Diacritical marks and their usage

[trout]

To answer - I was playing devils advocate to try and engender some discussion on what directions this "forum" could take.

 

I'll "spell" it out absolutely for you DePooperit.

 

a) Leave the new vowel buttons there or take them out so that folk just write entirely with the standard alphabet.

 

Leave the forum closed as it is now so that interested parties can discuss whatever matters privately as the Yahoo group was of yesteryear.

 

c) Open up the forum to a wider audience creating a much wider scope and to use it as some form of platform - i.e. getting people interested in the written form.

 

I'll point out I wasn't rejecting anyones advice. Merely experimenting. Theres also no "party game" here DePooperit. I was stating people speak differently depending on which district they are from - hence people's written form will also be "different".

 

You yourself have asked several questions - this was the whole point of this small group - to deduce how this forum should and or could be used - perhaps that wasn't or isn't clear, but we're here now and that is the question!

[ex-isle]

Da purpose a'dis forum, as I undirstød'it, wis t'explore da possibielitie a'hæin Shætlin as da 'medium of exchange' atill a forum'at wid be opin t'aa. Dis wis t'be a preliminarie.

 

I fullie riespect bæth depooperit's lær an his/hir ryght t'spæk directlie. Bit I hæ t'say mesel I tink da tenor is owir færs. Du'll fær fokk awa læk yun.

 

Aswiel as dat, I wid aks whitwy depooperit's posts ir aa in Staandirt Engliesh? Whitwy is dat allooed in here, if da aem wis ta set up a neuk fir da skreivin a'Shætlin? D'ir næthin I detest mær as a player aksin da referee ta yalloo kærd aniddir player, bit if da ös a'Engliesh is aaryght, dan whit ir we døin here ava, Mods?

 

Mær wirrieinlie, I kanna help tinkin'at bie skrievin akademic diskoors ati'Staandirt Engliesh, depooperit is in fakk perpetuatin da sam aald 'hierarchy of linguistic value' as w'ir hed fir da last twaartrie hunder year, an is kærriein on læk a varg (Norske sense) in yow's oo

[DePooperit]

Ex-Isle:

 

"Bit da key concern fir me wie õsin da Skaandiks is presyslie'at dey IR da Skandiks. Hit's a visual tribute t'da Norn past, an a step awa fæ servitude ta Imperial Engliesh, an a historie a'twartree hunder year a'inferiorisation, no joost a'da Shaetlan dialect, bit aa dialects a'Engliesh bar Dr. Johnson's.

 

Bit I widna evir say fokk MOST ös dem. I kan understand dy various combinations fyn, an fullie respect dy ryght, or oniebodie iddir's, ta dø as dey læk wie'dat.

 

Fir me hit's an æsthetik an politiekil choice A'm makkin. Bit I kan understaand no aabodie sees it dat wy"

 

So it's an ideological rather than a practical reason. It seems to me to be more important how spelling represents the intrinsic characteristics of the language. In fact, the vast majority of Shetland words come to us through Scots and/or English, and English spelling is often a good starting point for understanding and representing their characteristics.

 

For example, look at words like:

 

heat, meat, beat

feet, meet, street

 

The first three are pronounced with the 'ae' vowel in Shetland, and the last three with the 'ee' vowel. The English spelling represents a distinction which also exists in Shetland - because it represents a common linguistic inheritance - and which only requires adaptation (ea -> ae) to suit the Shetland tongue.

 

This only works up to a point. There are words which rhyme in English but not in Shetland, and vice versa. But it provides a starting point which recognises the eclectic origin of the Shetland vocabulary, and adapts it to the Shetland sound system - which, incidentally, is the same for English, Scots and Norn words, arguably with the exception of the long 'ee', 'oo' and 'oe' sounds in words like (as I would spell them) 'leid' (diligence), 'oub' (plaintive noise) and 'roed' (talk nonsense).

