LL-L "Orthography" 2002.03.01 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 01.MAR.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" 2002.02.28 (07) [E]

Sandy Fleming Wrote:

Andy Eagle wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't agree with this - I'd say traditional practices
> are actually nonsensical. While you might defend English
> orthography to a great extent, Scots orthography _is_
> pick'n'mix, and no alternatives have been proposed that
> anybody actually uses. Even my (or yours, John's or Ian's)
> spellings are a mixture of Scots and English, the guiding
> principle being that English spellings are used if they
> don't conflict with Scots pronunciation - ignoring the
> fact that they do conflict with Scots spellings.

I did say Many and NOT all. I use English spellings that do not conflict
with Scots pronounciation simply because I know they will serve the purpose
of written communication. The reader shouldn't have any problem
understanding them. This of course is simply to do with the point you make
below:

> > There are inherrent advantages in the 'traditional' practices. People
tend
> > to recognise them. This makes learning and teaching them easier.
>
> But this is a circular argument. People can't recognise
> them if they haven't already learned them - so why would
> recognisability be a criterion for learning and teaching?
> They only seem recognisable to those who have already
> learned them!

I use English spellings (where they don't conflict) and maintain the 'staus
quo' because that's simply the way things are, whether I like it or not.
Theoretically a more logical orthography coud be devised. Unfortunately
those with the influence are not interested in this an seem intent on
perpetuating the 'status quo' of 'pick 'n' mix'.
If a logical orthography was being used to teach Scots, in schools for
example, I would probably follow it even if it wasn't my personal choice.

>Remember that my original point was that adults refuse to accept
> unfamiliar stuff - it's no use trying to argue against this by
> putting up "recognisability" as a desideratum - what I'm saying
> is that the desire for recognisability is the whole problem!

In so far as developing a completely new logical orthography this is true.
But such reforms only work if there is either a mass demand for it or those
doing it are in a position to enforce it no matter what others may think.
It's probaly easier to pesuade peole to take small steps.

Above you wrote "...English spellings are used if they
> don't conflict with Scots pronunciation - ignoring the
> fact that they do conflict with Scots spellings".

What are the 'Scots' spellings? I would argue, for example

<iCe><yCe>, <ei>, <ai>, <au><aw>, <ou>, <ow(e)><ui><uCe>
C= consonant.
Historically (based on Central Scots and highly simplified):
                                Early Sc.    MiddleSc.    MOd.Sc.

<iCe><yCe>          /i:/                /ei/                /ae + @i/
<ei>                         /e:/               /i:/                  /i/ +
/e/
<ai>                          /a:/              /e:/                 /e/
<au><aw>             /au/              /a:/              /A/ /O/ (NE /a/)
<ou>                         /u:/               /u:/                 /u/
<ow(e)>                    /ou/              /ou/            /Vu/
<ui> <uCe>           /2:/               /2:/                /I + e/ (NE /i/)
(Cons. /2/, /y/)

The <i> after a vowel grapheme was used an indicator of length in Middle
Scots:
<ai> /a:/, <ei> /i:/, <oi> /o:/, <ui> /2:/

A lot of sound shifts in this small selection. Contrary to what some may
claim Older Scots spellings are not always the best representation of modern
Scots pronunciations. All the same where would any reform start an who would
enforce it?
At the moment trying to be more consistant when using the 'traditional' and
'English' spellings seems the only practical option if I intend people to
actually read what I write.

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