LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 31.AUG.2000 (07) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 31.AUG.2000 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 27.AUG.2000 (06) [S]

Twa-three comments on this spellin cantation.

Ti begin wi, the differs atween the SNDA approach ti spellin an mysel, Andy an
Sandy's approach (for aa oor individual differs) is baith ideological an
practical. Ideological cause the SNDA is maistly in the 'gettin fowk ti write
the wey thay speak' camp - in ither words, elicitin dialect, at gangs alang wi
the sociological theories o Labov an the leiterary theories o Bakhtin (I hinna
read aither o thae twa chiels, but I'v seen thaim citit aften eneuch) at lies
ahint the fashion evenou for 'voices' in leiterature. Maist fowk at belangs
this wey o leukin at things disna uise written Scots for oniething ither nor
thair leiterary ettles - a lot o thaim disna speak it aither. Sae thay'r no
tryin ti dae the same thing as we (at uises, or can uise, it for ordinar
writin like this) ar. Cause o this, it's mair or less feckless ti threip
fornenst thaim. It's like spierin at me, whan I'm sailin, whit wey I dinna
uise a engine. The 'voices' camp is a bittie like me whan I'm sailin on a loch
- thay'r no daein it ti get naewey, thay'r juist daein it for fun. Gin I want
ti get ti the ither side o the loch, I gang roond it in a car. Gin thay want
ti _say_ oniething, thay dae it in English.

Close relate ti this is the viewpynt at's agin onie kynd o spellin
standardisation cause it wad blaud the 'less-than-respectable status' (James
Robertson's words) o Scots, at the fashionable leiterary screivers like
Leonard, Welsh an sae on maistly uises it for.

Paradoxically, mibbie, the hyne opposite camp - the RWS supporters - is muckle
the same - thay dinna forordinar uise written (nor aften spoken) Scots for
oniething ither nor leiterary uisses. I ken twa RWS supporters an weel-kent
Scots writers at aye writes back in English whan I write ti thaim in Scots.
Sae we hae twa opposite 'pairties', baith wi strang views on hou an hou no ti
spell Scots, naither o thaim uisin it!

Baith o thae camps can conveniently slag ane anither aff, the SNDA caain the
RWS 'purists', an the RWS girnin aboot the SNDA's inconsistencies (tho thay'r
'inconsistent' tae, cause thay spell 'Scots' words ae wey an 'English' anes
anither). The Spellin Report didna faa inti aither o thae twa camps, sae the
SNDA can caa it 'purist' an the RWS can caa in 'inconsistent' (or, mair
likely, 'parochial' cause it disna haud awa frae English-type spellins like
the gallopin pox.) Thae terms disna mean oniething - thay'r juist prejudices,
illustrate bi the SNDA's assumption - in Colin's letter - at the spellin
comatee wad be 'purists', an at thay wad be tryin ti mak a 'standard Scots' an
dae it 'quickly', cause aabodie kens only thir kynds o heid-bangers fashes
thairsels aboot spellin. Thir is aa stereotypes o the kynd o chiel the SNDA
disna gree wi - ie: the RWS supporters, wi their auld-farrant spellins -
espeecially consonants - an fash ti sinder frae English. An, as we ken,
threipin fornenst prejudice disna get ye naewey - it juist pits ye in the same
camp as the anes at the prejudice is agin! (Bi the wey, is the opposite o
'purists' 'impurists'?)

Coorse, the Spellin Comatee wis, an the Report is, faur frae perfect. But it's
a lot mair _workable_ (as fornent play-yersel-wi-able) nor aither RWS or the
SNDA, cause unlike RWS it disna mak a fause differ atween 'Scots' an 'English'
vocabular, spellin the tane wi auld-farrant Scots spellins an the tither wi
modren English anes; an unlike the SNDA it disna emphasise (aften Wast)
Central pronunciations at haes tint some o the vowel distinctions at ither
Scots by-leids whiles hains (atween 'got' [O] an 'goat' [o] ; wun [V] an win
[I]; puir [2] an pair [e]). Raither nor cleckin a standard Scots, it's juist
tryin ti emphasise the underlyin sameness whaur it exists. It coud be made
mair workable yet - in some weys, it's juist the beginnin o an ettle.
Houaniver, workabeility is no whit the RWS an SNDA is efter, cause thay dinna
work wi Scots, juist play wi't!

