LL-L: "Orthography" LOWLANDS-L, 24.MAR.2002 (03) [S/E]

[Sandy Fleming]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 24.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=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk]
Subject: "Orthography" LOWLANDS-L, 23.MAR.2002 (03) [S]

Sandy wrate:

>But hou wad _A_ gae aboot uisin yer orthography? A'd hae tae ken
>aa your decisions anent what applies tae what wird - morphology or
>diaphonemics, Latin, French or Anglo-Saxon an aa that.

That's richt. Houaniver, I dinna think it wad be as hard as it micht seem.
Maist Laitin an Greek words is obvious eneuch - spell thaim etymologically,
like in English. Morphological spellins wad juist apply ti a defined set o
wirds - maistly frequent anes - pronouns; preposeitions, endins
like -na, -fu; an combinations o thir (eg:  for-by). The rest wad be spelled
(dia)phonemically. It disna soond that hard - thare wad be a wheen thrawart
anes at wad cause bather, cause it wadna be sicker whit category ti pit
thaim in (maistly French anes, like _touch_) but I wad jalouse at bi faur
the feck o thaim wad faa inti place nae bather aince ye haed the principles
wrocht oot, an as lang's ye warna ower swier ti gie up a puckle
famielier-like spellins. Coorse, naebodie wad tak tent o't, but that's
naething new.
>
>
>
>> Aweel, dhare's a muckle graet questin! I haena analysed Lorimer's
>> spellin - juist merkit qhaur his practics is better nor qhit we'r
>> acquant wi, an <ey> insteid o <aye> is ane o dhaim. I think it's a peeti
>> at naurhaund naebuddi (hard word for me tae spell, cause I say [bOdi],
>> an [bo:di] for dhe bouk) tacks tent o his spellin, dhe same wey naebuddi
>> taks tent o his grammar. Sae, contrar tae qhit wis expectit qhan his NT
>> wis published - at it wid hae a big influence on Scots writin - it
>> haesna haen haurdli oni, as faur's I can see. Ae'n Ken Farrow's
>> translate o the Iliad hauds mair wi Purves-type macks an syntax nor wi
>> Lorimer's example.
>
>Is Lorimer the answer, A wonder?

Depends whit the question is. My pynt in mentionin Lorimer wis ti shaw hou
e'en his no-sae-raidical an tradietional-like spellin wis slung a deifie bi
aabodie. It wisna ti say at he's the answer - raither ti shaw hou e'en his
innovations wisna taen nae tent o, wi the follae-on at a mair raidical
system wadna e'en be read ower lat alane taen on. I wad like ti uise some o
his maks - but, the'r nae pynt in me uisin maks like _ey_ whan nae ither
bodie dis.

What if A wis tae set up
>a site wi instructions and tools (like a spellin dictionar
>an spellim substitution software), the ettle bein tae help
>fowk tae uize Lorimer's spellins? A mean, his New Testament
>can be gotten in aa the shops an librar's (a believe paperback's
>no oot the nou, for a peety, an the hardback costs aboot £40),
>an haes a spellin an pronunciation guide, an's a muckle eneuch
>wark tae cover aa the core vocabular o the langage. If A set up
>sic a site whaur fowk could leuk up the Lorimer spellins, an
>convertit the "alternative" in ScotsteXt tae Lorimer spellins,
>this wad gie us a fair muckle body o wark in this system that
>could be taen on bi teachers, students, organisations an the
>like.

But whit wey wad thay follae this wey o daein whan thay winna follae nae
ither wey? The only organisations at I can think on - the SLRC an SNDA - for
shuir isna gaun ti follae onie spellin ither nor thair ain.
>
>Lorimer's spellins isna perfit - he writes "cairry" an "houss",
>that disna fit intae the general spellin system bein uized here
>(in a English-like spellin system ye wad try an no uize a dooble
>consonant efter twa consecutive vowels, an a dooble-s wad juist
>be uized efter a lax vowel), but A think in the first instance
>A could juist uize Lorier's exack spellins "warts and all" -
>this wad gie ma ScotsteXt spellins some authority (ie Biblical
>authority!) an ony adjustments could be left tae the canny chiels
>on the next spellin comattee or education board or whatever.

