LL-L "Orthography" 2008.09.21 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 21 September 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2008.09.20 (03) [E/S]

Sandy wrate:


Ay', no' ba'd, y'e ken'! Hou's yerse'l?



Daein fine masel.

I've seen the antrin scrieve whaur a body'll pit a apostrophe at the end

o a word for nae ither raeson but that it's a Scots word. I canna gie ye
ony acual examples juist aff the luif, but it happens whaur the writer's
pittin doun mair English than Scots an wull write something like, "I
thought I'd take a turn about the auld' place and see if I still knew
anybody."



Ay, A'v seen siclike an aw, but real examples is aye mair better nor ony A
coud cleck masel seein A micht juist shuit amang the dous an come up wi
something unlikely.

Ron wrote: > Subject: Orthography



But thoughts and comments I do have, as usual, and the devil's advocate is
never far away.

The usual question is "Phonemic or etymological?" (leaving aside attempts at
making standard orthographies phonetic).  The two approaches don't yield
identical results, and etymology along with 15th-century orthography tends
to dominate in the "Anglic" world. In either cases, orthographic devices
used in predominant English are "naturally" used in the sister languages
Scots and (Southern) Northumbrian. And therein lies the problem, because
English devices are used inconsistently, each signalling various readings.



Historically both Scots and English share a lot of orthographic conventions
anyway. Especially since the 18th century.



To lessen the "mess," you could and perhaps should regularize the spelling
in Scots by at least partly "phonemicizing" the system in that you use a
given English-derived device consistently for the same phoneme. Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I think that's the type of system you are shooting for.

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.



Using apsotrophes for Scots elisions is perfectly acceptable.
Some devices may be English-derived but they are what has generally been
used in 18th and 19th century and later Scots writing. That is the
literature from which I think any 'standard', or at least regularised usage,
should derive. Going back to Older Scots ignores some 300 years of literary
history. Moreover such conventions are familiar to those acquainted with
what was once popular Scots literature.  More is likely to be achieved if it
is firmly grounded what is, or at least was, familiar (thus traditional and
arguably authentic) than something completely new, obscure, esoteric or
archaic.



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* ['pʊɫ
en]
(~ ['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')



The /l/ doesn't appear in inflected forms.

The /l/ in /al/ was apparently vocalised (except intervocalically and before
/d/) sometime in the early 15th century. Now /a(:), ɑ(:), ɔ:/ or /o̧:/. (so
also saut (salt) etc.) Similarly with /ul/ which became /u:/. The <l> was
retained in Older Scots orthography as a marker of vowel lenth hence place
names like Balmalcolm [bɑ:'məko:m], Falkirk [fɑ:'kɪrk], Kirkcaldy [kər'kɑ:di],
Culros ['ku:rəs] and Culter ['kutər].
The vocalised /l/ in /ol/ eventually became diphthongised to /ʌu/ hence cowt
(colt). The <l> as a marker of vowel length occasionaly made appearances
where it wasn't etymological, for example nolt (nowt) from Old Norse naut,
cf. neat. There is a road called Nolt Loan Road in Arbroath (loan is cognate
with English lane).



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)



fou /fu:/ and full /fʌl/ are doublets it Scots, as are pou /pu:/ and pull /p
ʌl/. The suffixed form was usually -fu' variously pronounced /fu, fə, fɑ, fɪ,
fɛ/ leading to spellings such as awfu', awfu, awfae, awfy, awfie, afa, affa,
awfi, aafa, affy, aafu, aafi, aafae, affa' and aafie etc. The <l> in bull /b
ʌl/ survived.

As for word final vocalisation of <l>:

Traditionally with an apostrophe:
ca' ~ ca'in ~ ca'er ~ ca'd or ca'ed

Simply do without an apostrophe:
ca ~ cain ~ caer ~ cad or caed The inflected forms cause problems because
the <ai> and <ae> would indicate a different vowel, it could be clarified
with an apostrophe ca'in ~ ca'er ~ ca'd or ca'ed, but the intention is to
avoid apostrophes.

Resolve that by doubling the <a> to <aa>
caa ~ caain ~ caaer ~ caad or caaed, the double <aa> not really being a
traditional grapheme in Scots though not unknown in Northern and Insular
dialect writing to indicate their realisation (/a:/) of what is usually <au>
(and sometimes <aw>) generally /ɑ(:), ɔ:/ or /o̧:/ in other dialects. Auld,
cauld etc. And arguably the particualr clusters <aai> and <aae> appearing
somewhat alien when compared to the used of other vowel graphemes.