The'll be mair aboot aa thir questions i the neist edeition o Lallans,
includin a lagamachie frae mysel, sae I'll haud my wheesht evenou - relatively
speakin!

Anent parteiculars, the spellin o 'ee' soonds is ane o the warst raivelments i
the report as it staunds, mainly cause, as faur's I can mynd,  it wis
suggestit bi somebodie at syne baled oot ower the heids o anither maiter. It
shoud for shuir be _aither_ Andy's wey or Sandy's wey; that is, aither 'ie'
aawey, or 'y' aawey except diminutives an aiblins some ither nouns (lagamachy?
- I dinna ken). I wad say at Sandy's wey is the maist _workable_ - that is,
it's the maist suitable for ilkaday prose uiss.

This in itsel is an illustration o the affcomes o no actually uisin Scots.
Baith RWS an the SNDA recommend the -ie endin, an this is whit wey thare wisna
thocht ti be a guid case for -y in the report - on the consensus principle.
Houaniver, naither RWS nor the SNDA wis thinkin on raxin -ie oot ti maks like
_funnie_, _sillie_, etc - juist ti 'Scots' words like _cannie_ an _bonnie_.
The airtifeicial disteinction atween 'Scots' an 'English' vocabular again.

I gree wi aathing Andy an Sandy haes sayed aboot dae/duin, etc. Technically,
it's <dae> at's 'wrang'. <tae> (adv = Eng. _too_) is anither ane - it shoud
strictly be <tui>. I actually suggestit the spellins <dui> an <tui> on the
spellin comatee, but wis telt at naebodie wad thole thaim.

Likeweys [e] an [E] in pairs like fairm/ferm - thae variants is ower fickle ti
be exact allocate - ye even get baith 'fairm' an 'ferm' in Shetland.

I'm no awaur o the pronunciation 'gremmar' [grEm at r] i the NE. I thocht it wis
frae some ither airt. No anither pseudoscotticism, is it?

Mair generally, I think Colin's pynt aboot the differ atween Scots writin for
native speakers an lairners is a fause dichotomy. Gin ye recognise three kynds
o spellin - (dia)phonological (puir, glaikit, bourach, etc.); morphological
(thaim, carefu, haes, etc - Ian's grammatical spellins) an etymological
(nation, pneumatic, touch, government, ceilidh, etc.) than ye'v the foond o a
kenspeckle spellin (tho a bodie micht threip aboot whit words belangs whit
category).

Than, for the (dia)phonological anes, it's weel kent bi linguists whit the
basic diaphonemes o Scots is. For example:

BUIT-type: sayed [2], [y],  [i] (NE), [e:]/[I] (Central), etc. Suggestit
spellin <ui>: puir, muin, etc.

BEET-type: - sayed [i]; suggestit spellins <ee>, <ie> afore certain
consonants, aiblins <y> unstresst final: dree, neep, spier, driech, etc.

BAIT-type: sayed [e]; suggestit spellin <ai> - bait, pair

BEAT-type: sayed [i], [e]; suggestit spellins <ea/ae>, <ei> - heid, breid,
deif, aet/eat, raeson/reason, etc.

