<div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRon%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-alt:宋体;
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129279 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129279 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
span.hccdpe
{mso-style-name:hccdpe;}
span.ep8xu
{mso-style-name:ep8xu;}
span.ldacoc
{mso-style-name:ldacoc;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">===========================================<br>
L O W L A N D S - L - 21 September 2008 - Volume 01<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><br>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).<br>
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on<br>
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page <br>
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.</span><br>
===========================================</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>
From: <span class="ep8xu"><span><span style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">Andy Eagle</span></span></span><span class="hccdpe"> </span><span class="ldacoc"><<a href="mailto:andy@scots-online.org">andy@scots-online.org</a>></span><br>
Subject: <span class="hccdpe">LL-L "Orthography" 2008.09.20 (03) [E/S]</span><br>
<br>
Sandy wrate: <br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>Ay', no' ba'd, y'e ken'! Hou's yerse'l?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Daein fine masel. </span></p>
<br>I've seen the antrin scrieve whaur a body'll pit a
apostrophe at the end<br><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">
o a word for nae ither raeson but that it's a Scots word. I canna gie ye<br>
ony acual examples juist aff the luif, but it happens whaur the writer's<br>
pittin doun mair English than Scots an wull write something like, "I<br>
thought I'd take a turn about the auld' place and see if I still knew<br>
anybody."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">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.<br>
<br>
Ron wrote: > Subject: Orthography</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">But thoughts and comments I do have, as usual, and the
devil's advocate is<br>
never far away.<br>
<br>
The usual question is "Phonemic or etymological?" (leaving aside
attempts at<br>
making standard orthographies phonetic). The two approaches don't yield<br>
identical results, and etymology along with 15th-century orthography tends<br>
to dominate in the "Anglic" world. In either cases, orthographic
devices<br>
used in predominant English are "naturally" used in the sister
languages<br>
Scots and (Southern) Northumbrian. And therein lies the problem, because<br>
English devices are used inconsistently, each signalling various readings.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Historically both Scots and English share a lot of
orthographic conventions anyway. Especially since the 18th century.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">To lessen the "mess," you could and perhaps
should regularize the spelling<br>
in Scots by at least partly "phonemicizing" the system in that you
use a<br>
given English-derived device consistently for the same phoneme. Correct me<br>
if I'm wrong, but I think that's the type of system you are shooting for.<br>
<br>
I totally agree that in most cases the use of the apostrophe is non-sensical<br>
where it refers to *English* standards. It can be justified only if it<br>
stands for elesions in Scots itself. Writing *-in'* for *-in* (= English *<br>
-ing*) is *never* justifiable since in Scots it *never* alternates with the<br>
"ing" sound.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Using apsotrophes for Scots elisions is perfectly
acceptable.<br>
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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Enter examples like *ca'* for what you write *caw* (or
*caa*) [k</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:]
'call',<br>
and *fu'* for what you write *fou* 'full'. (I wonder if *fu'* is meant to<br>
show that the pronunciation is not as in "few" but as in
"foo" [fu:].) Your<br>
spelling is consistent with the spelling in other words such as<br>
*house*[hu(:)s] 'house' you and Sandy have been using, although in<br>
your dictionary<br>
(<a href="http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary/" target="_blank">http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary/</a>)
you're still spell it the<br>
conventional way: *hoose*.<br>
<br>
Enter the devil's advocate. This treatment of etymological *-ll* would fall<br>
in the category of trying to spell phonetically rather than either<br>
phonemically or etymologically. Why? In most instances there are<br>
alternations in which the underlying /-l/ "re"-appears, such as in
*caw* [k</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:]<br>
~ *callin* [ 'k</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɫ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">en] 'call' ~
'calling', and *pou* [pu:] ~ *pullin* ['p</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʊɫ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">en]<br>
(~ ['p</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌɫ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">en])
'pull' ~ pulling'. Final /l/ is absorbed by and lengthens the<br>
preceding vowel.<br>
<br>
In other words, I'm suggesting that, unless you want to spell
"phonetically"<br>
for the Sasanach, the final /l/ ought to be written as such, because a<br>
Scots-specific phonological rule requires final /l/ to be "deleted"
but<br>
otherwise pronounced, thus, e.g.<br>
<br>
*call ~ callin* (rather than *caw ~ callin*)<br>
*pull ~ pullin* (rather than *pou ~ pullin*)<br>
*fall ~ fallin* (rather than *faw ~ fallin*)<br>
*small ~ smaller* (rather than *smaw ~ smaller*)<br>
*troll ~ trollin* (rather than *trowe ~ trollin* 'to troll', 'to trundle')</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">The /l/ doesn't appear in inflected forms.<br>
<br>
The /l/ in /al/ was apparently vocalised (except intervocalically and before
