Importance of Norn Today

[joenorth]

DePooperit, I'm not a linguist, and I can't presume to know much about

how that field is "troubled" by any theory, postmodern or otherwise. My direction lies in culture, and I'm interested in minority speech forms as a manifestation of that. The argument that the postmodern outlook is inextricably linked to an "everything and anything is valid" ethos is an extremely common criticism. It's a criticism that I agree with. I'd go further, and would contend that much of what is termed "postmodern/poststructural" is simple b*ll*cks! Sokal and Bricmont's "Intellectual Impostures" had to be written!

 

Nevertheless, while much of this school of thought is valueless drivel, some of it has great utility. I've never believed in not using material that I thought was useful just because it was grouped alongside irrelevant nonsense. I've adopted this approach throughout my tediously long trajectory through university (13 years and counting...) and it always maddened my supervisors. As the late Australian academic Michael Crotty said, in research use whichever approach suits the problem best. As such, I'll continue to cherry -pick from philosophical traditions in the search for best utility in considering issues in my area of research. I think this is a crofter's philosophy - use what's most useful and which will get the job done, regardless of where it came from! A poststructural approach in anthropology, for example, permits and fosters the recognition that cultural material from different historical contexts may co-exist (indeed may be juxtaposed, if that's a word) in the same time and place. To me, that's a perfect description of culture (and our language) in our islands today. Classical anthropology does not allow this latitude of thought.

 

I don't believe that "anything goes" in the constitution of speech forms (to the extent of my limited knowledge in the area). I do believe that the study of culture can give insights into the situation of our tongue today, and that poststructural tools can assist this process, without subscribing to an all-encompassing "postmodern attitude". It's strange how allegiance to a specific standpoint appears to be expected in academia. I'd rather be mercenary (and hopefully more effective in what I do as a consequence).

[Guest Anonymous]

some reinin lik grices aboot it noo , next will be reinin lik grices will be of scotch origin too ?

[joenorth]

some reinin lik grices aboot it noo , next will be reinin lik grices will be of scotch origin too ?

 

Boy, I dunna fairly gyit whit du's meanin' dere. I'm nivver heard "reinin" sooth aboot here. Mibbie a nort aboot wird? Lik DePooperit tinks, does du tink we mibbie need a set wye o' sayin tings in Shaetlan?

[DePooperit]

Can you elaborate about why the ending in 'tinks' (eng: thinks) has a Norn background? I would have thought that the Norn ending would have been in -r, as in Faroese?

Yes, but I meant that the influence was rather morphological, whereas the ending phonetically stayed as in Scots. In Faroese, as well as in Old Norse there is the same ending for 2. and 3. sg: tú kemur 'you come', hann kemur 'he comes'. As this rule must have existed in Norn, this pattern could well have been borrowed into Shetland Scots, i.e. 2. and 3. sg. would get the same ending.

It could have - but since the incoming Scots also had this characteristic, and the resultant Shetland is exactly the same as that, I don't see that there's any need to cite Norn here at all.

 

To put it another way - if Scots had replaced another language - say Pictish - that didn't have this feature, what would the result have been? Why wouldn't it have been the incoming Scots system, exactly as we see it?

 

It seems to me that, in order to attribute verb morphology to Norn, you would have to show that other parts of the verb follow Norn morphology.

 

So I'm afraid I can't see what about the ending of 'tinks' has a Norn background. To me, it reads exactly like older Scots.

But the rest of Scots has lost it, hasn't it? While in Shetland it could have stayed due to the influence of the Norse pattern.

Again, I can't see that this is relevant. The 'du' forms of the verb in Shetland (and 'thoo' in Orkney) have survived a long time after they disappeared from Mainland Scots in general - I would guess at least a hundred years. Obviously there has been no memory of Norn during that time. So the survival of these forms in Shetland can't be attributed to Norn influence, unless you believe in some sort of genetic language memory which there is no evidence for.

 

 

Just to show a close example from the real life. There's a typical mistake Danes, Norwegians and Swedes often do when they're speaking English. In their languages past was and were do not differ and are translated as var. So in their English you often encounter we was, you was, they was. They use a correct English form, but do it according to their native pattern ignoring were as if it didn't exist.

