The name of Shetland's written and spoken form

[Malachy]

To the second point, the two of you have said:

Shetlandic - Connotations of "high brow" and/or "intellectual" for some.

 

Shetlandic is a bit offputting because it's so obviously a political term.

Can you explain this a bit? Don't we say Icelandic and Greenlandic indifferently in English, without either being considered "highbrow" or "intellectual" or "political"?

Shetlandic is used by a few Shetland writers (I'm not going to name them, but there's at least one prominent one), and it seems to me political for two reasons. Firstly, it seems like a (fairly subtle) attempt to Nordify it. The immediate connections that come to mind are Icelandic and Nordic. I realise the 'ic' ending applies to Arabic and other words, but to me it seems to automatically place it within a Nordic context, and that is a political positioning.

Secondly, it seems to specify it as a language, rather than a dialect, and that issue is not just a linguistic one, it is a political one, as you'll notice on other threads.

I've just realised that I've answered the question inadvertently in my response - I naturally wrote 'a few Shetland writers' rather than 'a few Shetlandic writers'. 'Shetland' is the adjective to describe something or someone from Shetland, so it is natural for it to be the language/dialect name also. It works in English or Shaetlan.

(But then I've lived here since I was a young boy, so while I don't speak dialect (at least not in public) my language is obviously very influenced by it)

[bug]

Just a genuine query - How are inflections accounted for in Shaetlin v English and how would the subtle nuances be accounted for when trying to describe them - for instance:

 

Doo dusna do dat dus doo?

 

is completely different from

 

Doo dusna do dat dus doo?

 

or

 

Doo dusna do dat dus doo?

 

or

 

Doo dusna do dat dus doo?

 

or

 

Doo dusna do dat dus doo?

 

or

 

Do dusna do dat dus doo?

 

Each phrase can be used in totally differing situations - is there an easy way of describing the differ.

[Malachy]

^^^ For me, those differences would be precisely the same if said in English. Most languages will differentiate meanings using stressed words (I'm sure I read somewhere that some languages don't do that). But yes, if you translated that sentence into English you could demonstrate the same differences, and exactly the same changes in meaning.

[Evertype]

Shetlandic is used by a few Shetland writers (I'm not going to name them, but there's at least one prominent one), and it seems to me political for two reasons. Firstly, it seems like a (fairly subtle) attempt to Nordify it. The immediate connections that come to mind are Icelandic and Nordic. I realise the 'ic' ending applies to Arabic and other words, but to me it seems to automatically place it within a Nordic context, and that is a political positioning.

OK, well, this is a bit of a myth that isn't warranted. In the first place, the six Nordic languages are Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Sami, and if you add in Faroese and Greenlandic you still only have three in -ic including Nordic. On the other hand we have Doric Scots, Gaelic, Arabic, Allemanic, Turkic and Turkish (which are different), Italic, Hispanic, and really, -ic isn't in any way Nordic-specific. Furthermore the use of the suffix with Shetland predates any political influence from the north; the earliest OED citation is from 1882:

Shetlandic a., pertaining to Shetland.

 

1882 K. BLIND in Gentl. Mag. Mar. 353 (art.) New finds in Shetlandic and Welsh.

Ibid. 356 This Shetlandic word.

Both of which refer to the language.

 

Anyway, I hope that on general principles that puts the "Nordic" politics argument to bed, as it's a herring of a particular colour. I mean, it's only superficially plausible.

 

Secondly, it seems to specify it as a language, rather than a dialect, and that issue is not just a linguistic one, it is a political one, as you'll notice on other threads.

Well as a linguist it is easy for me to look at the accidence and vocabulary of the language and say that it's not just another "dialect". If Scots is a language (which surely it is, however closely related to standard English) then Shetland(ic) must also be.

 

But please educate me here. What is the political "problem" with it being a language or a dialect? I'm aware that in many places the definition "language" bolsters the local community into working to preserve its uniqueness, where "dialect" or "patois" tends to denigrate and devalue it.

 

How are those dynamics being realized in Shetland today?

 

I've just realised that I've answered the question inadvertently in my response - I naturally wrote 'a few Shetland writers' rather than 'a few Shetlandic writers'. 'Shetland' is the adjective to describe something or someone from Shetland, so it is natural for it to be the language/dialect name also. It works in English or Shaetlan.

