numerous language experts"
http://www.itchy-coo.com/whit.html "a team of three experts in the Scots
Language"
http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/files/board.htm "One of several language
and culture experts on the Board"
http://www.jtbairns.com/derek.htm "writer and Scots language expert"

> > 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.

"> 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."

But they need a 'manual' or instruction in order to learn how to read their
own language in the way it is being orthographically represented with or
without diacritics.

<snip>

Andy Eagle

----------

From: Dan Prohaska [daniel at ryan-prohaska.com]
Subject: "Orthography"

Sandy wrote:

>When I did suggest using anspelling 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.

The idea of a pan-dialectal standard All-Scots (including Ullans)
appeals to me. It is my impression that the Scots language is in a state
in which it would require serious language planning to achieve
respectability as a public medium beyond folkloristic contexts. Not
linguistically, but sociolingustically it is reduced to a
"dialect"-function (what is generally regarded as the 2dialect2 context,
not what most of us Lowlanders consider to be dialect). English is its
standard "roof" while Scots has fragmented. People lose touch and a feel
for the languages as it is spoken in other areas of the country. This is
a common phenomenon in a group of dialects that lack a standard, i.e.
Breton, only the dialect of the native parish is considered correct, all
other varieties are wrong, incorrect and bad Breton. From similar
discussion here I get the impression that Scots dialect boundaries seem
difficult to overcome, not in speech, but in writing. So how can a
planned standard language be constructed? Would it help to raise the
profile and prestige of the dialects? I think it could, if variety and
dialect speech is somthing that is always promoted while giving the new
standard its own place next to or opposite the old standard (i.e.
Scottish English). What are the options for creating this "new" Scots
orthography?

It might be helpful to look at two Scandinavian languages with strong
dialectal divesity, which used Danish as a standard language in the
past: New-Norwegian and Faroese; (Icelandic is different here as it
shows next to no dialectal variation). Orthographies were created quite
recently for these languages. For me a pan-dialectal etymological
approach would be desirable, however taking into account exsting Scots
literature and building something a little more consistent. First of all
a common phonemic base for Scots has to be established. From then on we
can pick out the most common spellings in the texts and in use, and
assign these to the phonemes. A word like "good" would be spelt <guid>
ragardless of dialect, as dialect speakers know how to pronounce it
anyway. A word like "took" would have the spelling <tuik> as the both go
back to an Old Anglian form /o:/; I`m no expert in Scots, but I`m sure
the mechanisms applied in other languages such as New-Norwegian and
Faroese can be applied by finding a compromise between etymological,
phonemic and historical forms. It would thus not debase a new Scots
orthography from the Scots texts written to date, but would function as
a standard for all Scots dialects nonetheless.

There is also the possibility of departing from historical Scots
radically and creating something new altogether. This may however not be
accepted by the majority; or maybe it would, who knows, if the goal is
to be as far away from let´s say, English, then it might work. Now what
I`m giving here as examples is just messing about. I`m not competent in
Scots to make any proposals which can be taken seriously, but it´s just
to demonstrate practically what I`m getting at in general. So dear Scots
speakers, forgive my general ignorance and bear with me a little, may
the competent speakers will be inspired to extrapolate on one of my
proposals:

"Sae fill up yer glasses, let the bottle gae roon
fur the sun has come up, tho the mune hae gane doon
an if the room be rinnin roon anoot, there`s time aneuch tae flit
fur when we fell, we aye got up again, an sae will we yet!"

This I think is more or less traditional Scots orthography. I think we
can make it more consistent by looking at the historical phonemes and
giving the historical vowel the same spelling. And maybe we can do away
with the magic-e:

"Sae fill up yer glassis, let the bottel gae roun
fer the sun has cum up, tho the muin hae gaen doun
an if the roum be rinnin roun about, thaer`s tym enuich tae flit
fer when we fell, we ay got up egen, an sae will we yet!"

