LL-L "Language change" 2002.09.13 (12) [S]

Fri Sep 13 23:03:29 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 13.SEP.2002 (12) * 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 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 "Grammar" 2002.09.10 (08) [E]

Sandy wrate:

>A wis thinkin aboot this this mornin, an doutit A'd gotten ma verbs a
>bittie fanklt here. A'd been thinkin on the "'s" in the like o "Hou's
>A tae..." as staunin for "haes", but in fack it stauns for "is"! Like,
>"Hou's A tae..." is anither wey o sayin "Hou am A tae...". It micht be
>that it's juist the verb "tae be" cannin gae aither wey like wi is/ar,
>micht it no?

It micht - is thare onie ither examples o 'is' swappin wi 'am'? Even i the
present historic, it's 'am' wi the first bodie, is it no?
>
>That wad explain how we dinna hear it that aften - cause "am" wad be
>fine an aa here, an likely mair uizual. A canna tie it in wi aathing
>else, tho - wad it be richt tae say, "A's tae gaun tae Ternent the
>nicht"? A dinna think sae. At the same time, A still thinks "Haes A
>tae gaun..." soonds naitral, but no "A haes tae..." - sae aiblins it
>is something tae dae wi'd aither bein a question, or wi the verb bein
>afore the pronoun.

Again, like I say, it micht be ane o thon antrin anomalies ye get - like
'aren't I' an 'ain't' - hou div ye get that frae 'isn't'?
>
>(A bittie a caveat thare: it wad be aaricht tellin a story and sayin,
>"...sae A haes tae gaun tae Ternent that nicht..." but "A haes tae
>gaun tae Ternent the nicht" disna soond richt.)

Is that no juist the present historic again? In Shetlandic I wad say - 'an
dan I haes ta walk aa da wye tae da Sooth End...' or whitiver, but 'I'll
laekly hae ta walk aa da wye...'
>
>Ye'll notice A'm uizin "gaun" here for "gang" wi the wey A hae tae
>think in ma ain dialeck for tae juidge if a thing's naitral or no!
>
>> Mynd, ye div get hine orra uisses in onie language at disna seem ti fit
>> onie reuls - like 'aren't I' in English.
>
>That could aye be it - as lang's we dinna faa back on this ower suin!

Ay.

I hae a feelin - for whit it's wirth - at the -s verb afore a pronoun is
likely ta be a marginal uiss - it seems ti be haurd ti pin doun - an sae
(except for whan it's the historic present) mair a dialogue nor a nairative
strynd. Aa the examples ye'v gien me seems ti me ti be gey thirlt ti speak.
Of coorse, written Scots shoud be foondit on speak - maun be, else leuk whit
happens wi the contrived stuff ye whiles come across - but, like I keep
sayin, for a nairative register ye maun think on whit's tradeetional an
general as weel. Asweel, if ye pit aathing frae spoken Scots intil yer
nairative register, ye loss the differ atween that an a spoken register!
(Tho, of coorse, that coud be a excuiss for uisin juist English grammar for
nairative).
>
>> 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'.
>
>A think this is Lorimer sayin that he sees hissel as in the
>historical tradition o Scots Bible translation - the translators
>afore him wrate this wey an aa. In this case he's no tryin tae be
>a model for fowk writin modern Scots, an no juist dis this dae nae
>herm (at least tae thame as kens their Scots!), it uphauds an
>develops a important writin style in traditional Scots that
>itherwice fowk micht loss aathegither.

I dout that's richt. But Lorimer disna haud wi ither translators in ither
weys - he's the only ane I ken o at uises the tradeetional grammar, for
example. It's no aesy ti get fowk ti see at ye can follae Lorimer's formal
grammar wi'oot follaein his style tae.
>
>> 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.
>
>Whan it comes tae spellin, thae dictionars is nae uiss as faur as A
>can see. It's no exackly "authority" A'm efter for the novel, it's
>mair for what A'm gaun tae say whan fowk say A'v spelt a wird a wey
>they dinna haud wi.

Weel, ye coud aye say, dinna blame me, it's thon gypes at the SNDA's wyte!
No at I'm recommendin this, mynd!

Gin A bases the spellin on Lorimer A can say,
>"Lorimer spelt it that wey." This seems tae me tae be better than
>sayin "It's spelt like that in the SND," - aabody kens the SND lists
>aa kin o antrin spellins.
>
>As weel, Lorimer haes twathree muckle advantages ower Hunter, the SND
>an aathing else - it's the ae beuk that's aesy gotten an describes
>hou its spellin wirks.

The SNDA dictionars describes hou thair spellins wirks (or disna wirk, if ye
like) tae, tho. Altho, come ti think on it, the description disna match up
wi whit thay actually dae.

Dis Lorimer's NT actually describe hou the spellin wirks, tho? The
impression I get is at it tells ye hou ti pronunce the words, but no hou ti
allocate the spellins. For example, whit wey haes he _ei_ in heiven an
weill, but _ee_ in sheep an sheet, an i-acute in sick an scrive? Hou's a
bodie ti figgur this oot? The difference seems ti be naither etymological
(sick/seek is a Auld English word) nor onie ither thing. An shuirly the
'seek' pronunciation is mair common still nor the 'ee' soond in words like
'tradeetion'. Is it juist at he's haudin wi English spellins (sheet, sheep),
an than uisin the 'Scots' <ei> whaur the pronunciation is different (heiven,
weill) - but than, whit wey no _seik_? It seems ti me at, bi the time ye'v
raitionalised this eneuch ti can wirk it bi oniething ither nor memory o
ilka word, ye'v gotten a different kynd o spellin aathegither. It's fine
eneuch ti read, aince ye get the hang o't, but whit wad it be like ti write?