/d/) sometime in the early 15th century. Now /a(:), </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">(:), </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɔ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:/ or /o</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">̧</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:/. (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 [b</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:'məko:m],
Falkirk [f</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:'k</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɪ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">rk], Kirkcaldy [kər'k</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:di], Culros
['ku:rəs] and Culter ['kutər].<br>
The vocalised /l/ in /ol/ eventually became diphthongised to /</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">u/ 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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Where there is no such alternation, you have to decide if
you want to go by<br>
sound or by etymology; e.g.<br>
<br>
*aw* or *all*<br>
*haw* or *hall*<br>
*staw* or *stall<br>
baw or ball<br>
waw* or *wall*<br>
*fou* or *full* (~ *fuller*?)<br>
*gou* or *gull<br>
bou* or *bull*<br>
*trowe *or *troll *('troll' noun)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">fou /fu:/ and
full /f</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">l/
are doublets it Scots, as are pou /pu:/ and pull /p</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">l/. The suffixed
form was usually -fu' variously pronounced /fu, fə, f</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">, f</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɪ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">, f</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɛ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">/ 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</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">l/ survived.<br>
<br>
As for word final vocalisation of <l>:<br>
<br>
Traditionally with an apostrophe:<br>
ca' ~ ca'in ~ ca'er ~ ca'd or ca'ed<br>
<br>
Simply do without an apostrophe:<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Resolve that by doubling the <a> to <aa><br>
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 /</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">(:), </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɔ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:/
or /o</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">̧</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:/
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.<br>
<br>
Since <aw> (perhaps <au>, though the SND observes that "the spelling
for either [/</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:/
or /o</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">̧</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:/]
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>.<br>
caw ~ cawin ~ cawer ~ cawed all avoiding some of the problems occuring above,
insisting on the inflection <ed> rather than cawd.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">It doesn't matter
if etymology and the convenience of the Sasanach are<br>
disregarded.<br>
<br>
In some cases, the shift / > *w* has sunk to the phonemic level, and the<br>
"ll" spelling would not be appropriate; e.g.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">*row* [r</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌʊ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">]
~ *row*in ['r</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌʊ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">en]
'roll' ~ 'rolling'</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>
(cf. also *rowie* ['r</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌʊ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">i]
'bread roll')<br>
<br>
What say you?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>
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 /</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">u/,
<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, m</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɪ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">n, min, ə'bøn, ə'byn,
ə'b</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɪ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">n,
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 /</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">u/ <ow> is
preferable over <ou> which in Scots is traditionally /u/, now easily
cofused with the English /</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌʊ</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">/,
hence the spelling hoose, though arguably, you are right, strictly speaking it
should be house.<br>
<span style="color: rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>
Andy </span><br>
<br>
----------<br>
<br>
From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com" target="_blank">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>
Subject: Orthography<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>caain</i> and <i>pouin</i>. I believe you are on the same
general path, Andy, but I don't know what you think about the consistency
argument.<br>
<br>
<b><i>all</i> > <i>aw </i>[</b></span><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ɑ</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">:]</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>
aw<br>
caw, cawin, cawer, caws*, cawd<br>
baw, baws<br>
faw ~ fawin ~ faws<br>
haw, haws<br>
smaw, smawer<br>
staw, stawin, staws, stawd<br>
waw, wawin, waws, wawd<br>
<br>
<b><i>oll</i> > <i>ow </i>[</b></span><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";">ʌʊ</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">]</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>
row, rowin, rows, rowd<br>
trow, trowin, trows, trowd<br>
<br>
<b><i>ull</i> > <i>uw </i>[u:]</b><br>
buw, buws<br>
fuw<br>
guw, guws<br>
puw, puwin, puws, puwd<br>
<br>
* <i>caws</i> 'calls' versus <i>caw's</i> (< <i>caw us</i> 'call me/us')<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, I rather like the idea of sticking to <ui> in words
like <i>muin</i>, <i>abuin</i> and <i>cuil</i>. 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<i>This muckle frae the fremmit's neuk for nou.</i><br>
<br>
Reinhard/Ron</span></p>
</div>