But naebodie on onie spellin comatee (I dinna see nae mair o thaim kythin in
a hurry) or education board (aa dominatit bi anti-spellers or anes thirlt ti
the SNDA) wad likely be carin a tait. Naebodie taks tent o spellin comatees
oniewey, an education boards haes nae interest in the hale question o
spellin, lat alane adjustments.
>
>Nou that ma criticisms o Lorimer's spellin's by, A can say that
>the'r likely mair advantages than disadvantages. Lorimer dis (or
>maistly dis?) win awa fae English spellins, writin "gyde",
>"storie", "happie", "obay" an aa that. A wad raither he didna
>write "onie", "monie" an siclike insteed o "ony", "mony", but
>on the tae haun, A can dree'd for the sake o a authoritative
>spellin system, an on the tither, you an Colin an Andy seems
>tae prefer thir spellins, so as lang as aabody can dree a bit
>o this an that that they dinna agree wi we could hae a
>authoritative spellin system.

But he keeps <they> an <them>.

I dinna ken that thare's oniething wrang wi <guide> , aince ye lift at the
<u> is pairt o the <gu> grapheme:

<gu> = [g] - the <u> shaws it's no [dZ]
<i-e> = [@I]
<d> = [d]

The final <e> shaws at the <i> gaes alang wi the <e>, no wi the <u>. I
jalouse at the auld harns picks up on this a lot aesier nor thay can explain
it.

Mairatower, gin ye'r ettlin ti evite <i-e>, whit wey is <y-e> onie better?
Whit wey no juist <gyd>? Nane o thaim shaws at the <g> is [g] the wey at
<guide> dis - cp. eg. <gybe> [dZ at Ib]. (Coorse, ti mak inietial <g>
completely unambiguous, ye wad need aye ti spell [dZ] as <j> - sae e.g.
_jigot_.)

The idea at <guide> - a French spellin, o coorse - is a English spellin
depends on presuppositions aboot whit's Scots spellins an whit's no. The
same gangs for 'happy/happie' - gin ye normalise final <-y> as representin
unstressed [I] in non-monosyllabic words, than it's juist as muckle a Scots
as a English spellin. Only <obey> canna be justifeed as a Scots spellin.
Houaniver, spellins like <obay> is juist the kynd at the SNDA an thair ilk
maist fleers at - cause ye areddies ken the English pronunciation, an it's
the same as the Scots ane - whaurbyes thay feel free ti re-spell onie word
whaur some Scots dialect pronunciation is different - like <baud> for bad.
>
>A'm no sayin aabody wad hae tae spell aathing juist like Lorimer
>daes, but at least we wad ken what's a Lorimer spellin an what's
>a deleeberate variation. It wad mak it possible tae write official
>documents an schuilbeuks, an update auld, anglifee'd texts the
>likes o on ScotsteXt, athoot stoppin mair creative writin fae bein
>juist the wey the makar wants it.

Aa that is true o _onie_ orthography. Houaniver, (a) naebodie at's gotten
grants or whitiver for writin schuilbuiks is gaun ti follae a Lorimer-type
spellin, cause thay'r aa thirlt ti the SNDA-type ad-hoc approach, an (b)
whit offiecial documents wis ye thinkin aboot? Gin onie offiecial documents
is ivver written in Scots, I'll bet ye a hauf loaf for a tin o sardines at
thay'll be written bi somebodie frae the SNDA or the SLRC at disna gree wi
spellin, an haes mibbie nivver gien onie thocht ti hou ti write Scots afore
in thair lifes. Ane o the axioms o Scots writin is at it maun be written bi
fowk at disna approve o spellin or grammar, but writes an spells it thair
ain wey oniewey. Writin Scots aa the time sae ye come ti can dae it is a
bittie like whit Flanders an Swan sayed aboot foreigners playin cricket -
"They practice beforehand which ruins the fun." It's a gemm we'r speakin abo
ot here, mynd! We dinna want it gettin ower serious, like the fitba!

Ye micht mynd on the auld Scotslang list thare wis ae chiel caain hissel a
Scots Writer at uised the phrase 'thon which' in sentences like "We greet at
thon which we should praise." He's ane o the names at ye aye hear nooadays
publishin stuff, gittin grants an giein lectures. My suitcase rests.
>
>
>> I wid still haud at dhe oanli thing tae dui is big on qhit's dhare
>> areddi.
>
>Wad ye agree that gin we haed tae big on what's thare areddy, we
>could haurly dae better nor start wi Lorimer?