 

Another question is this. With the fact that the Shetland tongue is dying out as we speak, is there any room for political and ideological choices, especially when the underlying presuppositions are not shared by the majority of Shetlanders? It depends on what you perceive as the purpose of Shetland spelling.

[DePooperit]

As far as the vowel buttons are concerned, I would either take them all out or leave them all in (although I couldn't find the o-acute to write a Faroese word, so maybe put in more?). They're useful for writing foreign words even if they're not used for writing Shetland. I don't think you'd get a concencus (which word I can't spell!) on which to leave in or leave out very easily.

 

Ex-Isle may have a point - perhaps I feel too strongly about the subject to talk about it rationally. (Of which that last sentence was an example. I hasten to add that I don't mean that other people can't feel strongly about it and talk about it rationally).

 

As far as standard English is concerned, I was under the impression that the purpose and rules of this forum hadn't been decided on yet. If it becomes a Shetland-only forum then I can write in Shetland. I think, however, that that would make it difficult for people who may not feel confident writing Shetland, at least to begin with.

[trout]

Indeed that was the point ex-isle *sigh*

 

I'll continue to write this post in English purely as I'll get across the points I want to make more eloquently!

 

Yes, I had envisaged this forum being used entirely for people to write Shetland in the written form - what is the point of it otherwise? The forum will be Shetland only when and if it goes live. It must be noted that people will make mistakes! Not everyone has a stack of reference books next to them to ensure what they've written is correct and if everything is hammered home to them - they won't come back! That is fact I'm afraid.

 

An online "community" is not an easy thing to start and perpetuate - Shetlink has had to grow and evolve to survive and has taken an organic form since it's inception. Note that Shetlink isn't an official resource - there is no funding, everyone is seen as being equal with collective moderators here only to "keep the peace" - and doing this voluntarily!

 

That "community" feeling is what we were, as I understood it, proposing to use to generate a wider interest in written Shetland. Presently peoples only experience of it is through published books - if they choose to buy one, at the primary school, the letters page of the Shetland Times ... and that's about it. Shetlink can be used as an area where people can converse as they do daily with each other through speech - but in the written form and in real-time. There is nothing like that presently.

 

Imagine though if and when a Shetland dialect forum is opened up to the wider world - they'll be a lot of inaccuracies - is that not the point and a good thing? A place to give people a helping hand through a modern medium ultimately engendering some form of interest in written Shetland?

 

Where I was trying to go with my previous post was point out there is no official "steering group" regarding Shetland in the written form - whatever we do it's going to set a precedent - and whether it's politically motivated or ideological to keep the vowels or not that is the point. Whichever choice we make will set the bar (though they can be removed and or added later after wider consensus) and that is how people are going to start writing Shetland on Shetlink - i.e. a new "contemporary" form of it since people aren't going to be following exacting rules . . . unless that is the direction the forum takes? i.e. some form of teaching tool.

 

We are going to have, and do have, people in here that are obviously very knowledgeable in the absolutes and minor details of the written form. I propose then that, perhaps if as a teaching aid, threads dedicated to the minute details of academia should be kept entirely seperate - with appropriate assistance "where necessary" given in peoples threads. People can then use the academic threads as reference - and the "everyday" threads will be just that. This will keep the "community" factor to the forum.

 

Anyway ...

[ex-isle]

Depooperit aksis wheddir hit's "an ideological rather than a practical reason", as t'whit motivæts da Skaandiks.

 

I wid say dat's a "faas" distinksjin

 

Ös owirsetts 'idieologie' in ati'practies. Bie da verie akt a' de ösin dem, du's lowsin in ati'practies, an æ practies isna onie mær ryght, in dis mættir. Du myght læk en mær as da tiddir, bit dat's næ mær as dy subjiktivitie wirkin apo de. Hit's næ buddir t'ös da Skaandiks - joost a mættir a'lærnin desel ta'tink a'dem. Sam as dy æin wy.