 

Again I don't see that this is comparable. The Scandinavians are transferring a pattern from their native, living languages to a learned one. This could theoretically have happened in the transference from Norn to Scots - but as Scots has the same feature, it's meaningless to postulate it in that context. And, as I've stated, thereafter the modern Shetland dialects, not Norn, was the native language, so Norn couldn't have had any ongoing influence.

 

I should qualify my earlier statement that the sound system is Scots (apart from the few examples I gave.) While the system is mostly Scots, the actual pronunciation is heavily influenced by Norse phonetics. So, while the UI [ø] vowel corresponds, in the system, to UI in Scots words like guid, ruif, and so on, the actual pronunciation sounds much more Norse than Scots. Also, while the constructions in a phrase like 'sees du yun' is Scots, the pronunciation of 'du' (with 'd' rather than 'th') is most likely a Norse feature. Which partly demonstrates why the Shetland dialects, although a form of Scots technically, couldn't be treated as Scots for practical purposes. The problem here is that neither Scots nor Shetlanders have a practical approach where this would become an issue.

[DePooperit]

some reinin lik grices aboot it noo , next will be reinin lik grices will be of scotch origin too ?

 

Whitten reinin grices is yun?

[sleepychef]

Perhaps i'll get a load of comments against my input but here goes... I can understand nearly all the dialect that `Shetlanders speak and write on this forum. I'm a weegie so it makes sense that your dialect is from Scots not Norm or whatever you want to call it. If it was from other than scots I surely wouldn't be able to understand it?

Just like us weegies have our own way of talking to each other so it is up here it's nothing special its just local slang, nothing more. Accept it as your way of speaking but stop trying to make it something its not.

If as some say your not scottish then to be true to your roots your Pictish. If you want to claim that your Norse or anything else then your bloodline must surely be pure with no incomers mixing with your family bloodline. This is just a fable. Now let the barage begin, wish I could spell better but i'm a weegie!!!

 

Also just a question but when do you become a Shetlander? Do you just have to be born here, how far does your family line have to strech back before you really are a Shetlander according to the extreme views on this thread?

[DePooperit]

...

As the late Australian academic Michael Crotty said, in research use whichever approach suits the problem best. As such, I'll continue to cherry -pick from philosophical traditions in the search for best utility in considering issues in my area of research. I think this is a crofter's philosophy - use what's most useful and which will get the job done, regardless of where it came from! A poststructural approach in anthropology, for example, permits and fosters the recognition that cultural material from different historical contexts may co-exist (indeed may be juxtaposed, if that's a word) in the same time and place. To me, that's a perfect description of culture (and our language) in our islands today. Classical anthropology does not allow this latitude of thought.

...

 

Yes, I think that from a research point of view, what you say is perfectly true. But I am (that is, I was when I still had some hope that something significant could be done about the Shetland tongue) more interested in the 'getting the job done' aspect. In other words, I would take the crofter analogy further, and ask, not so much what you need to understand the role of language in culture (although this may be a necessary prerequisite) as what you need to do something about it in practical terms within that culture. The first is something that can be done by anybody, external or internal. The second is something that can only be done from within that culture itself. Which raises the question - is there in fact any such thing as a Shetland culture or identity, or is it entirely dominated by external mores and influences, with the only exceptions being aspects which do not challenge but rather go along with those influences, such as fiddle music and Up Helly Aa?

 

My emphasis is on practicality, and my favourite analogy is building a boat. You can build a boat either by a premodern approach (tradition - building it like some other boat that floats - tapping into the experience of generations) or a modernist one (science - work it all out by maths and physics - tapping into the expertise of science.) Either of those, or a combination of them, would probably work. But I'm not sure what a postmodern approach would have to offer to boatbuilding, other than perhaps lending a lateral-thinking aspect to some particular problem. My tendency would be to fall back on 'skyimp' and say that the postmodern boat might be all right for winning the Turner prize, but floating probably wouldn't be high in the list of design priorities.