Weel, ay, but except ye'r ettlin ti haud wi Lorimer 'warts an aa' I dinna
think it muckle maiters whaur ye stert frae, cause ye'v ti teckle the same
questions oniewey. For example, at some stage ye'v ti mak up yer mynd gin
ye'r gaun ti spell : canny/funny; cannie/funnie; or cannie/funny. Aa thir
haes thair ain philosophical an practical issues, an thay'll aa get chuckies
wappit at thaim frae some airt or anither.

Gin ye wis ti follae Lorimer exactly, that wad be ae thing. But it still
haes the problem at nae ither bodie haes duin this, sae it's a bit o a lane
furr. Gin ye wis ti follae Lorimer hauf-weys - ie, stert frae him an big
up - this aiblins wadna be muckle different frae stertin some ither wey. In
the first case ye wad juist be lippenin ti Lorimer's authority, an whit's
that fornent, say, the SNDA? In the saicont case, ye'r no follaein him sae
ye hinna e'en that authority.
>
>
>> I dinna think things haes chynged muckle sin the Spellin Comatee, except
>> at, at dhat time, dhae wir a norie hauden bi fowk siclike as mysel at wi
>> dhe onset o dhe new pairliment dhare wid be a new chance for Scots i dhe
>
>What A meant wis, we hae the Wab nou!
>
>> (Interestin tae see, i dhe airticle on Limburgish, at beuks in schuils
>> is tae be pitten oot in five different dialects. Dhis michtna be as bad
>> as it soonds - gin ye pictur Shetland, Orkney an Caithness aa haein
>> dhair ain beuks, an the Doric wantin dhair ain anes tui - like dhay wid
>
>A dinna see onything wrang wi that - A hiv tried tae say
>afore that the idea o ae stechie, staunart orthography is
>juist a auld-farrant imperialistic or Gutenbergistic norrie,
>but naebody ever seems tae tak ony tent whan A say that kin
>o thing!

That's cause ye'r speakin ti the wrang fowk. Say that ti thon fowk in
Edinburgh at I keep girnin aboot, an yer rigbane will be sair wi thaim
clappin it!

Aweel, like _I_ keep sayin, div ye ken o onie language at haes pulled itsel
oot o the stank throu _no_ haein a orthography, the wey at Faroese, Catalan,
Icelandic, Welsh etc. haes wi haein ane? The only ane I can think on is
Swiss German, an it wis appearently on the wey oot afore the Saicont War,
whaur fowk stertit ti speak it again ti sinder thaim frae the Nazis.

The possibielity o heizin up languages hings on language plannin - whit
Einar Haugen haes described as "the activity of preparing a normative
orthography, grammar and dictionary for the guidance of writers and speakers
in a non-homogeneous speech-community." Maist o the languages I ken o at
haes duin this did it aither (a) throu airly needcessity for lieteracy whan
the feck o the fowk didna ken the dominant leid - sae Welsh, Gaelic; or (b)
throu a definite ettle ti big up a orthography ti big up the leid (Faroese,
Catalan.) Baith o thir wis duin in a philosophical climate whaur, aatho
thare micht hae been a lot o opposietion frae baith speakers o the heid-leid
an native speakers wi the equievalent o the Scots Crulge, it wis recognised
at this wis whit ye did gin ye wantit yer bourach o dialects ti be kent as a
language. Nou, tho, at orthographies is thocht ti be restrictive ti
creatievity, an creatievity is whit the likes o Scots is thocht ti be for,
we'r in a sietuation whaur the necessary prerequisites o biggin up a leid is
culturally unpossible, cause e'en thaim at dis want ti big the leid up disna
want thaim!

 Orthographies is for leids at's uised in writin. Want o orthographies is
for leids at's no uised, cause aa the serious wark is left ti anither leid
at _haes_ a orthography. It's a bittie like thon aeroplane at's parkit
ootside a garage near Lossiemooth - it disna need a ingine, cause it disna
flee! Ye can be as lieberal-soondin as ye like aboot Scots spellin, as
lang's it's English spellin at ye actually uise. I'v sitten in meetins whaur
the same fowk at lauched at the idea o Scots orthography wis greetin aboot
hou students nouadays canna spell English an hou ye hiv ti rin a coorse in
first year ti lairn thaim!

Oniewey - gin orthographies is sic a bad idea, whit are we daein aa this
threipin aboot than? An whit wey wis ye sayin:

>This is the muckle advantage o a radical, raiglar orthography, of
>coorse, it's aesy tae dae - or aiblins A should say, it _can_ be duin!