 

Da toght'at "the vast majority of Shetland words come to us through Scots and/or English, and English spelling is often a good starting point for understanding and representing their characteristics" mebbie dösna tak full not a'da fakk'at yun Skots ir Engliesh wirds wir 'pirnownst' wie a Shætlin mooth, an no a Fyfir's, ir a Shields æn - an aft dey took on kynda different meanins - læks a' "moadrit" ir dat.? Fu wid du spell dat?

 

An whar is aa dat reflektit bie ösin da Engliesh spellin system as a model? If da soond is a Skaandik, shörlie da Skaandik vowils ir trooer, no da Engliesh ava?

 

Mesel, I tink if we folloo da moo(th) we'll no gjing far wrang. Fonetik spellin mynds fokk at da wird ISNA ay pirnownst læk staandirt Eng-gliesh A'm no sayin dis sood bie a staandirt practies fir buisness, ir dat - joost'at da mær extreme takk hæs hit's pært t'play, in stierin up ati'da fokk a'skaar, makkin dem tink aboot hit mær, if du sies, mær ta lissin ta dir æin kynd a'Shætlin an try ta makk da soonds ati'da ciphers'at ir troo ta whit dey ken. Fir is dat no fu we aa set wis t'lærn first, in a'wir æin bit a'Shetland?

 

A'm no agenst a græn a'lær ir dat, aboot dy system a'spellin an whaar d'ir consensus an dat. Grammar whitivir, fyn dat. Dat's aa gød. A'll be plæst wie aa'dat.

 

Bit makkin mistakks an tryin oot is aa pært a'dat lærnin, fir aa a'wis.

 

An du manna try an takk awa mie Skaandiks fæ me.

[skyumpie]

Dis is aa most interestin. I feel dat wir dialect / language is exotic enyoch ithoot makkin hit impenetrable bi wir spellin. Mony a time whin A'm bön readin Shaetlan (point ta'en re da spellin!) tae fock fae idder countries dey fin hit mair lik der ain language as Standard English. An dey ken whit der spaekin aboot for dey can spaek English fluently. Hit is a lokk different fae maist Scots you hear spokken.

An even though (doh ?? dough??) I try ta write wi a simple spellin, fock luik (sood hit be lök or lük?) at hit an hae a braa bit o difficulty wi da written wird, even in Shetland. So een o mi guidin principles is 'foo can I makk dis winderfil dialect/ language accessible tae idder fokk'? An no as a literary language but as a wirkin language.

I hae ta agree aboot da need ta spell wi a understaandin dat idder Shaetlan fokk 'll say hit fairly differently an dat's jöst winderfil. A Fair Isle boady or a Whalsa boady wid hoopfully bring der ain rich aald vowel soonds wi der amazin dipthongs tae my kinda plainer writin....yippee!

But A'm blyde der nae academy tellin wis whit we can dö or no dö. Dat wye I tink dey'll be mair life ithin hit. [/u]

[Lola Boomboom]

Ah'm been followin dis treid wi interest an a modicum o confusion.

Is dis forum aboot da dialect? or is it a forum whaur onything is ta be discussed in da dialect?

Whatever it is, I wid welcome da ös o standard english in ony discussion an widna discourage onybody frae takin pairt for doin so.

 

Is dis a steerin group to define a contemporary wye o writin dat doesna follow 'exacting rules' unless it is seen tae go in dat direction whaur it will be a teachin tool? An wha will be da teachers in dis minefield o differin opinion on da rules?

I wid agree on maist points made by Skyumpie an depooperit, bit as much as I see dat 'hand' could be written 'haand' even if I pronoonce it as 'haund'... ah'm fairly set in my wyes an wid probably never conceed ta write it in ony idder wye. Unst pride! or whatever hit might be, ah'll aye use da 'au' ida written form.

 

I tink for da time bein, in oarder no ta gluff or intimidate onybody wha might be interested in contributin, dis forum should be free for aa - an aa expression. (bein redder slow on da up-tak... hits intendit purpose should also be expleened ta me!)

 

[trout]

(bein redder slow on da up-tak... hits intendit purpose should also be expleened ta me!)

