LL-L "Grammar" 2002.09.10 (03) [S]

Tue Sep 10 14:32:39 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 10.SEP.2002 (03) * 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 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 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: LL-L "Grammar" 2002.09.08 (04) [S]

Sandy wrate:
>
>It could be that A'm wrang aboot this - aiblins A'm gittin
>mixed up wi the like o "Wis ye..." that's gey uizual.

Ay, I'm fameeliar wi that - that seems ti be peculiar ti 'wis', tho. But
thare coud aesy be some ither uiss at I'm no acquant wi frae your airt.
>
>> >"Hou's A tae git tae Ternent the nicht?"
>>
>> I hiv heard this, but no aften.
>
>A'm gey shuir o this, but gin the first ane's wrang an this
>isna, what's the rule? Is't adae wi'd bein a question-wird?

This is a verra guid question. First thare's the problem o estaiblishin
if it's the same as yer first example or no. It coudna possibly be 'hou
(wi)s I ti gang' coud it? Na, I dout no.

Mynd, ye div get hine orra uisses in onie language at disna seem ti fit
onie reuls - like 'aren't I' in English.
>
>> I think it's mibbie mair likely that the -s endin haes crept in frae
>> habitual/historic present uiss, efter the verb first, an than flittit ti
>> afore the verb as weel. Coorse, like ye say, it's haurd ti gaither
>> evidence whit wi the wey sae monie Scots writers Anglicises thair verbs
>> oniewey.
>
>Ay, it's no aesy, but gin ye keep a ee oot in yer readin an
>listenin A think ye'd can settle maist o the richt rules in
>the end. A hae tae try an dae mair textual analysis the like
>o what A did for Mrs Goudie's Tea Pairty. Ye can leuk at a
>text like that an tho the'r inconsistencies ye come across
>nae inflections that haes tae be pitten doun tae typos - that
>wad suggest that onything that's no conform tae staunart
>English grammar can be taen as Scots, no a mistak.

This soonds like a guid principle, tho a sad reflection on Scots writin!
>
>> In onie case, for expository Scots I think ye need a 'standard' - an
>> authority. Lorimer wad be as guid as onie, I wad jalouse.
>
>For this novel A'v been thinkin on takkin no juist Lorimer's
>grammar but his spellin an aa - or at least a simplified kin
>o spellin, but still Lorimer's. But Lorimer's no the last
>wird on't - ye canna say that "Hou's A tae..." is wrang juist
>wi Lorimer no uizin it (tho mibbie he dis, A dinna ken!).

Ay, but thare's a differ atween sayin at somethin is richt or wrang, an
takkin on a standard for expository uiss. The 'standard' wad be uised
maistly in nairative an the like, but that disna say naething aboot whit
ye wad uise in dialogue or whitiver. I suppose the principle shoud be at
it's juist for the 'standard' - whit I wad caa a 'bog standard' - at ye
need reuls ava. For dialogue an the like ye can juist tak the advice at
the bourach brigade wad hae for Scots as a hale, an follae yer lugs.

Siccan a standard maun be simplified a bittie frae speak - mair regular.
Here again, the trouble wi the bourach brigade, as I caa thaim, is at,
haein taen this philosophical anti-reuls poseetion, whan thay come ti
write expository prose - like James Robertson in thon beuk aboot the
pairliment - aa thay can dae is write re-lexified English. Aa I'm sayin
is at, raither nor follae English like a wee yappy dug, we shoud follae
the ither authority - Lorimer - no cause it's necessarily 'richt' an
ither strynds o Scots 'wrang', but cause he's taen the trouble an haed
the lear ti wale oot the maist characteristic strynds o tradeetional
Scots an mak a expository medium oot o thaim. Coorse, this gies ye the
niest problem, o sinderin his formal grammar frae his _style_, at I
think is a bittie 'heavy'. For example, 'whilk' is aaricht frae the pynt
o view o grammar, but it belangs a style mair formal nor I wad like ti
write mysel. Same thing wi pittin -na on the end o verbs at's no modal -
the likes o 'bedditna'.

>Houanever, A div think if A canna hae a raiglar spellin, the
>saicont best ane is a authoritative spellin, as lang's it's
>mensefu. P. Hay Hunter's (see ScotsteXt) is anither ane that
>wad dae fine for a staunart as lang's ye teuk oot aa the
>needless apostrophes, but Lorimer's is a better staunart whan
>ye tak aathing thegither - Lorimer haes the grammar as weel's
>the spellin, an a bit uisefu variation, forby.