Hou can a radical orthography be a advantage if orthography is a
disadvantage?

>
>Lorimer's New Testament is in a variorum o dialecks, sae
>there micht be something for aabody, or at least maist fowk!

I think 'varieties' raither nor 'dialects' - I dinna think onie o his styles
is conform ti onie regional dialect in partiecular.
>
>Tho Lorimer's spellins isna raiglar, gin we'r gree'd that a
>richt raiglar orthography (likes o the ane A pit forrit) isna
>awa tae happen, Lorimer dis gie us the best o maist ither
>things: it's traditional-like, it haes some dialectical
>flexibility, it jouks English spellins whaur they dinna fit
>in wi Scots, it haes diacritics that helps lairners but could
>be made optional for native texts (aiblins í an ý could be
>written as "ee" in a diacritic-free vairsion - an aiblins
>juist for Anglo-Saxon wirds like "síck"), an it's gey licht
>on diacritics onywey.

I'v aye said at, gin ye want a non-diacritic equievalent for i-acute, the
obvious ane is <ie>, cause that keeps the etymological <i> first, juist like
e.g. <oe> an <ue> in German. (I'm daein it here, juist for a experiment.)
Gin ye'r gaun ti haud wi the 'popular' <ee> or the 'enthusiast's' <ei>, ye
juist wadna uise the diacritic ava sae ye wadna need a equievalent for it.

Diacritic equievalents raises ae problem in a English-type system, tho -
whit aboot the dooblin o follaein consonants, at's for uisual determined bi
whither the vowel grapheme afore is single or double?
>
>The ar, of coorse, the question o diaphonemics. Wi Lorimer
>uizin different dialecks he didna need them, even gin he kent
>the principle. A think the first thing tae dae wad be tae compile
>a "Lorimer wirdlist", tho, syne we'll can see what kin o variation
>he dis offer.

I dinna mynd Lorimer uisin e.g. <f> for <wh> or <ee> for <ui> in his
nairative, tho - he uisually uises <ui> in words at ye wad expect it in, as
faur's I can think (tho in eg: <buik> as weel, at ye coud justifee - canna
mynd aboot _fit_ an _wid_.) I dout he wis thinkin on <ui> as etymological
raither nor practically diaphonemic. Again, I dinna think he actually
follaed differin dialects - juist uised antrin variants in differin beuks.
>
>
>> I dinna think we can tack qhit we oorsels duis on dhe net as examples o
>> chynge. Is ettlin at a smaa follaein no juist aimin at dhe aidge o dhe
>> tairget? (Onywey, stertin wi a smaa follaein wirks best if ye'r
>> crucifeed first!)
>
>At least that's hittin the tairget (says I, pullin the
>Spellin Comattee airae oot the gress)!

Exactly ma pynt! The Spellin Comatee wis aimed at the gowd an hit the gress,
sae gin ye aim at the aidge ye'll be lucky ti hit the park!
>
>
>> I coud spaek aboot sittin inventin a new gun qhile dhe enemi sodjers is
>> lowpin in dhe windae!
>
>That'll dae the nou wi analogies!

Whit - ar thay ower auld farrant? Is it digitalies nou!?
>
>
>> Wid ye be sendin things tae Lallans an Chapman in a radical spellin?
>
>I'd be "happie" tae send them in Lorimer's spellin!
>
>Here a example o a passage fae Lorimer (fae Matthew 5),
>sae's fowk kens what we're spaekin aboot.
>
>A grave accent means a stressed syllable (uized juist whaur
>lairners is like tae git the stress wrang), acute i or y
>means it's soondit /i(:)/ at least bi the mair conservative
>spaekers o Scots; tt that no aa graphemes is soondit
>like in English, eg:
>
><ou> aye soondit /u(:)/
>unstressed <ow> soondit the likes o /I/, /a/, /e/ or /@/
>conform tae dialeck.

Wi the idea o aye uisin only <ou> for [u] (I ken that's no whit the abuin
says, but that's whit Lorimer maistly dis, I think - certainly in words like
<out>) ye'r areddies shawin ae problem - at ye'r i the kinrick o
'Enthusiast's Scots' an awa frae 'Popular Scots' spellin, wi aa the fleerin
at that brings wi't frae the ad-hoccers, at micht ruise Lorimer as lang's
his gaist disna try ti creep oot atween the brods o the guid beuk. The niest
spier is: whit wey no uise <oo> insteid - that wad be juist as consistent?
Than ye'r back in o the hale jingbang o barnies an rammies again.

