LL-L "Orthography" 2008.09.20 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 20 September 2008 - Volume 05
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================


From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

I wrote:

I totally agree that in most cases the use of the apostrophe is non-sensical
where it refers to *English* standards. It can be justified only if it
stands for elesions in Scots itself. Writing *-in'* for *-in* (= English *
-ing*) is *never* justifiable since in Scots it *never* alternates with the
"ing" sound.

Enter examples like *ca'* for what you write *caw* (or *caa*) [kɑ:] 'call',
and *fu'* for what you write *fou* 'full'. (I wonder if *fu'* is meant to
show that the pronunciation is not as in "few" but as in "foo" [fu:].) Your
spelling is consistent with the spelling in other words such as
*house*[hu(:)s] 'house' you and Sandy have been using, although in
your dictionary
(http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary/) you're still spell it the
conventional way: *hoose*.

Enter the devil's advocate. This treatment of etymological *-ll* would fall
in the category of trying to spell phonetically rather than either
phonemically or etymologically. Why? In most instances there are
alternations in which the underlying /-l/ "re"-appears, such as in *caw* [kɑ:]
~ *callin* [ 'kɑ:ɫen] 'call' ~ 'calling', and *pou* [pu:] ~ *pullin* ['pʊɫen]
(~ ['pʌɫen]) 'pull' ~ pulling'. Final /l/ is absorbed by and lengthens the
preceding vowel.

In other words, I'm suggesting that, unless you want to spell "phonetically"
for the Sasanach, the final /l/ ought to be written as such, because a
Scots-specific phonological rule requires final /l/ to be "deleted" but
otherwise pronounced, thus, e.g.

*call ~ callin* (rather than *caw ~ callin*)
*pull ~ pullin* (rather than *pou ~ pullin*)
*fall ~ fallin* (rather than *faw ~ fallin*)
*small ~ smaller* (rather than *smaw ~ smaller*)
*troll ~ trollin* (rather than *trowe ~ trollin* 'to troll', 'to trundle')

Where there is no such alternation, you have to decide if you want to go by
sound or by etymology; e.g.

*aw* or *all*
*haw* or *hall*
*staw* or *stall*
*baw or ball*
*waw* or *wall*
*fou* or *full* (~ *fuller*?)
*gou* or *gull*
*bou* or *bull*
*trowe *or *troll *('troll' noun)

It doesn't matter if etymology and the convenience of the Sasanach are
disregarded.

In some cases, the shift / > *w* has sunk to the phonemic level, and the
"ll" spelling would not be appropriate; e.g.

*row* [rʌʊ] ~ *rowin* ['rʌʊen] 'roll' ~ 'rolling'
(cf. also *rowie* ['rʌʊi] 'bread roll')


Or was I totally wrong and the /l/ surfaces in any of those cases? Probably
not, because I know cases such as *callin caird*, *pullin doon the kirk*,
and *a smirr o rain was fallin*, versus *the rowin clouds* ... unless
*ll*is pronounced [w] in those cases.

Incidentally, in quite a few languages velarized final /l/ is realized as
[w] in quite a few languages, which is what is really going on here in the
case of Scots. Among them is Brazilian Portuguese; e.g.



Portugal

Brazil

*Portugal*

[pʊɾtuˈgaɫ]

[pʊʁtuˈgaw] ~ [pʊʁtuˈgaʊ

*Brasil*

[bɾɐˈzɪɫ]

[bʁaˈzɪw] ~ [bʁaˈzɪʊ]

*brasileiro*

[bɾɐˌzɪˈlɐɪɾʊ]

[bʁaˌzɪˈlɛɪʁʊ]


Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080920/ba9b1320/attachment.htm>