LL-L "Phonology" 2009.04.16 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 16 April 2009 - Volume 03
===========================================

From: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2009.04.15 (01) [E]

John wrote:


 You mean simplification of <nd> to <n>? Actually, this isn't very common in
>

Shetland. In my own accent, it occurs only in 'Shaetlan' and one or two

other words such as 'fin' (find). I pronounce words like 'roond' and

'Scotland' with a final 'd'. Some people pronounce 'Shaetland' with a 'd',

but I think the variant ending in 'n' is more usual. I notice from writing -

although I haven't noticed it in speech - that some people drop more 'd's

than I do, but it still seems to be sporadic - I'm not aware that anyone

does it consistently, as they do in the Doric accent of the North East of

Scotland where I live.

Yes I did mean simplification of <nd> to /n/. All the same, if some speakers
do not simplify surely the full form should be used orthographically. It is
easier (when reading loud) to simplify a cluster that’s written rather than
pronounce a phoneme that isn’t written.



 The 'ae' sound can't be adequately represented by written <e> because it's
> a
>

different phoneme. In other words, it's not just the Scots or English E said

with a different accent, it's actually the phoneme which in Scots more often

becomes EI (in words like breid, deid) which is realised as [e] rather than

[i] in some Scots dialects. However, Shetland has a short-long phonological

contrast between, eg: 'gaet' (BEAT words) and 'gate' (MATE and BAIT words)

which has disappeared - or is realised differently - in most mainland Scots

dialects, and so the distinction of 'ae' from both 'e' and 'i' is probably

quite difficult for mainland Scots speakers to hear. For example, in North

East Scots 'haet', meaning heat, rhymes with 'hate' as [he:t] but in

Shetland it doesn't, one being /het/ realised typically as something like

[hIt], and the other /he:t/ realised typically as [he at t], or in some regions

as [hE:t].



I prefer Jack Aitken’s scheme of things (see
http://www.dsl.ac.uk/SCOTSHIST/list.html for a good description of that and
historical developments) what you represent with <ae> would be vowel 3.
Merged with vowels 2 or 4 in  many dialects as /i/ and /e/. I assume the
<ae> represents an allophone of the latter.



 So the difference between the pronunciations 'Shaet-' and 'Shet-' is not
>

just a difference of accent (as it would be if E in this environment was

always pronounced this way.) It is a difference which can potentially carry

meaning. The fact that it is the BEAT rather than the BET phoneme is

illustrated by the fact that Scots speakers in the North East of Scotland

pronounce the word 'Sheitan' rather than 'Shetlan' - in other words, the

underlying 'ae' is Scots, whereas the official <e> is an approximation to

English spelling.

Using Aitken’s system I took the <e> in ‘Shetland’ to be vowel 16. The NE
Scots [ˈʃitlən] for ‘Shetland’ is indicative of it being vowel 3 (unless it
is in fact vowel 2)



 ...
>



 To me, the actual sound in a word like 'Shaetlan' is more like the Scots or
>

Scottish Standard English (SSE) [I] <i> than like the SSE [E] <e>. (In the

linguistic atlas of Scotland, I think it's often represented as [e+] - ie,

closer than cardinal [e].) It's often represented in casual dialect writing

as 'Shitland'! This is how one English girl I met, who had learned to speak

Shaetlan very well, naturally perceived and wrote it. However, the phoneme

[I], in a wird like 'sit', isn't pronounced like that in this environment

either.



 To hear the quality of the 'ae' sound, listen to the word 'laeks' (likes)
> in
>

the Rabbit Lullaby at 1:17. Here, the singers pronounce the sound longer

than usual to suit the metre of the song, which gives a better opportunity

to hear it than in normal speech, where it is usually much shorter. You can

hear the normal - short - pronunciation in the word 'naething' in Lowrie

sells his Oo at about 0:15, and also in the word 'kaese' (case) at 1:08.

I’m hearing something between /ɛ/ and /e/. (Based on my limited expertise)

In some varieties (e.g. Ulster and SW) the underlying vowel 1s before /k/ is
realised /e/ (vowel 4?). I assume the short pronunciation in 'naething' and
‘case’ is vowel 4.



 In Shetland there is a phonological contrast between the following groups
> of
>

words. I've given <my spelling>, /phoneme/, [some phonetic realisations -

regional - in this environment], (Sampa)



 AE <ae> /e/ [I] - Shaetlan, paet, maet, haet, gaet, haep, glaep, laek
>

(like), daek (dyke), etc.

That I take to be an underlying  vowel 3 merged with vowel 4, except for
‘gaet’? and ‘glaip’ which have underlying vowel 4 (perhaps 8), and ‘like’
and ‘dyke’ which have underlying vowel 1 (/e/ before /k/?) 18th and 19th
century literary Scots tended to have the spellings <ea> and <ei> for vowel
3, or simply as vowels 2 <ee> or 4 <ai> (8).



 E <e> /E/ [E] - set, met, net, kep, lep, seck, jeck, etc.
>



That I take to be underlying vowel 16. The spelling seems to have always
been <e>.