Since <aw> (perhaps <au>, though the SND observes that "the spelling for
either [/ɑ:/ or /o̧:/] is au or, when final, aw") is an existing grapheme
for the vowel in question I find it a better choice than <a'>, <a> (less
apostrophe) or <aa>.
caw ~ cawin ~ cawer ~ cawed all avoiding some of the problems occuring
above, insisting on the inflection <ed> rather than cawd.

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] ~ *row*in ['rʌʊen] 'roll' ~ 'rolling'


(cf. also *rowie* ['rʌʊi] 'bread roll')

What say you?


Generally speaking etymology can not be ignored completely but how far back
does one go? <l(l)> may have worked fine in the past as a marker of vowel
length but has since the 18th century generally been replace by an
apostrophe and more recently conventions such as <aw> or <aa> have arisen.
What about <ol> for /ʌu/, <gh> instead of <ch> for /x/, <oo> (arguably an
English import) for what was Anglo-Saxon /o:/ in for example moon or aboon
(møn, myn, mɪn, min, ə'bøn, ə'byn, ə'bɪn, ə'ben, ə'bin), the spellin <oo>
not unknown in Scots writing though never /u/ in such words. The more
traditional graphemes being <ui> or <u-e>, the latter perhaps now also
indicating /u/. Since the vocalisation of <l> has sunk to the phonemic level
a grapheme that represents the underlying phoneme in question would seem the
better choice; so from braw and snaw etc. (forms such as bra' and sna' occur
in literature, but does the apostrophe represent a supposed elision or is it
being used as a marker of vowel length (why not *bral and *snal?), or is it
even one of those pointless apostrophes I'm looking for?) one can have aw
and caw etc. For /ʌu/ <ow> is preferable over <ou> which in Scots is
traditionally /u/, now easily cofused with the English /ʌʊ/, hence the
spelling hoose, though arguably, you are right, strictly speaking it should
be house.

Andy

----------

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

Thanks a lot for clarifying all that, Andy. I found this helpful in better
appreciating the problem and comparable problems in other minority languages
without fixed spelling rules.

Obviously, I was misinformed or rather assumed incorrectly on the basis of
the current orthographies floating around, that the /l/ after back vowel
does surface in inflected forms. Wherever it does not surface -- and
according to your information that's pretty much in all cases, except some
doublets -- I see no reason to write it.

If I may as an outsider, I suggest that in such instances historical /l/ be
consistently written <w>. Consistency seems advisable to me for various
reasons. Among the more important reasons are that, usually standing for a
glide ("semi-vowel"), <w> best represents the "vocalization" of /l/, <w>
would break up strings of vowel letters, and consistent correspondence of
historical /l/ and written <w> would facilitate reading from an English
angle as well, making the representation look neither particularly English
nor particularly foreign. Granted, the sequence <uw> may look odd at first.
But I put it to you that it looks no less odd than do examples like *caain*and
*pouin*. I believe you are on the same general path, Andy, but I don't know
what you think about the consistency argument.

*all > aw [**ɑ**:]*
aw
caw, cawin, cawer, caws*, cawd
baw, baws
faw ~ fawin ~ faws
haw, haws
smaw, smawer
staw, stawin, staws, stawd
waw, wawin, waws, wawd

*oll > ow [**ʌʊ**]*
row, rowin, rows, rowd
trow, trowin, trows, trowd

*ull > uw [u:]*
buw, buws
fuw
guw, guws
puw, puwin, puws, puwd

* *caws* 'calls' versus *caw's* (< *caw us* 'call me/us')

For what it's worth, I rather like the idea of sticking to <ui> in words
like *muin*, *abuin* and *cuil*. It seems "phonetically evocative" enough to
me for covering the dialectical range. It would be less "evocative" and
would be in favor of the round vowel varieties if you reserved <oo> for it.
Within an "Anglic" context, it stands alone, thus does not suggest other
sounds.

The use of the apostrophe for anything other than language-internal omission
(and for distinguishing genitive marking from plural marking if you must
follow this tradition) seems inadvisable to me in that it is basically
misleading and confusing. Assigning more than one purpose to one symbol is
rarely a really good idea, unless the contexts are clearly separated, and
generally understandably so.

*This muckle frae the fremmit's neuk for nou.*

Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080921/8fa609cc/attachment.htm>