An sae on. In ither words, it's no a chyce atween aither serrin native
speakers or lairners, as gin fameiliarity an pronunciation wis incompatible.
Wi vowels, gin ye stert wi the underlyin diaphonemes (naither RWS nor SNDA dis
- thay baith speak aboot 'sounds' athoot definin thaim), an accept at ae
diaphoneme can hae mair nor ae spellin (RWS disna) but at twa diaphonemes
shoudna hae the same spellin (SNDA disna) than ye'r weel on the wey ti serrin
baith native speakers, at wants fameiliarity, an lairners, at wants ti ken hou
ti say words. Wi consonants the'r nae bather, as lang's ye juist uise
English-type conventions, an evite the 'mukkil buckle' (RWS) an 'glaikit
jaicket' (SNDA) fiascos. The SNDA only thinks spellin is unpossible cause thay
canna dae it! I wad think sailin upwind wis unpossible gin I tried ti dae it
heid inti the wind, wi'oot e'en tryin ti understaund the theory ahint it, an
refusin ti listen ti oniebodie at kent. Naither the RWS nor the SNDA is
interestit in tecklin the problem frae the ruits up. The idea at pronunciation
an kenspeckleness is incompatible is juist a norie pitten aboot ti try ti
represent Scots spellin as unpossible, cause thay dinna really want thare ti
be a Scots spellin.

Houaniver, I dinna think the problem can be solved bi gettin involved wi the
SNDA. I'v haen ower muckle experience o the fecklessness o tryin ti reform
organisations frae grund level. Thay tend ti be like poleitical pairties, run
bi a smaa curn like-myndit fowk wi a support structure o like-myndit fowk, an
i the case o the SNDA, that like-myndedness seems ti be  maistly Edinburgh
based, thirled ti Labovian sociolinguistics an Bakhtinian leiterary theory, an
aften English-speakin, wi'oot the grundin o the likes o David Murison at wis
baith a polymathic scholar an Scots speaker an cam - ti rub in the pynt - frae
a place whaur Scots wis spoken! Afore thay can imply i the Grammar Broonie, an
say i the journalistic guidelines, at Shetlandic 'dee' is a unemphatic mak o
'du', thair grasp o oniething - even English (thee, thou) - canna be aa that
sicker. But, i the ideological milieu at thay'r wirkin in, this wad be a mere
detail - ti fash aboot it wad likely be 'purist'. Murison's scholarship an
native Scots seems ti hae been replaced bi a vague general desire ti elicit
oniething at's spoken bi the workin class at aye speaks Scots, aither doun the
road or in ither touns whaur the workin class speak is thocht ti be even mair
orra (in the case o Edinburgh, that wad likely be Glesca!) The idea o spellin
Scots as a single langage is a threat ti this ettle an a potential
embarassment in circles thirled ti Labovian an Bakhtinian orthodoxy, whaur
Leonard, Welsh an Kelman (tho he caas his langage 'English') is the apostles;
an as sic, gin it canna be scuppered, it maun be fleired at an stereotyped the
wey ye div wi challenges ti yer ain dogmas.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 31.AUG.2000 (05) [E/S]

At 12:57 31/08/00 -0700, R. F. Hahn wrote:
>
>The answer is "No".  In Northeastern Scots the speaker will apply the
>phonological rule irrespective of the way the suffixes are written.
>
>My question is "Do Scots speakers at large *want* it to be represented?  My
>prediction is that they do not, because it applies only in a few dialects,
not
>in the entire language.

I believe that Ron's prediction is correct, albeit not quite for
the reason that he gives. Most Scots speakers are unaware of vowel
harmony, and follow the phonological rule (if it applies in their
local variety) unconconscious of its existence.

That being the case, it would hardly be possible for them to
want to represent it in writing. Even when it's explained to
them — based on my limited experience, the most common reaction is
mild surprise at never having noticed it — I don't think many
would see any need actually to write it.

At the risk of labouring the point, I'll add that in my earlier
posting I wasn't suggesting "-ie" and "-y" for representing
different sounds according to vowel harmony, as Ron did in his
example. Rather, I was suggesting that "-ie" could be used
in particles (I hope that's the correct term) subject to
vowel harmony, and thus could itself represent different
sounds according to the context. That's what often
already happens, of course: I was only proposing a consistent
basis for it.