Than ye wad hae ti gang ower ilka pynt - for example, is it necessar ti shaw
stress? - an I dinna see hou that wad be different frae stertin frae, say,
the Spellin Report, or the SNDA's spellins. Ye coud cleck a consistent
spellin bi takkin the RWS spellin, reddin it up an applyin it ti the hale
vocabular, no juist non-English words. The problem is at naebodie will thole
onie up-reddin. The Spellin Report haes teckled maist o thir questins
areddy - it juist didna ayewis come ti the best conclusions; but it haes the
framewark for leukin ower thaim.

Mairatower, I dinna see at it wad be necessar ti dae the like. Lorimer's
spellins is areddies i the tradietion o spellin at we uise oorsels. Whit wey
no finnd oot hou it differs frae, say, the Spellin Report spellins - or,
mair generally, the wey we spell oorsels - an adopt onie strynds o't at
seems ti be better? Unless ye'r ettlin ti follae Lorimer's spellins exactly,
I canna see at it wad be a advantage ti _begin_ wi Lorimer, whan we can aa
spell Scots areddies, an can begin whaur we ar. At this rate, we'll shortly
aa be as raivelt we'll no can write Scots ava! An the ad-hoccers will say,
"Didn't I tell you that only obsessives and neurotics were interested in
irrelevancies like orthography."

(Apologies if this e-mail has come through with broken lines, apparently
incorporating carriage return codes. I'm experimenting to try to overcome
this problem, but nothing seems to work.)

John M. Tait.

----------

From: Sandy Fleemin [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Orthography"

John wrate:

> >A dinna see onything wrang wi that - A hiv tried tae say
> >afore that the idea o ae stechie, staunart orthography is
> >juist a auld-farrant imperialistic or Gutenbergistic norrie,
> >but naebody ever seems tae tak ony tent whan A say that kin
> >o thing!
>
> That's cause ye'r speakin ti the wrang fowk. Say that ti thon
> fowk in Edinburgh at I keep girnin aboot, an yer rigbane will be
> sair wi thaim clappin it!
>
> Aweel, like _I_ keep sayin, div ye ken o onie language at haes
> pulled itsel oot o the stank throu _no_ haein a orthography, the
> wey at Faroese, Catalan, Icelandic, Welsh etc. haes wi haein ane?
> The only ane I can think on is Swiss German, an it wis
> appearently on the wey oot afore the Saicont War, whaur fowk
> stertit ti speak it again ti sinder thaim frae the Nazis.

It's no that it wad hae nae orthography - it's that the'r nae
raeson there should be juist ae staunart for aa airts. We div
hae that in English an French an aa that, but whan ye think o
aa the minority cultures that haed tae be strampit ower the tap
o tae mak this possible, A think a body dis hae tae examine their
conscience afore proposin the same thing aa ower again, espaecial
wi the wey a lot o Aiberdeen-awa spaekers dis seem tae want tae
spell Scots their ain wey, whatanever ony theories micht hae tae
offer in the wey o unification.

Houanever, this disna chainge the fack that ae orthography will
dae fine for a braid area - the important thing isna tae hae a
national orthography, it's tae hae a teachable orthography.

>> At least that's hittin the tairget (says I, pullin the
>> Spellin Comattee airae oot the gress)!

> Exactly ma pynt! The Spellin Comatee wis aimed at the gowd an hit the
gress, sae gin ye aim at the aidge ye'll
> be lucky ti hit the park!

Ye hinna seen me on the range - A hinna missed the "custart"
in ma life, no even ance! On the ither haun, A canna say A'v
ever seen a airae fired bi a comatee!

In this case houanever, it leuks like the auld "aft ettle,
whiles hit" his turned oot as "aft ettle, aye miss". A'm oot
o ideas for a orthography that ye wadna lowp oot in front o
the prap for tae stop!

A appreciate that ye'r sayin it's the academic atmosphere that's
the problem, A still dinna see hou this maks it no worth daein,
tho.

> (Apologies if this e-mail has come through with broken lines, apparently
incorporating carriage return codes. I'm
> experimenting to try to overcome this problem, but nothing seems to work.)

I gave up on this a long time ago - I've been inserting line
breaks manually when mailing this list for years now.

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