LL-L "Orthography" 2002.02.27 (03) [E]

Wed Feb 27 23:50:56 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2002 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 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: "Andy Eagle" <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2002.02.23 (04) [E]

> From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
> Subject: "Orthography"
>
> > From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Orthography
> >
> > Lowlanders,
> >
> > Sandy Fleming pointed out the predicaments one finds oneself in when
> > approaching Scots orthography (reform?).  In particular, he pointed out
> > that over time readers and writers of Scots have been conditioned to
> > expect the spelling of their language to generally follow English
> > principles, that this can interfere with creating a consistently
> > applicable system (alone for the fact that English spelling is, by and
> > large, inconsistent), and that, conversely, "normalization," i.e.,
> > increasing consistency, of Scots spelling may lead to
> > "un-English"-looking results.  Sandy gave the example of _rose_ vs
> > _roze_ 'rose' where in the latter the underlying /z/ is represented by
> > <z>.
>
> Ron,
>
> I've been trying to give some thought to what you were saying
> about this, including the suggestions involving silent "e", but
> I think I'm all burnt out on the subject of orthography at the
> moment - I just know by now that any sensible orthographic
> suggestions will lead nowhere because nobody will accept the
> resulting orthography!
>
> The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the ScotsteXt
> "Original/Edited" toggle could be used to try and familiarise
> people with a "sensibly weird" Scots orthography. That is to
> say, I could present the original text with traditional spellings,
> but use a radical orthography for the edited texts (presently the
> "edited" texts only contain grammatical corrections).
>
> Of course, this raises the question of how to devise the new
> orthography, but I suspect it will be easier to devise something
> completely new than it has been trying to devise a sensible
> spelling system that still _looks_ like the nonsensical one!
>
> Thoughts?

Many of the 'traditional' practices, similar to english they may be, are not
nonsensical. They are being used nonsensically i.e. in an unpredictable pick
'n' mix kind of way.
There are inherrent advantages in the 'traditional' practices. People tend
to recognise them. This makes learning and teaching them easier.
Unfortunately those who seem to have a monopoly on teaching Scots prefer the
pick 'n' mix approach.

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Orthography
>
> Sandy,
>
> > Of course, this raises the question of how to devise the new
> > orthography, but I suspect it will be easier to devise something
> > completely new than it has been trying to devise a sensible
> > spelling system that still _looks_ like the nonsensical one!
>
> How about considering for future reference (whenever you feel
> sufficiently refreshed) the maxim "Consistency over Looks"?  In other
> words, it doesn't matter if you use English-inspired devices or
> whatever, as long as the orthography is systematic rather than
> haphazard.

Just what I was saying Above.

Andy Eagle

----------

From: "Andy Eagle" <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2002.02.24 (01) [E]

> From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
> Subject: "Orthography"
>
> > From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Orthography
> >
> > How about considering for future reference (whenever you feel
> > sufficiently refreshed) the maxim "Consistency over Looks"?  In other
> > words, it doesn't matter if you use English-inspired devices or
> > whatever, as long as the orthography is systematic rather than
> > haphazard.
>
> I don't think this would work - it goes back to the problem
> of the way people are. Even a very small consistency like
> deciding to always write <z> for /z/, while very agreeable
> in theory, would cause a visceral reaction when people
> actually see the text.

I'm not enthusiastic about using <z> for <s> I try to use 'traditional
practices more consistently. There are of course always exceptions to the
rule which, with time, are easily remembered. Unfortunately this has to be
learned. The pick 'n' mix approach avoids any learning an enables instant
(ill)literacy.
>
> Even when English is more to the background, there are
> psychological problems. Consider the <ee>, <ie>, <ei>
> problem in Scots, for example. All three represent /i(:)/
> to most speakers and writers (though to John, Andy and me
> get broader functionality out of the three graphemes). Not
> only that, but many Scots enthusiasts are romantically
> attached to the <ei> grapheme, and I mean that literally -
> they see this grapheme as having come down to us from the
> non-existent "golden age" of Scots and become quite agitated
> at the suggestion of using any other grapheme - though that's
> not to say that they're consistent about this! It wouldn't
> really matter if such people were in the minority, but they're not.

The broader funtionality makes sense if Scots is approached as a linguistic
system. The orthography is then polyphonemic. The orthographic symbols
represent underlying phonemes pronounced differently according to dialect.

e.g. instead of the slavish use of <ei> usually (to many) representing /i/
can also represent /e/.
<ei> and <ea> is either /i/ or /e/ depending on Dialect but usually always
/i/ before /x/
<ee> is always /i/ in all dialects
More research is need on <ea> either /i/ or /e/ depending on Dialect  I
still can't predict /i/ or /e/ in many words I write <ea>.
though before /r/ its usually /e/ e.g. learn, earn etc but hear, fear etc.
/i/
Native speakers get this right any way so is such variation really a
problem?
Using <ea> leaves the words recognisable an thus aids legibility which of
course makes sense if I want people to understand what I've written.

> At the moment I'm thinking of resorting to computers to see if
> there is a solution to this problem. The idea would be to devise
> an orthography without regard to how it looks, then use software
> to experiment with transforming this orthography until you have
> something writable and teachable - and maybe even familiar-looking!
>
> Currently I'm writing a software suite to help me with
> proofreading ScotsteXt (it will probably end up as a free
> download on the site), and I may well have such a "spelling
> lab" as a feature.

Good luck an keep us posted.

Andy Eagle

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