 I <i> /I/ [3] (I hope - my SAMPA is rusty) - sit, hit, flit, hip, tip,
> pick,
>

stick, strick, etc.



That I take to be underlying vowel 15. The spelling seems to have always
been <i>. Though in some varieties /ʌ/ may occur, especially after <w> and
<wh>, hence spellings with <u> (vowel 19)



 AI <ai,a-e> /e:/ [e@], E:] - fate, hate, bait, gape, rape, rake, bake,
> cake,
>

laik (leak), etc.



That I take to be underlying vowel 4 (/e/ or 8 (/e:/). Historically the
former tended to be written <a-e> initially and medially and <ae> finally,
the latter <ai> initially and medially and <ay> finally. Mergers in Older
Scots led to the spelling <ai> being used for the former and occasionally
the former for the latter. Would ‘leak’ not have an underlying vowel 3?



 EE <ee, ie> /i/ [i] - feet, street, weet, greet, pleep, steep, neep, reek,
>

steek, seek, etc.



That I take to be underlying vowel 2. As you indicate, usually spelt <ee>
and <ie>, with an occasional <ei>.



Some minimum pairs:



 AE/E: paet/pet; saet/set
>



3/16; 3/16



 AE/AI(A-E): haet/hate, gaet/gate, laek (like), laik (leak)
>



3/4,  ?/ gate = ‘street’? 4, 1s (before /k/?/3



 AE/I: saet/sit, haep/hip
>



3/15, 3/15



 AE/EE: laet/leet, laek/leek
>



‘late? 4/2, 3/2



In another type of phonetic environment (usually before voiced consonants)

all of these vowels except EE are fronted and/or raised, so the

pronunciations are different. In this case, AE merges with E in some

Shetland dialects and with EE in others. In others - such as my own - it

remains distinct.



 AE <ae> /e/ [e, EI, i] - haed, laed, daed, laeg (leg), baeg (beg), haem,
>

baen (bone), etc. (BEAT words)

Some 16 (‘leg’, ‘beg’) merging with 4?



 E <e> /E/, [EI] - bed, led, sed, ben, hen, dem, men, etc. (BET words)
>



Normally vowel 16., what is ‘sed’?



 I <i> /I/ [I] - sid, did, lid, rig, big, sig, lib, sib, etc. (BIT words)
>



Normally 15, what are ‘sid’ and ‘sig’?



 AI <ai, a-e> /e:/ [e:] - saide (saithe), maide (maggot), caib, fable,
>

stravaig, whaig, staig, etc. (BAIT and MATE words)



Both 4 and 8, what is ‘caib’?



 EE <ee> /i/ [i] - need, dreed, treed, green, dastreen, heem, seem, etc.
>

(BEET words)

Normally 2. ‘dreed’ pt. Of ‘dree’ not ‘dreid’? What are ‘treed’? and ‘heem’?

Would it not be better to differentiate underlying vowels 3, 4 and 8 in
spelling? Though differentiating 4 and 8 is a bit more complicated because
traditionally <ai> has often been used for both 4 and 8. <ae> for vowel 3 (I
use <ea> and <ei> leaving it to the reader to decide whether its /i/ or
/e/.) and <a-e> and <ai> for vowels 4 and 8. I assume habitual dialect
speakers would instinctively produce the relevant allophones.



 Any Norn words, although they are not strictly speaking BEAT words or such,
>

are incorporated into the same phonological system. Before /k/, some words

with the /@I/ diphthong in Scots have the 'ae' sound.

I’ll have to pass on  Norn words.



 (Again, listening to the Shetland Fudge advert, I've noticed that the girl
>

doesn't pronounce <i> before voiceless consonants as [3] but as [I]. This

may create a potential conflict with the pronunciation of AE in the same

environment, possibly destroying a distinction. I don't know whether this is

a Lerwick thing - I'd have to find out who the girl was and when and where

it was recorded. The more usual pronunciation - which I have represented as

[3] - can be heard in the words 'lift' and 'winter' in the Cradle Song. (In

'winter', although the following consonant - n - is voiced, the quality of

the sound is determined by the following voiceless 't'))



'lift' and 'winter' would be vowel 15



Shetland writing conventions have partly evolved to suit these contrasts -

but only partly. The <ae> spelling is common in words like 'paet' and

'haet', where English has <ea> and any Shetland speaker can see that to

write 'pet' or 'hate' would represent the wrong sound.. But there is a

reluctance to use it in the word 'Shaetlan', perhaps because the English

spelling doesn't have an <ea> that you can simply swap around, and it's felt

to be too much of an innovation. Also, perhaps, the word 'Shetland' is felt

to be too 'official' to have a 'dialect' spelling. This is an example of how

approximations to English orthography can disguise the underlying phonology.



It seems vowel 3 has usually merged with vowel 4, and perhaps in some
environments vowel 16 with vowel 3 too.