Colin Wilson.

*********************************************************************
                               the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
Colin Wilson                   the barra wadna row its lane
writin fae Aiberdein           an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
                               lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
**********************************************************************

----------

From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 31.AUG.2000 (04) [S]

At 11:50 31/08/00 -0700, Sandy Fleming wrate:
>Onywey, A wonder if ye could hae a think on this as fornenst the vowel
>harmony in yer ain dialeck, Colin, an see hou weel it seems ti fit?

Fae whit Sandy wrate jist there, it fits perfect. It's interestin
tae see hoo this wirks wi wirds that's cam in mair latelie. A
can say that the diminutive "Monty" (lik in "Python"), DIS tak
the form "Montie" in Scots, an rhymes wi "corbie", "doggie",
"lobbie", an the like.

The ither day, A even heard somebodie speikin aboot "Montie
Carlo".

Colin Wilson.

*********************************************************************
                               the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
Colin Wilson                   the barra wadna row its lane
writin fae Aiberdein           an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
                               lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
**********************************************************************

----------

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Standardization"

> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Standardization
>
> My question is "Do Scots speakers at large *want* it to be
> represented?  My
> prediction is that they do not, because it applies only in a few
> dialects, not

You're right in that the answer is "no", but it's worth stopping here
to
consider what the agenda actually is here. My interest in vowel harmony
and/or morphological principles isn't to represent the sounds, or even
the
morphology, of the language, it's (if I may shout it from the rooftops)
TO
SIMULATE TRADITIONAL SCOTS SPELLING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE (while
removing
nonsensical, inconsistent and localised usages as far as possible).

At the moment the reason I write all these endings except diminutives
with
a -y is because this makes my spelling look traditional (without having
to
type hundreds of thousands of unnecessary letters), and the theory is
that
the more recognisable the orthography is, the more likely ordinary
Scots
speakers will be happy to read it. My interest in Colin's idea was
merely
because it suggested a way of avoiding having to change (for example)
"couthie" to "couthy", therefore simulating traditional spelling even
more
closely.

This isn't, to my mind, a good way of going about standardising the
language - rather it's a symptom of my acceptance that a brand new
spelling
system isn't going to get anywhere (without the means to enforce it!),
nomatter how logical or streamlined.

To me the _correct_ answer to whether we should have -y or -ie is
obvious -
we should have -y (or possibly -i, without the e). The idea of ending
_any_
of these words (including diminutives) with -ie seems completely
ridiculous
to me, but it seems we're stuck with it - it's hard enough convincing
other
Scots writers to change anything, without asking them to change
_everything_!

I always try to imagine myself as a teacher trying to teach this stuff
to
children (though I've no training in that direction). In this context
Andy's
suggestion ("use -ie except for Latinate endings") seems unworkable. I
accept the idea of using -ie for diminutives (or this idea Colin gave
me of
resorting to morphology) because you can try saying something like "if
it
still makes a word when you take off the [I], then you spell it -ie,
otherwise -y". There's no doubt in my mind that this is silly too (it
wouldn't work with words like "canny" or "happy" for example), when you
could just say "spell it with -y at the end of a word" (or even -i).
However, we're stuck with writing to tradition to please those who are
used
to it (which is a manageable situation) or writing to accommodate the
various conflicting theories of enthusiasts (which is not).

Me, I ignore (or more often than not, berate) the enthusiasts (except
those
who understand the structure of the language better than me - best to
sit
quietly at the feet of such, and learn!), and attempt to write in a way
that
ordinary Scots can enjoy reading, as far as possible (obviously, since
nobody gets a proper education in Scots, this isn't entirely possible).

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

==================================END===================================
 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>.
 =======================================================================
 * 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 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
 =======================================================================