LL-L "Grammar" 2002.08.18 (07) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 18.AUG.2002 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>, Email: <admin at lowlands-l>
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

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

> From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.08.13 (06) [E/S]
>
> Sandy wrate:
>
> >2. Writers fae Allan Ramsay on, at the least, seems tae a
> >maistly ignored Scots verb concord an uized English verb
> >concord insteed, likely wi no wantin tae leuk uneducate.
> >
> >3. Writers that's made a pynt o uizin Scots verb concord
> >uizually uizes a simplified form, ignorin sic things as
> >non-contact inflections
>
> Coud this be cause it reflects thair naitural speak - like it dis mine?
> In ither words, coud the non-contact inflections hae dee'd oot suiner
> nor the ither strynds? Or coud the fact at my Shetlandic speak haes tint
> thaim, but haesna tint the general uiss o -s verbs wi plural subjects,
> suggest that anither rule, whaur verbs aye grees wi pronouns, developed
> in _tradeetional_ Shetlandic (an mibbie in ither kynds o Scots as weel -
> I dinna think I'v haurd onie non-contact inflections in Doric, tho uiss
> o -s verbs wi plural nouns is common) afore an aiblins independent o the
> wider tendency ti follae English norms?

It micht be different for Doric an that, but leukin at ither mainland
Scots, tho on the tae haun it's true that thir forms is deein oot an
even the maist traditional spaekers seems tae uize a mixtur o the
traditional forms an the less traditional nouadays, on the tither
haun A dinna think ye can say writers writes athoot contack forms for
that it's the wey they spaeks.

(In the ablo A'm sayin "contack form" whan A mean the writer adds a -s
wi a non-contack form, ie he respecks the rule anent contack forms.)

Ae analysis ye can dae is tae tak thir fower texts (the first three's
on ScotsteXt but the last ane's no, wi it bein copyrichtit):

(1) Mrs Gowdie's Tea Pairty
(2) Marget Pow
(3) James Inwick
(4) Lorimer's New Testament

Thir's ordered, in ma juidgment, fae the least literary (or
deleeberate) writin tae the maist literary (or deleeberate).

Takkin them in this order, the'r a kin o pattern:

(1) uizes contack forms an ither "clessic" forms, but isna consistent;
(2) disna uize contack forms an isna consisent wi the "clessic" forms it
dis
uize;
(3) disna uize ony "clessic" forms, an is consistent;
(4) disna uize contack forms but is consistent wi the ither "clessic"
forms.

Sae ye could say that the least deleeberate writin haes the
best Scots verb concord: mairatower, thae inconsistences
disna signify bad pruifreadin or writin: the'r nae random
mistaks in the beuk that could lat ye explain awa the contack
forms as mistaks.

Wi (2) the "clessic" forms is unuizual, but they'r aye thare.
Tae me it seems that the writer thocht tae uize the "English"
style concord, but didna aye manage tae jouk them wi her ain
wey o spaekin hivin them. Ance ye see this tho, ye see that
contack-form grammar wad be the aesiest tae jouk, sae it's
like the writer micht weel uize them in spaek but can jouk
them aathegither in writin.

Wi (3) we'r on tae the kin o writer that can aye git his
grammar consistent - tho it disna mean his ideas aboot
grammar is richt! In fack the wey he uizes "wha" for "that"
consistent an aa lats ye see that the wey he writes _isna_
the wey he spaeks, an tae me it's haurd tae credit that he
uizes the English concord as consistent in spaek as he dis
in the beuk. Sae again, the'r naething tae say he disna uize
contack forms in spaek.

Wi (4) oor on tae a translator that disna spaek Scots. He's
the only ane that uizes the "clessic" forms consistent an
yit the'r nae question that he didna spaek this wey - cause
he didna spaek Scots!

A think nou if ye tak the hale thing, ye canna come tae the
conclusion that a text no uizin contack forms tells ye
onything anent whether the writer uized them in spaek. A
lands at the same conclusion thinkin on aa the texts A kens,
as weel. Gin Scots writers is ettlin at scomfishin thae forms
aathegither, hou is't they canna dae'd in Scots gin they can
aye dae'd in English? It maun be that they spak that wey!

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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================