LL-L "Orthography" 2008.09.20 (03) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 20 September 2008 - Volume 03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================


From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2008.09.20 (02) [E]

> From: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
> Subject: Orthography [S]
>
> Hou's aw?

Ay', no' ba'd, y'e ken'! Hou's yerse'l?


> What I'm interested in are occurences that you may have come across
> where the apostrophe simply makes no sense what so ever.
>
> One I once saw on a flower seller's bike in Edinburgh was Bonnie
> floo'ers rather than flooers orflouers (flowers). Have any you come
> accross others? I'm trying to find examples.

I've seen the antrin scrieve whaur a body'll pit a apostrophe at the end
o a word for nae ither raeson but that it's a Scots word. I canna gie ye
ony acual examples juist aff the luif, but it happens whaur the writer's
pittin doun mair English than Scots an wull write something like, "I
thought I'd take a turn about the auld' place and see if I still knew
anybody."

Sandy Fleemin
http://scotstext.org/

----------

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

Hi, Andy! Good to hear from you.

I don't have answers and examples, though similar examples are aplenty in
Low Saxon of Germany with reference to German spelling.

But thoughts and comments I do have, as usual, and the devil's advocate is
never far away.

The usual question is "Phonemic or etymological?" (leaving aside attempts at
making standard orthographies phonetic).  The two approaches don't yield
identical results, and etymology along with 15th-century orthography tends
to dominate in the "Anglic" world. In either cases, orthographic devices
used in predominant English are "naturally" used in the sister languages
Scots and (Southern) Northumbrian. And therein lies the problem, because
English devices are used inconsistently, each signalling various readings.

To lessen the "mess," you could and perhaps should regularize the spelling
in Scots by at least partly "phonemicizing" the system in that you use a
given English-derived device consistently for the same phoneme. Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I think that's the type of system you are shooting for.

I totally agree that in most cases the use of the apostrophe is non-sensical
where it refers to *English* standards. It can be justified only if it
stands for elesions in Scots itself. Writing *-in'* for *-in* (= English *
-ing*) is *never* justifiable since in Scots it *never* alternates with the
"ing" sound.

Enter examples like *ca'* for what you write *caw* (or *caa*) [kɑ:] 'call',
and *fu'* for what you write *fou* 'full'. (I wonder if *fu'* is meant to
show that the pronunciation is not as in "few" but as in "foo" [fu:].) Your
spelling is consistent with the spelling in other words such as
*house*[hu(:)s] 'house' you and Sandy have been using, although in
your dictionary
(http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary/) you're still spell it the
conventional way: *hoose*.

Enter the devil's advocate. This treatment of etymological *-ll* would fall
in the category of trying to spell phonetically rather than either
phonemically or etymologically. Why? In most instances there are
alternations in which the underlying /-l/ "re"-appears, such as in *caw* [kɑ:]
~ *callin* [ 'kɑ:ɫen] 'call' ~ 'calling', and *pou* [pu:] ~ *pullin* ['pʊɫen]
(~ ['pʌɫen]) 'pull' ~ pulling'. Final /l/ is absorbed by and lengthens the
preceding vowel.

In other words, I'm suggesting that, unless you want to spell "phonetically"
for the Sasanach, the final /l/ ought to be written as such, because a
Scots-specific phonological rule requires final /l/ to be "deleted" but
otherwise pronounced, thus, e.g.

*call ~ callin* (rather than *caw ~ callin*)
*pull ~ pullin* (rather than *pou ~ pullin*)
*fall ~ fallin* (rather than *faw ~ fallin*)
*small ~ smaller* (rather than *smaw ~ smaller*)
*troll ~ trollin* (rather than *trowe ~ trollin* 'to troll', 'to trundle')

Where there is no such alternation, you have to decide if you want to go by
sound or by etymology; e.g.

*aw* or *all*
*haw* or *hall*
*staw* or *stall
baw or ball
waw* or *wall*
*fou* or *full* (~ *fuller*?)
*gou* or *gull
bou* or *bull*
*trowe *or *troll *('troll' noun)

It doesn't matter if etymology and the convenience of the Sasanach are
disregarded.

In some cases, the shift / > *w* has sunk to the phonemic level, and the
"ll" spelling would not be appropriate; e.g.

*row* [rʌʊ] ~ *row*in ['rʌʊen] 'roll' ~ 'rolling'
(cf. also *rowie* ['rʌʊi] 'bread roll')

What say you?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080920/4cf4290c/attachment.htm>