 

In the case of the Shetland tongue, I think we have both premodern and postmodern approaches. Premodern might be, say, an adherence to tradition, such as the dialect status of the tongue, and a tendency to emphasise its Norn origins, etc. Postmodern might be the tendency to regard it as one among a large variety of speech forms, all of which are equally valid (and 'nice to hear') but separate from any issues of practicality. What we have never had is a modernist approach - which would have emphasised its practical uses, as with Welsh, Catalan or Faroese - because in the modernist era that was reserved, almost by definition, for the standard variety of English.

[upmakk]

I think this is a crofter's philosophy - use what's most useful and which will get the job done, regardless of where it came from!

 

I suspect that's the attitude of many Shetlanders to language too! If English gets the job of communication done better or more easily than Shetland ...

 

What we have never had is a modernist approach - which would have emphasised its practical uses, as with Welsh, Catalan or Faroese - because in the modernist era that was reserved, almost by definition, for the standard variety of English.

 

Interesting thoughts (as always!) in the bits I haven't quoted, DePooperit. I'm focussing on this sentence because it touches on one of my own thoughts about our 'Shetland tongue', or whatever else folk choose to call it.

 

Namely, that it is/was geared primarily to discussion of practical matters, much weaker for discussion of abstract ideas. In an era that requires more of us to do jobs that demand mental work rather than physical - more than in the past, that is, even the past of 50 years ago, never mind earlier - bringing the Shetland tongue up to speed looks even more Herculean than it must have done to John Graham and others of his generation.

[DePooperit]

some reinin lik grices aboot it noo , next will be reinin lik grices will be of scotch origin too ?

 

Boy, I dunna fairly gyit whit du's meanin' dere. I'm nivver heard "reinin" sooth aboot here. Mibbie a nort aboot wird? Lik DePooperit tinks, does du tink we mibbie need a set wye o' sayin tings in Shaetlan?

 

I'm awaar o da wird 'reinin' (you micht spell hit 'reeeenin - hit's ene o yun Norn-influenced lang vowels at I wis spaekin aboot, tho I wid spell it 'rein' tui) for da soond a grice maks. I wis juist winderin wha fleabee tinks is reinin laek a grice.

 

Yun aboot reinin laek grices bein Scotch pat me imind o whit I heard somene sayin eence aboot bagpipes - 'laek somene strampin apo a grice.'

[Ghostrider]

^^ A while syn syne you aksed da meenin o' "eerin" it I wis uised sumwye ur idder. "Reein" is we wid sae, an "eerin" is een an da sam, mair ur less.

 

"Reein (laek a grice)" wid be mair laekly ta be uised if duration idda soond wis upoa da shortir side, an "eerin (laek a grice athin a grind)" if it lestit langer. Dey ey sed o' "Greetin Girzie" it wis idda war, it sho eerid.

[DePooperit]

I think this is a crofter's philosophy - use what's most useful and which will get the job done, regardless of where it came from!

 

I suspect that's the attitude of many Shetlanders to language too! If English gets the job of communication done better or more easily than Shetland ...

 

What we have never had is a modernist approach - which would have emphasised its practical uses, as with Welsh, Catalan or Faroese - because in the modernist era that was reserved, almost by definition, for the standard variety of English.

 

Interesting thoughts (as always!) in the bits I haven't quoted, DePooperit. I'm focussing on this sentence because it touches on one of my own thoughts about our 'Shetland tongue', or whatever else folk choose to call it.

 

Namely, that it is/was geared primarily to discussion of practical matters, much weaker for discussion of abstract ideas. In an era that requires more of us to do jobs that demand mental work rather than physical - more than in the past, that is, even the past of 50 years ago, never mind earlier - bringing the Shetland tongue up to speed looks even more Herculean than it must have done to John Graham and others of his generation.

 

Heth - dae mosst be a lock o fock idder as me wi ower muckle time on dir haands, ta gaeng bi foo quick dis possts is comin in!

 

Caase we'r spaekin here aboot da uise o da Shaetlan tongue for practicalities, I'm gaein ta slip intae it for a start juist ta shaa whit wye I tink at hit's fairly possible ta pit ower practical, an even academic, tochts itae da Shaetlan tongue. If hit's no as aesy as English, dat's naethin idder as want o practice. Of coorse, dae'r da problem tui, at we'r no sae wint wi readin it edder, so even if I say at I can write it, some idder body micht say at dey still canna read it!

