LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.02.05 (05) [E/S]

Wed Feb 5 16:13:19 UTC 2003

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 05.FEB.2003 (05) * 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
 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) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.02.04 (14) [E]

At 04:10 PM 02/04/03 -0800, Chris Ferguson wrote:
>I feel I have to reply to this email - I do not know exactly what point
this
>person is getting at -but would like to point out that there is no
language,
>dialect or people known as "Scotch".  The language is called Scots. The
>dialects of Scots are called Scots dialects The dialects of English spoken
>here are called Scottish English dialects and the people are called Scots
>with the adjective being Scottish. It intimates to me a deep
>misunderstanding of anything Scottish to refer to "Scotch"

Actually, we've been over this ground several years ago, and I can dig out
the conversation from my personal archive if pressed.  I believe the
conclusion at that time was that "Scotch" is really just a now archaic
spelling of "Scots", which is now generally preferred.  However, in the
18th and 19th centuries, pretty much Scotch meant Scots, as in
"Scotch-Irish Immigration", etc.  Perhaps the distaste for this spelling
and pronunciation derived from other derivations such as "butterscotch",
"Scotch Tape", and so forth, and recent dilettantes (yourself excluded, of
course), thought this was demeaning to the Noble Race of Scots.

Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

----------

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

> From: Chris Ferguson <shoogly at ntlworld.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.04 (03) [E]
>
> I feel I have to reply to this email - I do not know exactly what
> point this
> person is getting at -but would like to point out that there is
> no language,
> dialect or people known as "Scotch".  The language is called Scots. The
> dialects of Scots are called Scots dialects The dialects of English spoken
> here are called Scottish English dialects and the people are called Scots
> with the adjective being Scottish. It intimates to me a deep
> misunderstanding of anything Scottish to refer to "Scotch"

Andy was attempting irony, I'm afraid. Had he but consulted with me first, I
could have advised him to leave that sort of thing to Miss Austen!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Andy (Scots-Online) <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.02.04 (14) [E/S]

Chris Ferguson wrote:
>
> I feel I have to reply to this email - I do not know exactly what point
this
> person is getting at -but would like to point out that there is no
language,
> dialect or people known as "Scotch".  The language is called Scots. The
> dialects of Scots are called Scots dialects The dialects of English spoken
> here are called Scottish English dialects and the people are called Scots
> with the adjective being Scottish. It intimates to me a deep
> misunderstanding of anything Scottish to refer to "Scotch"

Chris it was me, Andy, in cynical conspiracy theory mode criticising those
who talk about 'the Scots language' but continue to fall into the 'dialect
trap' and treat our language as if it was some kind of deviation from an
English norm.
If you're interested in 'Scots speakers' using the term 'Scotch' see the
Ulster-Scots Agency' - Apparently the Scots for that is the 'Boord o
Ulstér-Scotch' www.ulsterscotsagency.com/

A wad hae thocht gaun bi the lave o the bit screed it wad hae been plain as
parritch that wis whit wis meant.
[Ron - A howp A didna brak onie 'flamin' rules bi daein thon. Gin A did,
skelp ma lug an A'll no dae it again.]

Andy

> Sandy Fleming wrote:
> > Subject: "Orthography"
>
> > There has been a development (perhaps alarming, perhaps not nearly as
> > important as some people think) in the field of Scots orthography
lately,
> > namely, the Scottish dictionary people have been insisting on being the
> > authority on spelling. So far there have been no spelling guidelines
that
> I
> > can see, beyond a few hints that it'll be based on Central dialects and
> > pretty much like what you see in Scottish comics like 'The Broons'.
>
Andy Eagle wrote:
> I have the same impression from what I've seen so far. But then again what
> is wrong with using such an approach? We all know that certain naive
circles
> often speak of the 'Scots Language' but we know what is really meant is
the
> Scotch dialects of English. Such an approach only recognises and accepts
the
> established linguistic hierarchy. English is the norm and the Scotch
> dialects of English are a deviation from it. Central Scotch dialects being
> the most widely used in Scotland are thus the 'defacto' dialect standard.
> The written form will of course be sensibly based on the sound to letter
> correspondences of standard English in order to avoid falling victim to
the
> ridiculous notion that the Scotch dialects of English could somehow be
> treated as an independent linguistic system. Scotch can't be independent
> because English is the norm. Other Scotch dialects of English will
hopefully
> sensibly follow the lead set by the Central Scotch dialects of English and
> follow the sound to letter correspondences of standard English. The worst
> thing would be if some fool enthusiast started waffling on about
underlying
> phonemes and polyphonemic graphemes. We English speaking people experts
know
> well fine that your average Scotch will never be able to deal with such a
> concept. They need the guidance of a proper language with proper sound to
> letter correspondences like English- with which, we are of course, all
> extremly familiar.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

Andy,

> [Ron - A howp A didna brak onie 'flamin' rules bi daein thon. Gin A did,
> skelp ma lug an A'll no dae it again.]

That isna needit, Andy.  Onieway, ye'v likely learnit yer lesson.  Juist
mynd ma "purl o wit" o this mornin:

     “The Internet is like a stage. Make your gestures large enough

     for them to be obvious to people in the back row."

Guidwull tae ye an aw!
Reinhard/Ron

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