This means A could refer fowk tae Lorimer for
>a description o the spellin system. In practice, o coorse, A'd mair
>like explain it in the beuk, for fowk that disna hae Lorimer, but it
>micht be the first step on the road tae readers no haein tae lairn a
>new system for every beuk they read!
>
>> 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.
>
>But we div hiv Colin nou!

True.
>
>> 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>.
>
>A think the guid thing aboot the i-acute diacritic is it can
>be read aither wey (Lorimer's son says this in his spellin crib).

Ay, an ye can aye uise, say, 'ie' as a digraph equeevalent if ye'r writin
e-mails an canna be fashed wi't. Houaniver, I div think at diacritics isna
popular wi readers. Hiv ye read thon novel at Scotscrieve pat oot - whit wis
it caad nou - at wis aa written wi thair kynd o spellins, diacritics an aa?
The effect o't in a novel is a bittie different frae in the NT, I wad say.
>
>Whatanever, A div agree that diacritics tae shaw certain stresses
>(same as in Welsh) is never a bad idea.
>
>> The boddom line is at nae extant spellin is saitisfectory wi'oot some
>> interficherin.
>
>Ay, this leaves me wi the question o whether tae fouter aboot
>wi'd or no. We shuirly kens bi this that exack, consistent spellin
>o every wird is never possible, an there comes a time tae say,
>richt, this is guid eneuch, we'll tak it wi aa its fauts. For example,
>A dinna like the wey Lorimer writes "storie" insteed o "story" (or
>for that maiter "I" insteed o "A"), but what dis it maiter what A
>dinna like, if the readers disna like ma preferred spellins ony mair
>than Lorimer's?

Whan I say interficherin, I'm no speakin sae muckle aboot things at I dinna
like as things at disna mak sense - like SNDA 'jaicket' an 'maitter', for
example (Lorimer haes thir kinds o spellins tae) or 'breid' but 'deef' (whan
thae twa words haes the same underlyin vowel), or RWS 'buckle' but 'mukkil',
or the spellin comatee's spellin o 'ee' soonds, etc. I maun say I hinna iver
teckelt Lorimer's spellins ti finnd oot hou consistent his spellin is (afore
thon comments on his 'ee' spellins abuin) cause I dinna ken oniebodie at's
iver recommendit it as a wey o spellin till yersel - tho the Scotscrieve
spellin is in the same tradeetion, baith gaun back ti the auld Stylesheet, I
jalouse.
>
>It micht be that nou we'v a New Testament in a spellin that's
>no aathegither ignorant, we'v landit at the place whaur gin
>we dinna settle on this, we'll never settle on onything.

Ay - except mynd at, wi languages like Nynorsk - baith kynds o Norwegian for
that maiter - at disna stert wi aither a tradeetional or a radical spellin,
the'r can be a process o spellin reforms. It's mair a case o whaur ye stert
frae, sae that, ideally, ye can mak a meenimum o chynges an the spellin
still be easy readable an i the same tradeetion.

The biggest problem, tho, is - wha ither wad be likely ti stert spellin the
Lorimer wey, whan onie spellin ye see is aither SNDA-type, RWS-type (whiles
modifeed bi the spellin comatee's recommends nou) or aff-the cuff dialect?
Whan Lorimer cam oot Derrick McClure wrate a airticle in Chapman sayin at,
weel, the spellin wisna perfect but it wad dae for a standard evenou, but
did oniebodie tak tent? No likely. Mairatower, the'r 'camps' as weel. Maist
o the maist influential anes - Itchy Coo, etc, an nou Colin - follaes the
SNDA. Inasfaur as the comatee haes haen onie influence, I wad say it haes aa
been ower anes at uised ti spell the RWS wey - the SNDA schuil taks nae tent
o't ava - except at the'r a hard-core o RWS spellers the likes o Ken Farrow
an Purves hissel, o coorse. Plus, the SNDA haes estaiblished thairsels as
the spellin advisors in things like the Cross Pairty Comatee. This is gey
ironic, cause thay'r likely maistly the anes at uised ti fleer at 'spellin
police', etc, whan it wis Purves tryin ti wig the dug's tail.

Best idea wad likely be ti try uisin Lorimer's spellin, an see hou a bodie
got on. My ain impression is at it mixters thegither modren wi middle-Scots
practics - like 'wh' insteid o 'quh', but 'weill' insteid o 'weel', an orra
dooble vowels like 'mainner', at kynd o combines a auld-like appearance wi
juist alterin the English spellin ad-hoc. The ither thing, of coorse, is at
it uises 'ou' near aawey - a contendin bane, as ye ken, an airguably makkin
the effect ower leeterary, in at ye maun hae a sicker haud o the convention
afore ye can pronunce it richt. Hiv ye analysed it ti finnd oot hou uisable
it is - in ither words, whither ye can uise it kennin the principles,
withoot haein ti leuk up ivery word - a thing ye canna dae oniewey, seein as
it's a text no a word list, that mibbie bein ae raeson at it didna catch on
better. If ye can naither apply principles nor leuk up words, but hiv ti
lippen ti fowk myndin hou ti spell ilka word, I dout ye'r no backin a
winner.

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

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