LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.01 (03) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 01.FEB.2003 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 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
 Archives: 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) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2003.01.31 (06) [S]

Sandy wrate:

>Thir's aa guid questions  :)
>
>I canna git startit on thaim athoot some backgrund first
>anent the uise o "is" forenent "ar" in Scots.
>
>Fae early Scots tae this vera day, the "-s" endin's been
>uized on verbs even wi plural nouns (we'v been ower aa
>this afore, as ye ken). Houanever, the verb "tae be" wis
>originally a exception tae this rule, "ar" bein uized wi
>plural nouns. Ower time, bi analogy wi the raiglar verbs,
>"is" startit tae be uized insteed o "ar" wi plural nouns.
>The war never a time whan this process wis complete, tho,
>sae ye could say, wi certain caveats, that it's never wrang
>tae uize "ar" wi plural nouns, even in 'clessic' Scots.
>
>I think that in modern Scots (at onyroads wi fowk that
>spaeks in a mair 'clessic' register) "is" is the mair
>uizual form wi plural nouns, but that whan the'r chyce
>atween 'is' an 'ar', 'ar' can be preferred for emphasis.
>
>Sae tae ca on...
>
>> But in written Scots ye whiles come ower phrases like:
>>
>> Thir ar bigger than/nor thae.
>
>Like ye'll a jalouzed, I read the 'ar' as maist like
>emphatic. Itherwice this wad be faur the maist likely
>wey tae say'd:

Gin the 'ar' is emphatic, dis this no suggest at the plural uiss o the verb
'ti be' wi plural subjects is English influenced raither nor heired frae
clessic Scots (ye ken the wey Scots speakers tends ti uise English maks for
emphasis - like in Shaetlan 'I don't know' is mair emphatic nor 'I dunna
kaen', tho it's still naitural Shaetlan - in ither words, it's sayed
naiturally bi fowk at's no 'knappin.') In ither words, cause the conformin o
the verb 'ti be' ti the same reul as ither verbs haes taen place in
post-clessical times, whan Scots wis aye heavily influenced bi English
oniewey, the 'ar' mak can aye be regairdit as the 'richt' ane, an uised for
emphasis?

This creates a kinch for written (expository) Scots, cause gin, in spoken
Scots, the unemphatic mak is 'thir's/thae's' an the emphatic mak 'thir ar/
thae ar', than div ye say at 'ar', 'is' or ''s' is the ane maist suited til
an expository register? Ye'v a chyce atween a contractit mak 'thir's'
(contractit maks no forordinar bein uised in expository writin); or 'thir
is' at ye say fowk disna actually say; or 'thir ar' at, gin it is uised in
an expository register, wadna hae the effect o defendin the 'thir's'
colloquial uiss as richt Scots grammar. Asweel, whit div ye uise in the
interrogative an past tense - ar thae/thir? is thae/thir? war thae/thir? wis
thae/thir?

I'm assumin at, for expository Scots, ye can dae awa wi the maks ye gied at
needs physical pyntin ti expone whit ye'r speakin aboot. As faur as I follae
ye, this wad allou _thir/thae_ wi'oot a follaein noun at the beginnin o a
phrase, but no at the end - sae ye coud hae 'thir is/'s/ar aaricht' but no
'better nor thir/thae'?

An whit aboot translations o English phrases like 'those which came first
were younger than those which come afterwards.' Gaun bi my ain speak an
Lorimer, I'v aye thocht at eg: 'Thae that cam first wis younger nor thae
that cam efterhaund' should be 'Thaim that cam first wis younger nor thaim
that cam efterhaund'. Div ye think 'thae' is possible in sentences like
thon?

I seem ti hae nae bather uisin 'thae' an 'thir' mysel, juist bi stickin ti
uisses whaur I'm fameeliar wi a lot o precedent - for example, I wad write
'baith o thir is reid' or 'thir is baith reid' whaurbyes in Doric I wad need
ti say 'baith o this anes is reid', an i Shaetlan 'baith o dis enes is
raed', (or, mair likely in maist contexts 'this anes is baith reid' - wad ye
write 'thir is baith reid' or whit?) but I still dinna write 'It's better
nor thae' whaur I wad write 'It's better than those' in English. But I
whiles come ower maks in written Scots at I'm no shuir if thay'r richt or
no, or juist copies o the English; an cause I dinna hae 'thae' an 'thir' i
my ain dialects, I canna come up wi onie reuls for thaim.

Is this a similar kinch ti the ane ye hae tryin ti mak expository Scots oot
o the differin maks o 'the' an 'thare', whaur, as faur as I'm awaur, the'r
only twa present-tense maks wi the verb 'ti be' in ilkaday speak - (1)
'thare is', aften contractit ti 'thare's' an (2) 'the ar' maistly contractit
ti 'the'r': ie: 'thare' + singular verb, an 'the' + plural verb. (Coorse ye
git ither maks wi ither verbs an tenses, like 'the war', 'thare wis',
'the'll be', etc.) Baith o thir is uised wi baith singular an plural
subjects. Houaniver, in written Scots ye'll aften see (a) 'Thare ar' uised
in the plural, follaein the English uiss, (b) 'thare' for 'the'r', at ti me
means somethin different ('the'r a horse i the hoose' is juist a plain
statement, whaurbyes 'thare a horse i the hoose' is demonstrative, pyntin
oot the airt or place at the horse is, like 'here a moo, there a moo'. (c)
'There are/were' uised wi singular subjects (fowk at writes like this
forordinar uises spellins like 'there are/were') I think interpretin 'the'r'
as 'thare ar' - ie, no recognisin 'the' as a word in its ain richt; (d)
'the's' or 'the is/wis' uised wi singular subjects - at, gin it exists, I
wad like ti ken whaur fae. Again, this coud this be a confuision wi 'thae's'
etc.

The kinch here is at ye canna threip frae silence - that is, i the absence o
onie reuls I canna say at naebodie says 'the's' or 'there are' wi singular
subjects, e'en tho thay wad be hine wrang in the dialects I'm acquant wi, an
sae, in effect, I canna tell if whit fowk writes is naitural speak, conform
ti English, or fause analogy. This creates a kinch for expository Scots,
cause it's unpossible ti say whit exists - or maks sense - an whit disna.

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