 

Dats da ting. Daer is nae direct purpose set oot fur it. Ahm been tryin tae open it oot tae be onyting dat fok micht want it tae be and ahm been tryin tae raise points fae aa angles and get a consensus fae aabody on how to move it forwird. Any contribution is most welcome.

 

Da fact dat some fok ir driving doon da road o linguistic metrics made me winder if dey wanted it tae be some form o teachin tool an tae use it as such? Though I obviously didn't mak a very gud job o dat!?

 

Da hael thing arose oot o fok spikin about Shetland dialect writin on da forum.

[skyumpie]

I sud be makkin soup but dis far mair interestin! I lik Unstman's determination ta stick wi 'haund': hit does kinda prove da point aboot da potential barrier o wis aa wantin different spellin.....der comes a point whin hit becomes mair o a barrier. For mesel, I kinda lik ta hear dat fine Unst soond (similar ta Cunningsburgh an roond aboot dat aerts) dat comes fae his 'au' although (aldo? na, A'll stick wi although I tink) I widna write hit lik dat mesell....bein a wastsider.

While der nae wye we'll ivver gyet absolute agreement (an wid we want hit?), hit wid be fine if what we write could help mair bairns ta read an write a coarn o dialect an add tae da canon demsels as dey growe up. Especially noo as dey dunna hear sae mony fine Shetland tongues aroond der doors an laekly no i da playgrund edder.

Whin you tink apön da problems an argy-bargyin at geengs on atween da various Hebridean isles aboot da spellin o Gaidhlig wir spellin/ orthography(?) isna maybe sic a problem as lang as we can aa makk een anidder oot. An dan if you tink at Irish Gaels an Scottish Gaels seem ta be able ta understaand een anidder braaly weel i der oral/aural communication ....but da twa "languages" luik very different apö da page, an hae da status o separate languages (an da fundin tö.....no dere's da real problem!) ...hit's a ill-divided wirld an we laekly jöst hae ta varg on an try wir best! Noo...tae dat soup.... wis I hed a tee o reestit mutton!

[DePooperit]

As I get muddled with the quoting system on this forum, I'll quote ex-isle's comments using the familair inverted comments. Also, as the forum isn't live yet, I'll continue to use standard English for the time being.

 

"Depooperit aksis wheddir hit's "an ideological rather than a practical reason", as t'whit motivæts da Skaandiks.

 

I wid say dat's a "faas" distinksjin "

 

Insofar as any choice may be seen as ideological, yes. But by 'practical' I meant potentially usable for a larger number of people - in other words, if you like, practicality, or user-friendliness, is my ideology in this matter, and aesthetics only come second at most. Political doesn't come into it at all, except insofar as writing with a basically English vocabulary might be seen as political by default. But I don't think the Americans regard themselves as British just because they spell most English words the same as the British, even when they pronounce them differently.

 

"Ös owirsetts 'idieologie' in ati'practies. Bie da verie akt a' de ösin dem, du's lowsin in ati'practies, an æ practies isna onie mær ryght, in dis mættir. Du myght læk en mær as da tiddir, bit dat's næ mær as dy subjiktivitie wirkin apo de. Hit's næ buddir t'ös da Skaandiks - joost a mættir a'lærnin desel ta'tink a'dem. Sam as dy æin wy. "

 

It is a bother, actually. In this forum, whenever I click on a letter button, the letter appears at the bottom of the post and I have to cut and paste it to the correct position.

 

But what I'm really concerned about here is not the bother to the writer, but to the reader. Obviously, anyone is free to write any way they choose. But by the same token, anyone is free not to bother to read anything they choose. My own Shetland writing, which is as close to standard English as I can make it while not misrepresenting the intrinsic characteristics of the language, and is not very much different from the semi-standard Graham/Vagaland style, is still described as undecipherable by some of my friends in Shetland.