 Notice these excerpts from the Scots and English versions of the Shetland
>

article on the Scots Language Centre website:



"We might say 'Shetland dialect' or 'the dialect' when spaekin English.

'Shetlandic' is an English wird, aa right for usin in written or spokken

English. But for wis at spaeks it, among wirsels, da wird for da spokken

tongue is 'Shaetlan', sam as da name o da plaece. "



 "When using English, we say 'Shetland dialect' or just 'the dialect'.
>

'Shetlandic' is an English word, acceptable when speaking or writing

English. But, for dialect speakers among dialect speakers, the word is

'Shetland' (pronounced 'Shaetlan'). The name of the speech and the name of

the islands are the same. "



 Notice how the writer uses ae in words like 'plaece' and 'spaek' as well as
>

'Shaetlan', recognising a common sound. In the English version, she uses

this spelling to indicate the sound (although, of course, non-Shetlanders

wouldn't know what sound she was trying to convey!)



Once again vowel 3 ‘speak’ merged with 4 ‘place’.



 Actually, what the writer says above is no longer true in my experience.
>

Shetland speakers increasingly use the word 'dialect' rather than 'Shaetlan'

even when they're speaking Shaetlan. I've even heard one person say

'Shaet....dialect' - that is, beginning with 'Shaetlan' which is what he

would naturally say, and then changing it to 'dialect' in mid-word,

presumably owing to some perception that this is (now) more acceptable.



 I've suggested elsewhere that this is owing to a shift of perception - that
>

whereas the tongue used to be a mark of Shetland identity, this is no longer

felt to be acceptable, and it is more acceptable to emphasise its dialect

status.



 Before voiced consonants, where the dialect realisations differ, the AE
>

phoneme is not normally recognised and varying dialect spellings are the

rule even where English does have an <ae> - ie, even habitual dialect

writers (such as poets) will often write 'hed', 'heyd' or 'heed' rather than

'haed' (for Eng. head).



 ...
>



 It seems to me that Scotland has a dialect policy which masquerades as a
>

language policy, in the case of Scots. A case in point might be the demand

of Tavish Scott - MSP for Shetland - that Scots should not be given a

standard form, as that would threaten local dialects. I don't recollect the

MP for Shetland ever demanding that standard English should be abandoned

because of its effect on local dialects!

Are they worried about a written ‘standard’ or do they think someone intends
to introduce a spoken standard?



<<A 'standard' form need not be as prescriptive as those of English or
French.



>> Quite so. Another point is that most languages have registers - Welsh,

for example, has a formal register which is (said to be - I don't know

enough Welsh to judge) much further from spoken Welsh than formal English is

from colloquial English. Modern Welsh speakers are prone to despair of this;

but it is almost certainly largely this formal register which saved Welsh

from extinction. But, as the Welsh example shows, just because a language

has a formal register doesn't mean you have to use it. Scots, on the other

hand, is increasingly identified only with the lower registers which it has

occupied by default.

That may be because the perception is that the standard register is Standard
English. Hence no need for a 'standard' written register for Scots.

Andy

----------

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

You mean simplification of <nd> to <n>?

Low Saxon has the same rule.

In most cases there is alternation; e.g.

Kind (child) - Kinner (children)
Hand (hand) - Hannen (hands)

The spelling above is the usual German-based one in which people aim at
writing "phonetically".This "phonetic" spelling is always in reaction to
German, i.e. to show what sounds different from German.

Since there *is* alternation, i.e. a predictable phonological rule applying
*in this language** *(irrespective of German), a real orthography would not
show it:

kind [kʰɪˑnt] - kinder [ˈkʰɪˑnɝ]
hand [haˑnt] - handen [ˈhaˑnn̩]

However, there are cases in which there is no alternation, although we know
there is an /nd/ etymologically; e.g.

Mannel (almond) cf. German *Mandel*
Machannel (juniper) written *Machandel *in older text
wannern (to wander)
Hannel (trade) cf. German *Handel*
anners (different) cf. German *anders*

I guess in such cases it is reasonable to not spell it with *nd*, even in
cases where etymological knowledge would suggest to do so:

Mannel [ˈmaˑnl̩]
Machannel [maˈxaˑnl̩]
wannern [ˈvaˑnɝn]
Hannel [ˈhaˑnl̩]
anners [ˈʔaˑnɝs]*

*This applies to the sequence /ld/ as well; e.g.

Wold (forest) - Wolen (forests) = wold [voˑlt] - wolden [voˑln]
old (old) - öller (older) = old [ʔoˑlt] - ölder [ˈʔœˑlɝ]
kold (cold) - köller (colder) = kold [kʰoˑlt] - kölder [ˈkʰœˑlɝ]

but e.g.

Öllern (parents) = öllern [ˈʔœˑlɝn] (although the etymological connection
with 'older' is quite transparent?)
güllen (golden) = güllen [ˈgʏˑln] (although the etymological connection with
*guld* [gÊŠË‘lt] 'gold' is quite transparent?)

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

==============================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.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090416/f9f2294e/attachment.htm>