-<bottle> => <bottel>
-<roon> => <roun> from original /rund/ with lengthened /u:/ => <roun>
-<doon> => <doun> from original /dún/, the same applies to <room> and
<aboot> => so we have <roum> and <about>, though spelt as it is in
English - the pronunciation is different, but if we change the
unstressed vowel to <e>, we have <ebout>;
-whether we use <u> or <e> as the neutral vowel schwa in unstressed
position is arbitrary, for consistency´s sake I choose <e>, hence <fer>
and <yer>
- the underlying phoneme of <sun>, <come> and <up> is the same, => <u>
fo all => no magic-e => <cum> (<k> before <e>, <i>, <y>; <c> before <a>,
<o>, <u>)
-<mune> historically has /o:/ as does <guid>, <tuik> etc. => <muin>, the
same goes for "enough" => <enuich>
-<gae> and <gane> have the same vowel => <gae> and <gaen>
-what to do about diphthongised old /i:/, we pull magic-e into the root
vowel giving us <tiem> (I don`t think this is a good idea, as <ie> is
used as something else in traditional Scots orthography). Scots has <y>,
and we can look to another LL-L that uses <y> in the same position -
Afrikaans: so why not: <tym>
-pronouns and other functional high frequency words having both stressed
forms and unstressed forms have to be treated separately, and I`m
clearly not knowledgeable enough to make even an educated guess.

We could also add etymological <d> where it belongs, as a Scots speaker
would know anyway where it is silent.

"Sae fill up yer glassis, let the bottel gae round
fer the sun has cum up, tho the muin hae gaen doun
and if the roum be rinnin round ebout, thaer`s tym enuich tae flit
fer when we fell, we ay got up egen, an sae will we yet!"

Something a little more radical could look like this:

"Sae fil ap yer glasis, let the botl gae rúnd
fir the san has kam ap, tho the mún hae gaen dún
and if the rúm bee rinin rún ebút, thaer`s tym enúch tae flit
fir when wí fel, wí ay got up agen, an sae wil wí yet!"

The idea here is to indicate historical long vowels, as well as
historical short vowels that underwent early lengthening common to all
Scots dialects with <´>, an <l> and <v> following a vowel with <´> would
be silent (<ae> would be treated like a vowel + <´>; I`d retain
word-final <ie>:

<ál> = Sc <aa> = E "all"
<háld> = Sc <haud> = E "hold"; but <held> = "held";
<gév> = Sc <gie> = E "give" => <gévd> Sc <gied>;
<bráv> = Sc <braw> = E "fine"
<káld> = Sc <cauld> = E "cold"
<dréch> = Sc <dreich> = E "dull, bleak"
<bréks> = Sc <breeks> = E "trousers, underpants"
<shún> = Sc <shoon> = E "shoes"
<krá> = Sc <craw> = E "crow"
<tyk> = Sc <tike> = E (contemtuous term for a)"dog"
<áld lang syn>
<it´s e saer fecht>
<let´s shút the krá>
<the warld´s gaen gyt álthegither>
<wí mán ay thól a wén óv trabl>
<ay, the nicht`s ar faer dráin in>
<my fét ar saer>   <my> could be <ma> here in unstressed position;
<a tang in yer héd>
<hae yí onie spanks?>
<kam yí by traen?>
<dinae jí bé gaein and getin yerselv ál makie>
<shí grú sae fúl shí cúd nae múv>
<the man thet A herd them spékin óv>
<yí kan waet til the ky kams haem>
<ar yí daft?>
<A`m nó>
<yí ar só>
<A`v bén waetin on e bas fir maer nor en úr>
<hí`s biger nor mí bat A`m nó fért fir him>
<hí karid on décent lyk>

"What fir mán wi thól wé ladies
when thae ar sik áfúl badies!
Fir insampl let mí saev yí
Frae a paer lyk Dod and Daevie
Wha insté óv tryin harder
Te bé gúd lads, get nae farder;
Slé wé déls, thae smirk an sniker,
lachin gars thaer badnes siker."

<a> = /a/
<á> = /O/
<e> = /E/ (and unstressed /@/)
<é> = /i/
<i> = /@/, /A/ (and unstressed /I/)
<í> = /I/
<o> = /O/
<ó> = /o/
(<u>) = <a> = /a/
<ú> = /y/
<ie> = /i/ in word-final position
<y> = /@i/ (and /a:i/ is some positions)

Alright you Scots speakers out there - give it to me. No in all honesty
I`m looking forward to reading what you think.....

Yehes da lemmyn ha woja hemma ynwedh,
Dan

==================================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>.
=======================================================================