 

"Da toght'at "the vast majority of Shetland words come to us through Scots and/or English, and English spelling is often a good starting point for understanding and representing their characteristics" mebbie dösna tak full not a'da fakk'at yun Skots ir Engliesh wirds wir 'pirnownst' wie a Shætlin mooth, an no a Fyfir's, ir a Shields æn - an aft dey took on kynda different meanins - læks a' "moadrit" ir dat.? Fu wid du spell dat?"

 

I would spell it 'moaderit' - not much different from the way you do, (except that I pronounce the 'e, present in the English spelling, which your spelling misses out) But that's because, in Shetland as in English, O and OA are different phonemes (contrast English 'rod' and 'road') but Shetland uses a different phoneme in 'moaderit'. Also, in Shetland, English 'road' is (traditionally at least - I don't know about nowadays) pronounced 'rod' which is how I would write it, again because Shetland uses a different phoneme.

 

In other words, I would spell what I regard as significant (phonemic) differences differently, but less significant (phonetic) differences I would usually leave with the English spelling. In this, I suspect, I'm doing exactly what most habitual writers of Shetland would do, even if they've never heard the word 'phoneme', which illustrates the fact that concentrating on significant differences in spelling is natural. If it wasn't, then why would almost all written languages (including the Scandinavian) be written broadly on the basis of phonology rather than phonetics? It's because most people naturally want to write what they mean.

 

For example, the 'a' in the word 'bad' in my pronunciation has a different pronunciation from the 'a' in the word 'bat'. This distinction is not present in English. However, this is a 'minor' (phonetic) distinction because it is completely determined by which consonant follows the vowel; it varies from district to district; and most Shetland speakers don't even notice the difference. I don't try to represent this difference in writing, and nor, I think, do you - which illustrates the further point that, with no linguistic criteria to fall back on, which distinctions we think are relevant and ought to be represented is likely to be very subjective.

 

For example, I notice that you use the same vowel spelling - the 'ae' ligature - to represent the sound in 'laek' and 'Shaetlan' as in 'maen' and 'maer'. But most habitual writers of Shetland will write 'laek' and 'mair' - recognising the fact that AE and AI/A-E are different phonemes, because they can carry meaning - compare 'haet' and 'hate'. So, unless there's some other factor involved that I haven't noticed, you're actually losing a distinction that most Shetland writers would usually represent.

 

(As an aside, some Shetland writers go too far the other way and follow English to the extent of losing intrinsic Shetland distinctions. The spelling 'lik' instead of 'laek' suggests that the word should rhyme with 'pick' and 'lick', which it doesn't - it rhymes with 'daek'(dyke) and 'paek'(peck). Similarly, most people would write 'Shetlan' rather than 'Shaetlan', but this suggests that the first syllable rhymes with 'pet' and 'set' whereas - as far as I've ever heard, anyway - it rhymes with 'saet'(seat) and 'laet' (late))

 

"An whar is aa dat reflektit bie ösin da Engliesh spellin system as a model? If da soond is a Skaandik, shörlie da Skaandik vowils ir trooer, no da Engliesh ava?"

 

This begs the question of what is meant by 'soond'. If you could give some examples, then I could express an opinion.

 

Most of the letters used in the Scandinavian languages are the same ones we are familiar with in English, but that doesn't mean they are pronounced as an Englishman, or even a Shetlander, would pronounce them. In Swedish, for example, the letter 'o' in words like 'god' and 'hos' is pronounced more like our 'oo' than our 'o', but with a tightening of the lips at the end which is peculiar to Swedish (or maybe to Norwegian, which I know - even - less about) and which foreign learners just have to practice. What a letter represents in any given language is a matter of convention in that language. It's hard to see, therefore, how Scandinavian spelling can be truer to Shetland pronunciation than English (I should really say 'latin') ones, when it's all a matter of convention within a particular language.

 

Letters which represent one sound in English may represent a different sound in Swedish, and in fact different sounds again in different varieties of English and Swedish. The same thing goes for diacritics or combinations of letters. The main purpose of writing Shetland, as I see it, is to represent the intrinsic characteristics of Shetland so that other people can read what you have written, and pronounce it with their own pronunciation.

