LL-L: "Orthography" (was "Language policies") [E] LOWLANDS-L, 19.MAY.1999 (05)

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ==========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 19.MAY.1999 (05) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Users Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachian, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian,
 L=Limburgish, LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has 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>.
 =========================================================================

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at jmt.prestel.co.uk>
Subject: Language policies

Sandy wrote:

>All this leads to the strange result that the orthography that native Scots
>speakers find easiest to read is not only extremely complicated and
>irregular - but _much_ more so than English!

Very true. The main area where Scots spelling is more irregular than
English is in the consonants, as a result of (a) off-the-cuff graffitti
(sp?) type spellings which don't observe any rules; (b) alterations to
English words without compensation (e.g. turning _matter_ into _maitter_
rather than spelling it by analogy with English _waiter_) and (c) the
influence of middle Scots which had a completely different system from
English.

Unfortunately, regularity of any sort is effectively the lowest priority of
any well-known attempt to renovate Scots spelling. The approach which
claims to have regularity at its heart - the RWS approach - in fact evades
the problem by regarding all 'English' words as exempt from its rules, thus
in fact introducing greater irregularity into the spelling as a whole. The
result of this is that RWS spellings appear regular in glossaries which
list only words which are not shared with standard English, but very
irregular in a page of prose. Paradoxically, the approach of the SNDA,
which is not much concerned with spelling as such and has internal
irregularities which would be regarded with derision by proponents of RWS,
gives a greater overall appearance of regularity simply because it largely
follows English consonant spelling conventions.

There is a difference, it seems to me, between irregularities which cause
actual practical difficulty, and those which merely cause offence to a
concept of regularity. The use of traditional Scots -AE endings (brae, sae,
frae) alongside English -AY ones (bray, say, fray) is problem free because
it is so well established that no one - even people who are effectively
illiterate in Scots - notices it. To regularise these conventional
spellings either one way or another is simply to create misunderstanding.

The problem with the RWS approach is not where traditional inconsistancies
such as this are maintained, it's where new ones are introduced. Consonant
spellings like KK in _mukkil_ are not traditional in modern Scots, and both
create irregularity and give the language an alien and ancient appearance.
The introduction of EI into words which do not usually have this spelling -
like _neip_ and _reik_ - possibly has a similar effect. Ostensibly this is
encouraging regularity, in that all 'Scots' words have EI, but in fact it
creates more irregularity in the language as a whole, since 'English' words
like 'seen', 'keen', 'feel' etc. all retain the EE spelling. The
traditional 'popular' spelling of EE sounds, largely reflected in the Scots
School Dictionary, has EE in most words and EI and IE in certain categories
of words which can be defined by rules of thumb (e.g. IE mostly before V;
EI in words like _breid_ where English has EA pronounced [E], etc.). This
is lambasted by RWS proponents as being 'parochial' in that it follows an
'English' convention, and irregular in that it allows EI, EE and IE for the
same sound; but in fact, although it has irregularities which affect a few
words, it is less irregular overall than the RWS approach, which in effect
extends that irregularity and creates an artificial dichotomy between
'Scots' and 'English' lexis. The fact that the popular convention would be
both more readable _and_ more regular has no effect, however, on those who
are in favour of EI, because to them the introduction of EI is ultimately
not for practical purposes, but in order to assert the difference of Scots
(in effect, only the part of Scots vocabulary which is not shared with
English) from English.

Another pernicious effect of this latter approach is that it is inherently
unstable. Proponents of a type of spelling which is deliberately different
from English mostly agree that such a spelling system must be introduced by
stages, first applying to the 'Scots' lexis and then to the 'English'. This
means both that the accusation of creating actual irregularity can be
excused by the assertion that this is merely a stage in a process; and
secondly, that any spelling system which may be recommended is explicitely
regarded as not being a final decision, but as something which will be
subject to gradual changes for a long time to come, with the obvious
implications regarding printing. Imagine, for example, approaching the
government for funds to print Scots educational materials with the proviso
that these would all have to be re-printed in a couple of year's time as
part of the process of gradual introduction of more EI and OU spellings!
More generally, I often suspect that the lack of a definite Scots
orthography - which is one of the major drawbacks in its recognition as a
language - is not only owing to the effects of general chaos and
disagreement, but at least partly to an attitude which does not want to
recognise any orthography as final as long as it contains English-type
spelling conventions. This would mean that, in order to achieve greater
regularity in the future, Scots must go through a period of greater
irregularity just when the concept of written Scots is most pertinent.

John M. Tait.

==================================END======================================
* Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Contributions 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 performed at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
* Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in  your submissions
 =========================================================================