 

Du'll nottice here at I'm writin mair or less da wye at I wid spaek - dat is, whin I need a 'academic' wird - laek 'academic' - I juist tak a len o da Greek or Latin ene, da sam at standard English duis. Whin I'm spaekin aboot academic maiters in Shaetland, dat's whit I dui - I dunna suddenly start ta knap. So whit wye sood I no dui da sam in writin at I dui in spaekin?

 

I tink da first point at du maks is fairly richt - at Shaetlan fock will oese English if hit gits da job duin. Bit dat's pairtly caase dey'r no wint wi onything idder - if you'r surroondit wi standard English bein oesed for mair an mair things aa da time, dan you come ta associate dat things wi standard English. Dat's whit wye dem at maks a richt strug for dir tongues - laek da Welsh - kaens at dey hae ta try an oese hit ithin as mony different areas o life as possible - no juist a peerie backaboot ene pitten by for 'dialect.'

 

Dy saecont point is certainly true tui, up tae a point. Bit hit's mair ta dui wi history an attitude as ta dui wi da strynds an intirls o da Shaetlan tongue hitsel. Fock is aften sed at 'dialect' is 'incapable of expressing abstract thought.' Bit dis is circular tinkin.

 

As I pointit oot in a article i da Shetland Life ee time, tongues pits ower abstract ideas wi biggin up apo oardinary wirds. Da Latin wird 'comprehend' basically means ta 'yock a had o.' Hit wid be perfectly naitural ta me ta say at I couldna 'yock a had o' (ie, comprehend) whit somene wis sayin. An da wird 'haemorrhoidectomy,' tae da laeks o me at kaens a grain o Greek, means as plen as da nose apo da proverbial faece 'cuttin oot somethin at runs bluid.' (haem-, bluid; rhoi-, run; ek-, oot; tomy, cut.) Da fact at we'r heired dis wirds fae Latin an Greek, an we dunna lairn Latin an Greek ony mair, means at we'r insulatit fae da oardinary origins o dis fancy, 'academic' wirds.

 

Idder languages laek German an da Nordic enes, redder as takkin a len o Latin an Greek wirds, maks up dir academic wirds oot o da oardinary wirds in dir ain tongues. So redder as 'dialect' bein 'incapable' o pittin ower abstract tochts, dae ir in fact twa wyes o doein it - adaptin oardinary Shetland wirds, or takkin a len o Greek an Latin enes trowe standard English. So I could say edder 'comprehend' or 'yock a had o.'

 

If dae'r twa wyes o doein it, whit wye duis some fock persist in sayin at hit's impossible? First, circular tinkin. If you oese wirds laek 'academic' an 'comprehend' some fock wid say, weel, dat's no 'dialect' wirds so you canna be spaekin 'dialect'. Dat is, da wird 'dialect' is kind o self-cancellin, or self-fulfillin, dependin on whit wye you leuk at it. Bit I wid say at if I wis ta read oot whit I'm writin eenoo, an du wis listenin, dan du wid kaen immediately at I wis spaekin Shaetlan an no knappin, Latin an Greek wirds or no. Da Shaetlan tongue is as muckle ta dui wi da phonology (basic soond system) an da grammar as wirds.

 

Dis is anidder problem wi da D wird - 'dialect.' Dae'r nae raeson whit wye a tongue caad 'Shaetlan' soodna tak a len o Greek an Latin wirds - or if no, whit wye duis standard English git ta dui it? Bit wi oesin da wird 'dialect' you can gie da impression at if you dui dis hit's no 'dialect' ony mair - caase 'dialect' haes ta consist o 'dialect' wirds.

 

If, on da idder haand, you dui oese 'dialect' (I wid say 'Shaetlan') wirds dan da Shaetland intelligentsia really duis come doon apon your haed in a shooer o skyimp an afftak. Eence, for example, I spack aboot 'layin up' (ie, establish) a university, i da sam wye at you wid 'lay up' a sock or a guidick, an Brian Smith oesed dis as a example o an 'abortion.'