 

"Mesel, I tink if we folloo da moo(th) we'll no gjing far wrang. Fonetik spellin mynds fokk at da wird ISNA ay pirnownst læk staandirt Eng-gliesh A'm no sayin dis sood bie a staandirt practies fir buisness, ir dat - joost'at da mær extreme takk hæs hit's pært t'play, in stierin up ati'da fokk a'skaar, makkin dem tink aboot hit mær, if du sies, mær ta lissin ta dir æin kynd a'Shætlin an try ta makk da soonds ati'da ciphers'at ir troo ta whit dey ken. Fir is dat no fu we aa set wis t'lærn first, in a'wir æin bit a'Shetland?"

 

Nobody - I think - is arguing against anyone's right to write how they like. But, as I say, few enough people can be bothered to read Shetland already, even using the broad standard which already exists.

 

No written language is written in the individualised phonetic manner you describe. It serves a certain purpose, no doubt, but it doesn't serve the same purpose as the spelling of a language, which is primarily to enable native speakers to communicate in writing. Nobody (apart perhaps from the writers themselves) can become very literate in a language which everyone writes a different way. But then, it may be that general literacy is not the aim of the exercise.

 

"A'm no agenst a græn a'lær ir dat, aboot dy system a'spellin an whaar d'ir consensus an dat. Grammar whitivir, fyn dat. Dat's aa gød. A'll be plæst wie aa'dat.

 

Bit makkin mistakks an tryin oot is aa pært a'dat lærnin, fir aa a'wis."

 

Naturally making mistakes is natural, if I may use a tautology. But where there is no 'right' way of doing things, how can you possibly say that anything is a mistake?

 

"An du manna try an takk awa mie Skaandiks fæ me. :)"

 

This, I think, brings up another problem. The extended character set is useful for some, but it also provides more opportunities to use different spellings without everybody (anybody?) necessarily being aware of exactly what sounds they refer to. Moreover, no language that I know of uses more than a fraction of the letters on the buttons. Norwegian tends to use ligatures, and Swedish diacritics, to represent the same phonemes - again these are conventions within these languages.

[ex-isle]

what I'm really concerned about here is not the bother to the writer, but to the reader. Obviously, anyone is free to write any way they choose. But by the same token, anyone is free not to bother to read anything they choose. My own Shetland writing, which is as close to standard English as I can make it while not misrepresenting the intrinsic characteristics of the language, and is not very much different from the semi-standard Graham/Vagaland style, is still described as undecipherable by some of my friends in Shetland.

 

Weel dan, if da concessionary styl dõsna wirk, whit's da loss if we gjing a bit fardir awa fæ Staandirt Engliesh? A'm happie ta translaet aswiel.

 

 

I would spell it 'moaderit' - not much different from the way you do, (except that I pronounce the 'e, present in the English spelling, which your spelling misses out) But that's because, in Shetland as in English, O and OA are different phonemes (contrast English 'rod' and 'road') but Shetland uses a different phoneme in 'moaderit'. Also, in Shetland, English 'road' is (traditionally at least - I don't know about nowadays) pronounced 'rod' which is how I would write it, again because Shetland uses a different phoneme.

I wid ös 'rodd' fir 'road' so'it fokk ken hit's no a 'rod' as in troot.

 

 

For example, I notice that you use the same vowel spelling - the 'ae' ligature - to represent the sound in 'laek' and 'Shaetlan' as in 'maen' and 'maer'. But most habitual writers of Shetland will write 'laek' and 'mair' - recognising the fact that AE and AI/A-E are different phonemes, because they can carry meaning - compare 'haet' and 'hate'. So, unless there's some other factor involved that I haven't noticed, you're actually losing a distinction that most Shetland writers would usually represent.

