LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.28 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.FEB.2003 (04) * 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
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 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: Chris Ferguson <shoogly at ntlworld.com>
Subject: Pronunciation of "haud" and "auld" in Scots

Recently it was stated by Ian Parsley that he knew of no dialects of Scots
where the pronunciation of  the diphthongised sounds in "haud" and "auld"
was different.  I replied back saying that in my Edinburgh dialect ( South
East Central ) that they were pronounced differently. To take this matter
further I asked a friend from Perth how he pronounces them ( not telling him
my own pronunciation beforehand ) - his pronunciation of these words were
the same as mine and they were different sounds. As he is from Perth his
dialect is: North East Central Dialect. Later today I will be seeing a
friend from Shetland -so I'll ask him how he pronounces these words.

Chris Ferguson

----------

From: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.26 (13) [E]Ian wrote:

Ian James Parsley wrote:

> Thanks Chris,
>
> I suspected there was a distinction (between _auld_
> and _hauld_ - my spellings) in some dialects, most
> interesting that you confirm it.

The vowel in 'Auld' can be considered different from the vowel in 'haud'
because of the following /l/.

The <aul> in 'auld' has the underlying phonology (Sampa) /Al + Ol/
widespread, /al northern/ and /@ul in Antrim/. /Al/ is also used in Donegal
attested by the spelling 'auld' in Traynor and also in north Ulster
(Ballyrashane). In many dialects the final <d> may be silent.

The vowel in 'Haud' is generally /O or A/ in Scotland the unstressed form
'hud' also exists, especially when followed by a stressed adverb.

'Haud' comes from O.Sc. 'hald'. 'Hauld' would be the expected development as
in 'bauld' (bald), 'cauld' (cold), 'fauld' (fold) etc.
'Haud' seems to come from a short vowel form that seems to have followed a
development as in 'maut' (malt), 'saut' (salt) etc.

Interestingly noun forms seem to prefer 'hauld' as in 'hoose an hauld' etc.

In Ulster the form 'hauld' /@ul/ seems to be wide-spread though the form
'haud' is found in Donegal (Traynor)
The final <d> may be silent.

Though both words (auld, haud) use the cluster <au> there are infact two
clusters determining the underlying phonology <aul> and <au>.

> This of course opens up another problem of
> standardization. Do you go with a system that is
> etymologically based (in which case you would most
> likely have _hauld_, _auld_, _cauld_, _fauld_ etc), or
> based on current speech? If you go for the latter,
> which dialect? Although pandialectal is largely
> possible, we have now noted that East Central does
> distinguish in the above case, whereas Ulster (at
> least the dialects I'm familiar with) does not. To
> throw another spanner in the works, however, there is
> evidence that Ulster dialects *did* make a distinction
> from Ulster Scots literature (where you find forms
> such as _auld_, _haud_ and _caul_), and that the
> reconvergence may be a 'reanglicization' - although
> how reliable these sources are for phonology, we can't
> tell.

As you say - is the Ulster form 'hauld' a result of later contact with
Ulster English speakers or a result of it being taken to Ulster before the
'haud' form developed?

> All that said, with a bit of compromise and
> commonsense, none of this is remotely insurmountable.

The simplest compromise is to accept both 'haud' and 'hauld'. I would
suggest the unstressed form 'hud' not be used in 'formal' writing.

Andy Eagle

================================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.
 =======================================================================