LL-L "Orthography" 2002.11.16 (02) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 16.NOV.2002 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 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>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

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

> From: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2002.10.31 (11) [E/S]
>
> Sandy wrate:
>
> >It is sut true. The'r nae richt rules in English orthography,
> >juist derivations o what's the maist uizual wey tae write
> >things. This is how A'v got 'principles' in quotes abuin. Can
> >ye set doun the consonant-dooblin rule in sic a wey as it's
> >vera near aye richt?
>
> Ye canna dae't sae as ti expone aathing at kythes in English orthography -
> obviously - but thare wad be naething hinderin ye ti cleck rules
> foondit on
> the maist general English practics, an then stickin ti thaim for the Scots
> spellin. For example, in English spellin _v_ is no doobled, but in Scots
> spellin ye coud dooble the _v_ efter the same rules as maist
> ither letters -
> giein contrasts like 'rive' but 'rivven', ti correspond ti
> 'hide', 'hidden'.
> I wad hae thocht the rule thare wis obvious eneuch - at the
> single consonant
> alters the soond o the aforegaun vowel, but the rule is broken wi _v_ in
> English.

...

> >A daur say it's aesy eneuch tae simplify English/Scots spellin
> >dramatically wi the conseestent application o ane or twa rules.
> >Gin ye juist sayed "nae magic E, nae dooblt vowels" like A did
> >in thon system o mines, ye'd be hauf roads tae reddin the hale
> >midden!
>
> Is that no mair or less whit I wis sayin abuin?

Weel, what I'm sayin's mair, what you'r sayin's less! It seems
tae me that what your sayin's forenent makkin teeny chainges
tae the muckle sea o derived contradictory spellin rules in
English, while I'm on aboot soopin awa hale collections o
rules an settin doun faur mair general anes in their steed.

Consonant doooblin in English orthography is aften sayed tae
indicate vowel length. Houanever, a body sees vera little
truith in this whan they try an think on examples - there dis
seem tae be some kin o relationship but the'r a muckle rowth
o exceptions.

Sae some ither rules is uized tae try an catch as mony o the
exceptions as possible.

Ae wey o daein this is bi sayin that a closed syllable is
short, a open syllable is lang. Sae this gies ye a circular
airgyment whaur ye can force a vowel tae be short or lang,
dependin on whaur ye break the syllables. This bein sic a
circular airgyment, ye'd think ye'd could catch aa exceptions
wi'd - an ye could, but wirds in English isna acually spelled
conform tae this rule, sae tho ye can catch some, the'r still
a muckle rowth o exceptions.

A effort's made tae sort thir bi takkin intae accoont the
historical phonological principles o the langage. For example
/i(:)/ is considered the lang form o /E/, /e:/ the lang form
o /a:/ an that. But this disna wirk vera weel, sae anither
circular airgyment's brocht in - that a <e> or a <i> at the
end o a closed syllable opens it. The rationale ahint this is
that this <e> wis ance soondit an sae that wis a separate
syllable - eg <gale> really splits intae syllables as "ga-le"
an sae the first syllable's open!

This disna wirk at aa, but nil desperandum - just drap aa the
historical <e>'s as necessary tae _gar_ it wirk.

An efter aa that, it still disna wirk - think on wirds the
likes o <able>, <change>.

This is whit wey yer "dooble-v" idea is wirthless, John -
it's liftin ae shui whan the hale midden wants reddin.

I dout we can say that English orthographic rules is descriptive,
but asweel, that it's no possible tae mak a daecent description
o'd the wey it stauns. Ye end up wi circular airgyments, aa in
conflick wi ane anither.

The only answer is tae gaun at it prescriptive, an me sayin
"nae magic e", "nae doobled consonants" soops awa maist o the
redd. An ye can see this is richt - in spoken English (an Scots)
the _ar_ nae doobled consonants (forby across ane or twa morpheme
boondaries), the _ar_ nae magic e. The'r nae raeson tae pit them
in the spellin, an every raeson tae tak them oot.

Oh ay - forby that naebody likes what they'r no uized wi. Likely
that _is_ nae raeson!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

==================================END===================================
* 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>.
=======================================================================