Dis dösna mak sens t'me. Addin aniddir kariktir dösna loss de oniethin, hit adds. A'm no sayin you sood ös 'æ' an no 'ae', ir dat, dat wid be sillie. So 'læk' myght wiel mean 'like' as in 'similar', wharis 'laek' myght mean 'to feel affection towrds'. Dat model a'idientifyin da twa is bettir dan da Engliesh equivalent model of 'like /like', shörlie? Du sies, we'r no lossin ava, we're gænin iddir wys a clarifyin meanin.

Naturally making mistakes is natural, if I may use a tautology. But where there is no 'right' way of doing things, how can you possibly say that anything is a mistake?

 

dat, my friend, wis exactlie my point regærdin dy korreksjin ærlier.

[DePooperit]

There are obviously different principles of spelling at work here.

 

I don't see any particular necessity to use a different spelling for a word because it has a different meaning. We don't get confused hearing the word 'rod' (road) pronounced the same as the 'troot' one in speech, so why should we get confused in writing? In 999 out of 1000 cases, the context will make it perfectly clear which is meant.

 

There are some conventional spellings of this kind, both in English (set/sett) and in Shetland (fan/fann). But - to take the last example - if a thing you fan yourself with is called a 'fan', and a snowdrift is a 'fann', then how do you spell the past tense of 'fin', to find? (unless you pronounce the 'd', in which case it would be 'fand')

 

Therefore, when you talk about the addition of more spellings adding distinctions of meaning, this is something I don't see a need for at all. I can't see that we need a different spelling for laek=similar and laek=feel affection for. The context makes the meaning clear. The only things we need to distinguish are the phonemes (the sound differences which carry meaning in speech) and there are more than enough letters in the ordinary Latin alphabet to cope with those.

 

What we do need a different spelling for, in my opinion, is the Shetland word corresponding to English 'leak', because this is pronounced differently. My spellings are:

 

Eng - Shet

 

like - laek

leak - laik

 

However, I'm talking about a different principle here - a principle of representing the basic phonemes by discrete spellings, not of distinguishing meanings where there is no difference in pronunciation. If we're talking about different spelling principles obviously we're never going to agree - it's a bit like trying to get a rugby and football player to come up with a common set of rules!

[ex-isle]

A'm no en t'rool, du sies, fir mie æin Shætlin is dattin aaldfarrant, an Saanis wis ay a skaar diffrint. Da Skaandiks bed on dær, ati'da soond system. Du'll still fin dem dær da day.

 

Bit I tink da wy'at I wirk hæs a kynd a'validitie, joost kaas'it is kynda soond-bæst an fonetik. I widna makk onie græt klems fir'it as bein ryght, whitivir dat myght entæil. Hit's joost whit fiels ryght ta me, du kens - an hit's braalie æsie - simplistik, du myght say.

 

I wid lippin an hoop'at iddir fokk wid fiel dat wy aboot dir æin 'dyalekt' iswiel.

[Lola Boomboom]

Wan raeson I wid shy frae ösin da 'aa' redder as da 'au' (forbye bein da cantankerous swine dat I im) is da fact dat der a footh o wirds in Unst dat deviate frae da common Shaetland spellin.

Swinkle wid be Swankle.

Raamised - Raumished.

Stane - steen/stonn.

Hame - Heim/hom etc etc.

So If I wis tae preserve da Unst spellin an pronunciation wi dem I might as weel retain da 'au'.

 

Hooever, ah'm fun mysel ösin da 'aa' wi a number o wirds fur aesthetic raesons or in da instance whaur ony idder spellin wid be cluggit an cause da reader unneccessary wark in tryin tae figure oot whit ah'm actually tryin ta say.

 

'draars' is an example redder as 'draurs. 'aa' (meanin all) redder as 'au'.

Hit's juist a personal preference.

 

I also tend ta dooble up da consonants whaur der might be confusion o da context o da wird. I wid agree wi ex-isle on da usage o rodd as opposed tae rod. Hadd (hold) dadd (to knock) etc.

 

In brief, (hits laet an I should be makin fur bed) I tink da dialect in an english/scots framewark is somethin we should embrace fur da simpler task o hits preservation.