I'm feart at, gin ye'r leukin for a authoratative spellin, the only
candidate is the SNDA spellin in the Scots School Dictionary and the
Concise English Scots Dictionary. Colin's takkin this on for his beuk
shaws this - he haed a chyce ti mak, an he nae dout waled oot this,
maugre it's fauts, juist cause o the authority o the SNDA. Sae,
typically o Scotland, ye get spellin bein determined bi thaim at disna
really haud wi spellin.

I wad say the same thing wad gang for grammar. Maugre Lorimer, an
certainly maugre you, me, Andy, an likely even Colin, gin thare's onie
standard grammar iver proponed for Scots it'll be the James Robertson
type - written bi defaut bi fowk at disna haud wi grammar, an sae can
only write English. Bi refuisin ti tak pairt in the spellin comatee, the
SNDA made shuir at thair existin ad-hoc approach ti spellin gaed
unchallenged. The same wey, bi refuisin ti consider grammar, the likes o
Robertson gets the richt ti estaiblish thair ain unconsidered grammar as
a standard.

>O coorse, ye'd hae tae ignore the biblical diction -
>"sey-as-na-sairlie" wad hae tae be "dinna sey us sair" an aa
>that! On the ither haun, what aboot his diacritics? Ye micht
>say fowk disna like them, but they wad mean less actors an
>reciters soondin their Scots wrang.

Ay - this is whit I meant bi style.

Naething wrang wi diacritics as lang's thay'r optional. Houaniver, it's
better ti uise digraph equeevalents - eg: _ie_ for i-acute, etc. An
exception wad be the grave accent at he uises on words like _ava_ whaur
it shaws the stress on the last syllable, an possibly on words like
_want_. It depends, tae, on whither ye want ti emphasise the 'ee' soond
in words like 'tradeetion', or leave it optional the wey it's faan oot o
uiss in maist Mainland Scots nou (a guid uiss for the diacritic) or
juist leave the etymological <i>.

The boddom line is at nae extant spellin is saitisfectory wi'oot some
interficherin.
>
>> >Aa this leaves me no shuir hou tae deal wi formal
>> >poetic diction, the like o this on ScotsteXt:
>> >
>> >Ken ye Meggie Bridie, O?
>> >The bonny Meggie Bridie, O?
>> >Whan she pat on her damask goun
>> >She leukit like a leddy O;
>> >But whan she teuk it aff again
>> >She wis but Meggie Bridie, O!
>> >
>> >Wad this be better written, "Kens ye Meggie Bridie..."?
>>
>> I wadna hae thocht sae. 'Kens ye' disna soond naitural ti me, for
>> example, sae it maun belang ither airts - back ti my threip aboot a
>> expository standard.
>
>The trouble is that "Ken ye..." disna soond tae me like
>onything onybody wad say aither! But A dout for poetic
>diction the'r no a lot ye can dae forby copy the poets,
>sae aiblins "Ken ye..." wad be aa ye could write.

Is this no cause it's auld-farrant - cause in maist modren Scots a bodie
wad say 'div ye ken' or 'dae ye ken'. 'Ken ye' soonds naitural ti me
cause in Shetlandic 'kaen you' is naitural, tho bein replaced bi 'dui
you kaen'. I wad aesy say 'Kaen you wha yun is?' an it wadna soond
unnaitural, tho 'dui you kaen wha yun is' wad be mair likely. Is it no
likely at the 'Ken ye' form, at's juist comin ti be auld-farrant in
Shetland evenou, haes come ti be auld-farrant in Mainland Scots a whilie
aforehaund, an sae it nou soonds - weel - auld farrant, wi the extra
problem at, cause it's no fameeliar frae ilkaday speak, it soonds a
bittie like auld-farrant English (Know ye) - the kind o English at's
only uised bi gey 'posh', an mibbie aulder, speakers nooadays, an sae
the Scots 'ken ye' mibbie taks on some o the 'posh' connotation? I
think, tho, at a written language will aye need some auld-farrantisms,
espeecially for poietry. Even unwritten language - siclike as the
language o tribal fowk in, for example, Indonesia - haes auld farrant
formal diction at's uised in ceremonies, for poietry an siclike.

John.

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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================