LL-L "Orthography" 2002.11.20 (04) [S]

Wed Nov 20 22:40:44 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 20.NOV.2002 (04) * 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: John M. Tait jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2002.11.16 (02) [S]

Sandy wrate:
>
>> 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.

I dout I'v stertit a muckle graet misunderstandin here. Whan I sayed 'Is
that no mair or less whit I wis sayin abuin?' I wisna speakin aboot my ain
idea o uisin English-type consonant reuls, but my _ither_ an _hypothetical_
suggestion o tryin ti foond Scots spellin on Latin spellin - that wad fit in
wi the 'nae doobled vowels, nae magic e' wey - tho it obviously wadna be
exactly the same, it wad be mair compatible nor the English wey o dooblin
vowels.
>
>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.

Is this an ettle ti _describe_ English spellin or ti _justifee_ it? (I'm no
juist shuir whit ye'r sayin maugre ye gie a puckle mair examples.) Thon
aboot closed an open syllables seems ti me ti be clutchin at clessical
straes.
>
>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 seems ti me ti be airguments tryin ti justifee English spellin. Whit
I'm speakin aboot is describin it. It disna seem ti me ti need onie o thon
ti expone at:

mat - mate
rat - rate
fat - fate
fad - fade
rap - rape

etc. is a obvious eneuch reul. I dinna see nae need ti justifee it, or
expone it historically, whan it's fairly obvious whit the 'e' dis.
>
>This disna wirk at aa, but nil desperandum - just drap aa the
>historical <e>'s as necessary tae _gar_ it wirk.
>
I dinna follae ye here - can ye gie examples?

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

I canna see at <able> disna faa inti the uisual doobled consonant reul -
compare able, maple, table, noble, bogle wi apple, babble, rabble, nobble,
boggle. Here the <le> is juist a conventional wey o writin final [l], no the
'magic' e, but the convention for shawin the vowel soond is obvious eneuch.

In <change>, the problem is at the 'e' baith alters the vowel frae [a] ti
[e:] (uisin Scottish Standard English pronunciations) an the consonant frae
[g] ti [dZ] (or the group <ng> frae [N] ti [n(d)Z]. Compare:

bang - change

Ti mak this transparent, [e:N] coud be written <aing> - like i the proper
name Laing - an [andZ] wad need ti be written <andge>. This is uisin English
conventions - like final <le> an <ge>=[dZ] - as faur's thay gang, but reddin
up onie raivelments o pronuncin.
>
>This is whit wey yer "dooble-v" idea is wirthless, John -
>it's liftin ae shui whan the hale midden wants reddin.

I canna see at it's wirthless ti dae somethin juist cause ye canna dae
aathing. Apply that wey o leukin at it ti life in general, an naething wad
ivver be duin! Dooble <v> dis awa wi onie ambiguities aboot the pronuncin o
words like 'ivver', 'rivven' an siclike bi uisin a convention at's weel kent
in the likes o 'hidden'.

I think it's this airgument at's the main haudback in Scots spellin. Ae camp
wants a raidical spellin an anither is no muckle interestit in reuls ava.
This can be seen atween David Purves (tho his spellin wisna raelly aa that
raidical) an the SNDA (as it wis than - nou SLD) at mainly juist uises
fameeliar-like spellins foondit on alterin English spellins ti shaw Scots
pronunciations. The raidical camp taks the view at, gin ye canna hae a
raidical spellin ye needna bather, sae the ithers is left ti thairsels ti
spell it as muckle o a bourach as thay like.
>
>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.

Ay, that's fairly true - but ye dinna need airguments ti describe somethin.
Aa ye maun dae is describe whit's actually there - ie, ye can describe the
mat-mate reul wi'oot tryin ti justifee it. Is it no tryin ti inhaud things
at disna fit at maks maist o the fause threips? The 'dooble v' reul is juist
flittin 'v' frae the list o exceptions whaur the dooblin reul disna wirk,
inti the 'body o the Kirk' as ye micht say, an it haes the advantage o
makkin it less likely at fowk is gaun ti rhyme 'ivver' wi 'fiver' raither
nor wi 'liver' (at wad than be 'livver' in Scots). It's a hauf-wey hoose,
recognisin at (a) even gin ye div spell words wi English-like spellins (b)
ye still canna lippen on fowk ti pronunce the Scots words richt bi sheer
fameeliarity, like ye can in English.

This is a hauf-wey-hoose airgument, but ye _coud_ cleck a mair regular
spellin foondit on English-like spellins. Here ye wad - for example - spell
'chainge' an 'aible', keepin the 'e' no cause it's a magic 'e' in thir cases
but cause <le> final an <ge> =  [dZ] is ither orthographic conventions. In
ither words, cause the final <e> canna wirk here, ye wad faa back on anither
wey o shawin the vowel soond - bi a digraph. I canna see whit wey this wadna
wirk, unless by 'wirk' ye mean at nae exceptions is allooed. It still wadna
be completely regular, but it wad be mair regular nor the wey Scots is
maistly written evenou.

Mynd, I'm no recommendin the doobled-v spellin - cause I ken bi nou at the'r
nae pynt makkin onie recommends aboot Scots spellin - juist pyntin oot at it
wad be ae logical step in reddin up Scots spellin uisin English-like
conventions.

>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!

Weel, I dinna ken aboot that. Back ti the Dvorak keyboard an Klavier muisic.
Again, tho, this is tied up wi anither problem. Ye coud spell Scots onie wey
ye likit - wi Cyrillic script if ye wantit - gin it wis acceptit at it's a
language at haes ti be lairnt. But the feck o the Scottish estaiblishment -
includin a lot o thaim at's at the heid o threipin for Scots, an representin
it at conferences owerseas - regairds it as somethin at onie English speaker
shoud can juist pick up a bittie at a time, or at ye'v only ti represent yer
ain pronunciation in as best as ye can bi alterin English spellins.

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

==================================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>.
=======================================================================