LL-L "Orthography" 2012.11.20 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L]

=====================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L - 20 November 2012 - Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================

From: Andy andy at scots-online.org
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2012.11.19 (03) [EN]

Sandy wrote:

 I haven't started reading this book yet, but would like to discuss the
> idea of what a standard language is, especially with respect to the current
> situation in Scots. Not that the >subject hasn't been done to death in the
> past; but my ideas have changed since then, so it needs doing to death
> again.
>

 The situation with Scots is that nobody agrees on how it should be
> written. There are groups that agree vaguely, but even within these groups,
> an agreement that would >produce a standard form of the language isn't
> forthcoming. Indeed, it's very rare for a writer in Scots to even agree
> with himself (women writers not excluded!), and the only >way I can achieve
> self-consistency without an external standard is by concordancing on a
> computer.
>

 I haven't actually explained what I would consider to be a standard form
> of a language. Maybe I could give a few examples to start.
>

 Like Catalan, a standard form of the language would make it possible to
> publish regular newspapers in the language that everyone's happy to read.
>

 Like Finnish, it would be a form that people can write consistently even
> if nobody actually speaks it.
>

 Like English, any variations would be generally understood and not
> significant enough to be worth worrying about (eg colour vs color: I know
> some people moan about this, >but that's nationalism rather than
> linguistics; there can't really be a rational basis for making a fuss over
> a very limited number of insignificant differences that are agreed on
> >throughout a wide publishing domain and recognisable outside that domain).
>

 With Scots, a lot of people, especially academics, think that Scots
> shouldn't be written in anything but dialectical form, possibly with some
> creatively fantastic forms thrown in.
> But there are also those who believe that Scots will never thrive unless a
> standard form is laid down and accepted. Unfortunately, their actions tend
> to contradict their >beliefs: they'll accept taking words they don't know
> from dictionaries and learning to use them to strengthen the language, but
> they draw the line at allowing words, or even >just variant pronunciations,
> to creep into what they see as standard language. Put briefly, they're
> happy to use new forms in their writing, as long as it's only augmenting
> >their own dialect, not contradicting it.
>

 I think there comes a point where if a language is to survive against
> media onslaught and natural erosion, it's necessary to go fundamentalist on
> the idea of a standard form >of the language, and for someone
> (lexicographers? publishers? government? - whatever works) to say that "you
> have to spell this word this way or you're not writing Scots, >but a
> dialect of Scots".
>

 But Scots writers and academics, even the ones who want a standard
> language and imagine they're supporting the idea, seem much more attached
> to their own dialects, >sometimes only certain aspects of their own
> dialects, than to any concrete idea of a standard language where they'd
> have to spell the way they're told. Is it worth dropping all >your own
> notions about how Scots should be written, in order to ensure a future for
> Scots? Few seem to think so!
>

 In the Victorian revival of Scots, it was normal for Doric writers to
> write "wha" rather than "fa", and "no" rather than "nae". They went along
> with the accepted practice in other >dialects. This would be less likely
> now, and the opposite idea, of basing standard Scots on Doric
> pronunciation, would seem almost impossible to implement.
>

 To me, this means that Scots, whether you think of it as a language or a
> set of dialects, will eventually die out. For a language to reach full
> maturity, its speakers have to stop >thinking of it as their baby.
> Especially if, as with Scots speakers, that means choking it to death
> rather than letting it play with the horrible children across the street.
>

 It seems ever more likely that Scotland will gain independence in the next
> few years. I don't think this means anything in terms of the survival of
> the language, although it >might put standardisation higher on the
> political agenda, which could be helpful. Nationalists tend to use the
> language as a political tool, however, some even making out >that they
> speak it even when it's obvious that they don't. There seems no reason to
> believe they'd continue the charade once they'd achieved their political
> ends.
>

 I think that the most likely scenario is that Scots will go the way of
> Cornish. Once nobody speaks it any more, there will be a generation who
> want it back and are willing to >learn it, but aren't emotionally attached
> to specific dialects. I'm thinking Scots would then fare even better than
> Cornish, considering the large amount of material the >neoScots would have
> to work with, including a large corpus of literature and several
> dictionaries, two of them very large and scholastic.
>

 Of course, the Scots they devise as a standard for themselves wouldn't be
> like the Scots we know, and would be pooh-poohed (or rather "[a:xt]-ed")
> away by Scots speakers of >the present time, but then so would any standard
> anybody might create for us now.
>

Perhaps start by defining the principles behind the orthography.

Should the orthography be phonetic, phonemic, morphemic, syllabic,
etymological etc. or a combination of some or all of those?

What graphemes or logographs are to be used? On what basis should they be
chosen?

Should the orthography mirror an idealised standard spoken form, or an
extant spoken form declared the de facto standard, or should the
orthography be capable of representing various dialect realisations?

Andy Eagle

=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html .
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
==========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20121120/19bd56de/attachment.htm>