LL-L: "Grammar" 24.JUN.2000 (03) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

Sorry -- this one went out under the wrong subject line earlier.
 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 24.JUN.2000 (03) * 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: Sandy Fleemin [sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk]
Subject: "Grammar"

> From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
> Subject: LL-L: "Grammar" (was "Morphophonology") 18.JUN.2000 (01) [E/S]
> > Andy wrate:
> > > >A tak it ye're gaun on aboot the nairative here. Thon brings up an
> >interestin quaisten aboot gremmar vis a vis formal or informal.
> > > >Nairative /colloquial : "They turns aboot an leuks at me but A
ignores
> >them."
> >Formal (wrutten) :Thay turnt aboot an leukit at me but I ignored thaim"?

> >or wad thon than no be 'reportit speech' : Thay turnt aboot and leukit
at
> >him but he ignored thaim?

Andy,

A'm agreed wi John here that this isna sae muckle adae wi formal versus
informal - but A'd like ti emphasise the pynt a lot mair, seein's it seems
ti me that the kin o thing ye'r sayin here is a lot ti dae wi a muckle
mistak that Scots writers keeps on makkin.

While "They turns aboot... &c" is nairative raither nor something ye'd
expeck ti see in a expository airticle, it wad be wrang ti clessify it as
colloquial. This is ane o the mistaks A made in the story whare John first
pynted oot this kin o thing: A uized the praisent historic ti try an shaw
that a character wisna educate, thinkin it soondit mair colloquial. But the

fack that it seemed colloquial ti me wis because A wis uizin the English
form o the praisent historic (ie athoot the "s"es), that isna acceptit in
formal written English an in that langage is seen as no-educate.

But whan ye listens ti Scots spaekers, ye canna as aesy cast the praisent
historic aby as a colloquialism - it's aawhare in spoken Scots nairative!
What John's sayin is that the praisent historic is a naitral tense in
Scots, no juist the demaen o hoors an hallanshakars, an in nairative (eg
biographical, fictional or reportage) could, an mibbie whiles should, be
uized bi the writer in the makarlike register, no juist characters that's
perceived as spaekin in a colloquial register.

The praisent historic is uized colloquially in Scots but ti clessify it as
colloquial (or "mair colloquial") than ither tenses is a mistak brocht on
bi the fack that maist traditional writers haes aye taen ower muckle o
their gremmar ower fae the English an sae the Scots praisent historic forms

is that sindle seen in Scots writin that fowk starts ti think it's no fit
for daecent writin, whan in fack it's writin that tines it whaur it's nott
that's no fit.

John,

> 'So I grips an kerries her (a hen) ta da hoose yun sam wye, an gits
Kirsie
> ta faetch me a kishie ta set her atil afore I got a cup o tae, an fan
some
> wye ta stowe her, whaar shui widna tuilie wi da aald eens.'
> > A Wrastle wi a Hen, bi Joseph Gray.
> > I wad say at the chyce atween historic present an preterite isna
aither-or
> - ye can mixter an vary thaim for effect.

A'm gled ye says "for effeck" raither nor "at will"! A pasted Gray's
passage inti Word sae's A could hielicht the verbs wi colours conform ti
tense, an it leuks mair juidgement than jaw ti me. Pittin the verbs in
order ye can see the pattern:

grips           praisent historic
kerries         praisent historic
gits            praisent historic
ta faetch       infinitive ta set          infinitive got
preterite fan             preterite ta stowe        infinitive widna
tuilie    infinitive

Lattin alane the infinitives, ye see that Gray uizes the praisent historic
consistent for his ornar nairative, syne switches ti the preterite efter
the time-preposition "afore". This pits the cup o tae an the finndin o some

place ti pit the hen in a separate timeline that the reader'll perceive as
a aside fae the main story aboot the hen - A lull afore the storm, A'm like

ti think, fae the readin o'd!

> whan we'r writin nairative. I think at ti uise the historic present aa
the
> time wad be a bit o a deive - better ti vary thaim. Elegant variation, an

> aa that.