 

So if you oese haemaboot wirds oot o da context o da byre an da runnick, hits a 'abortion', an if you tak a len o Latin an Greek wirds, dat's no 'dialect'. You're libbit whitiver wye you turn. An I hae nae raeson ta believe at da opeenions o da intelligentsia duisna reflect da opeenions o maest Shaetland fock.

 

Da idee at 'dialect' can survive in some backaboot wye in a society whaar aa da practical things is dominatit wi standard English is a himmelsfaird. An da mainstream society at Shaetland is a pairt o wid never tolerate Hickspeak oagin intae ony o da areas reserved for standard English. Dat's whit wye I hae nae hoop for da Shaetlan tongue.

 

If du can be buddered ta doonlod my aald website, du micht tak a scoit at da fable Sheltie Prattle an da Blue Lowe. Dat aboot sums up whit I hae ta say aboot da subject, an I wrat it a lock o years fae syne. I'll laeve dee ta tink wha Duiweel, Persevere an da Aald Yarl is.

 

Oh - an I wid say at I'm sed everything ithin dis posst at I could a duin if I wid a been writin standard English. An hit's little different fae whit I wid a sed if I wid a been spaekin, an dat in a meduim at's 'no use for writing.' So im I duin da impossible? Is hit 'irritatin' or 'some kind of magic.'? Or juist anidder 'abortion'?

[DePooperit]

^^ A while syn syne you aksed da meenin o' "eerin" it I wis uised sumwye ur idder. "Reein" is we wid sae, an "eerin" is een an da sam, mair ur less.

 

"Reein (laek a grice)" wid be mair laekly ta be uised if duration idda soond wis upoa da shortir side, an "eerin (laek a grice athin a grind)" if it lestit langer. Dey ey sed o' "Greetin Girzie" it wis idda war, it sho eerid.

 

I'm no muckle wint wi gricie wirds, da wye at we hed nae grices ithin Burra whin I wis young (da first grice at I ever saa wis Sooth) bit fae whit du says I doot at da verb is usually 'ree', an 'reein laek a grice' wid be da oeswal wye o pittin it. Da wird 'reein' as a noun - as in 'I hate da reeins o a grice whin you stick him' micht be juist da participls 'reein' laek 'spaekin' or 'sleepin' or da laek. I dunna kaen if dae'r a separate noun 'rein' meanin 'a squeal'. Fleabees 'reinins' mosst be somethin different dan...

 

Duis 'eerin' rhyme wi 'hearin'?

[Ghostrider]

Hit wid be perfectly naitural ta me ta say at I couldna 'yock a had o' (ie, comprehend) whit somene wis sayin.

 

Dir's ey da ilternitive een, "kynna gyt a grip (as in grippit) upoa yun avaw", dat meens da sam, an is weel enyoch uised a sum pairts.

[DePooperit]

Hit wid be perfectly naitural ta me ta say at I couldna 'yock a had o' (ie, comprehend) whit somene wis sayin.

 

Dir's ey da ilternitive een, "kynna gyt a grip (as in grippit) upoa yun avaw", dat meens da sam, an is weel enyoch uised a sum pairts.

 

An dae'r 'understaand' as weel. So dat's fower wyes o sayin da sam thing already - fae Latin (comprehend), English (understaand an grip), an 'yock' fae - weel - 'abortion,' I suppose, since I'm waled oot a wird at's no edder Latin or obviously English (tho hit is laekly sib ta 'yoke') . Kinda o a funny kind o incapabeelity - I dunna tink you wid win apo da disabeelity wi a record laek yun...

[Ghostrider]

Perhaps i'll get a load of comments against my input but here goes... I can understand nearly all the dialect that `Shetlanders speak and write on this forum. I'm a weegie so it makes sense that your dialect is from Scots not Norm or whatever you want to call it. If it was from other than scots I surely wouldn't be able to understand it?

 

Nae faer dir a braw lok it du'll ken, fur a braw lok is cum fae Scottie ur da sam wyes is Scottie got dirs fae, bit I doot dir'll be yit, mair is a foonder it haes de een upoa de sheeks an de harans athin a waakit paeswisp ta gyt da bettir o', fur hits cum fae idderwiss.