As lang as ye'r no thinkin on elegant variation as a "dae what ye like"
formula! Imagine Gray's piece wi the tenses switched atween timelines:

"*So I grip an kerrie her (a hen) ta da hoose yun sam wye, an git Kirsie ta

faetch me a kishie ta set her atil afore I gits a cup o tae, an fins some
wye ta stowe her, whaar shui widna tuilie wi da aald eens."

Richt or wrang? Wrang! Ye'll notice what the differ is, an aa: in the
sentence Gray wrote, ye'll notice that the pynt o the praisent historic is
that it describes deeds that's actually accomplished: the listener/reader
can tak it that his did lift the hen an cairy it inti the hoose, for
example. Efter the "afore" he's describin past _intentions_ an the praisent

historic isna richt for this: it's no estaiblished yet that he _wull_ hae a

cup o tae or finnd a place ti staw the hen afore the hen starts up throu
the ruif an he haes ti awa efter it again! What Gray's written here isna
juist a mixtur-maxter o tenses - he mair or less canna wale the tenses ony
ither wey and caa it guid Shetlandic (athoot aither chyngin the sentence's
sel or its ettle).

Anent a tense bein a bit o a deive, the'r nae accepted writtin praisent
historic in English, but for a comparison, ye can leuk at hou writers uizes

the pluperfect in English (this is Muriel Spark's Scottish English fae "The

Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" about an Edinburgh lassies' schuil - a beuk fou
ti the heid o timelines):

"Sandy, being half English, made the most of her vowels, it was her only
fame. Rose Stanley was not yet famous for her sex, and it was not she but
Eunice Gardiner who had approached Sandy and Jenny with a Bible, pointing
out the words, 'The babe leapt in her womb'. Sandy and Jenny said she was
dirty and threatened to tell on her."

Ye'll notice that Spark "flashes back" bi uizin the pluperfect ("had
approached"). But even tho the timeline disna chynge efter that, she
switches back ti the simple past tense "said" & "threatened").
Gremmatically this is wrang, but the'r twa raesons for daein't. Ane is that

aa thae "haed"s an "haed haed"s in the pluperfect is a bit o a deive - in
fack it gaes that road faur mair swippert nor the praisent historic! The
ither raeson is that it's gey an aften a writer wants ti flashback fae
'ithin a flashback, an if ye dinna pul back oot o the pluperfect ye re-uize

the effeck for the "plupluperfect". Lucky eneuch, the reader disna loss the

threid juist wi lossin the pluperfect, sae writers for ordnar juist uizes
the pluperfect ti git the new timeline estaiblished, syne lats lowss o'd
again.

Hivin pynted this oot, tho, A canna help but think it wadna work juist the
same wey for the praisent historic. Ae raeson is that the praisent historic

"-s" endins is nae mair obtrusive (staunin alane) than ony ither Scots verb

endin (nae auxiliary's nott like for the pluperfect), an anither is that,
no like the pluperfect, the praisent historic is the defaut tense for Scots

nairative, A dout (or at the laest it can be, aliter the simple past
tense). Ye'll notice hou whare in Spark's English she starts oot in the
simple past tense, in Gray's Shetlandic he starts oot in the praisent
historic an uizes the simple past tense for the ower an abeich (tho A'd hae

ti see the hale story ti be shuir aboot aa this). A wonder if in fack the
praisent historic's juist like it micht be a deive wi us no bein that uized

wi seein it in writin?

> Sae I grippit an cairies her....
> > or:
> > Sae I grips an cairied her...
> > Nane o thir twa soonds richt ti me aither. The saicont ane mibbie, but
the
> first ane soonds awfu orra. Oniebody agree - or no?

The only thing A dinna agree wi here is the "mibbie". The saicont ane seems

wrang ti me an aa. Ti mak it a mibbie, A wad hae ti hae it written as, "Sae

I grips her, an I cairied her..." but this isna as richt-soondin as Gray's
skeely uise o tense ti shaw differin dramatic threids & possibilities. It
juist soonds like the nairator's no peyin attention til his ain story.

Hivin sayed aa that, the ar a kin o "feel" ti the praisent historic, like
in ony ither tense, that A think should tell a native spaeker when an when
no ti write it, but it disna come naitral ti maist fowk - ye learns the
gremmar, then ye writes!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org

==================================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
 =======================================================================