(But then I've lived here since I was a young boy, so while I don't speak dialect (at least not in public) my language is obviously very influenced by it)

That's quite interesting. After 20 years in Ireland I too have picked up a number of things which are perfectly normal here but not in other places of the English-speaking world.

 

For me, anyway, "a few Shetland writers" sounds more or less as unnatural as "a few Scotland writers" or "a few Iceland writers"—and that's where "Scottish" or "Icelandic" is available.

[Malachy]

-ic isn't in any way Nordic-specific. Furthermore the use of the suffix with Shetland predates any political influence from the north; the earliest OED citation is from 1882:

What do you mean predates it? Our political influence from the north (east) ended quite some time before that. But it's actually interesting that it turns up then because the mid to late nineteenth century in Shetland was the period when the islands' intellectuals were very much trying to emphasise our Nordic-ness. It was a quite deliberate project. I may well be barking up the wrong tree with what I suggested, but a date of 1882 would seem to me to add weight to the possibility rather than disprove it.

 

As for the political reasons for the language/dialect thing, it is a long and complex tale, and it might be best to browse through some of the threads of language and identity here. There is a kind of weird, willful pessimism about Shaetlan among many people and any attempt to bolster it or promote it is inevitably met by sneers and jeers. You can see some of that on the Norn thread on the go at the moment. It is very peculiar and if I stuck my neck out with an explanation I would no doubt be shot down, so I won't bother this time. Have a read of some other threads.

[bug]

^^^ For me, those differences would be precisely the same if said in English. Most languages will differentiate meanings using stressed words (I'm sure I read somewhere that some languages don't do that). But yes, if you translated that sentence into English you could demonstrate the same differences, and exactly the same changes in meaning.

 

Thanks Malachy - Although I maybe didn't use the best example for a sentence I understand your point. So in that respect the Shetland dialect is no different from any/many others - just a matter of usage. Hence the problem with electronic sarcasm/irony et. al. and the need for smileys etc.

 

cheers

[Evil Inky]

For me, anyway, "a few Shetland writers" sounds more or less as unnatural as "a few Scotland writers" or "a few Iceland writers"—and that's where "Scottish" or "Icelandic" is available.

Do "Yorkshire pudding" or "Sheffield steel" sound unnatural ? Some places just don't seem to have an "ish" or an "ic"

[mainlander]

I tend to speak Scots but write mainly in standard English, and I would never have thought of using the term "Shetlandic" (because I don't think I have ever heard or read it anywhere before). I would just have used "Shetland".

[Guest Anonymous]

I voted for 'Shetland Dialect', purely as that is how I explain it to non Shetlanders. The traditional Shetland speech has become a dialect, although having spent some time in Norway, I'm hard pressed to say if it is a dialect of English/Scottish, or just a natural evolution of an older form of Norse. And don't ask me to explain that, I'm no academic, just a daft old duffer who has a laugh or two every day when I find out where Shetland Dialect words came from.

Speaking to another Shetlander I would likely use Shaetlan (or any of the other spelling variations).

 

Speaking Shetland is not a problem, but writing it always going to be a problem. It's nearly impossible to find agreement on how any single word should be written, and that can be witnessed by the variations used on threads here.

 

A'll jöst keep on skrivin me ain grain o sharn i da wye dat I tink hit söd be writen.

[DePooperit]

As a preamble I might point out that, in an article I once wrote for Shetland Life (requested by Malachy, although he probably regretted it!) I found it necessary to comment:

 

"...to avoid the derisive reaction that status words like "language" and "Shetlandic" elicit from the Shetland media, I will use the interactive phrase (The) (Sh(a)etlan(d(ic))) (D/dialect). Readers may omit or include bracketed words and letters as they choose."

 

To the second point, the two of you have said:

Shetlandic - Connotations of "high brow" and/or "intellectual" for some.

 

Shetlandic is a bit offputting because it's so obviously a political term.

Can you explain this a bit? Don't we say Icelandic and Greenlandic indifferently in English, without either being considered "highbrow" or "intellectual" or "political"?

Shetlandic is used by a few Shetland writers (I'm not going to name them, but there's at least one prominent one), and it seems to me political for two reasons. Firstly, it seems like a (fairly subtle) attempt to Nordify it. The immediate connections that come to mind are Icelandic and Nordic. I realise the 'ic' ending applies to Arabic and other words, but to me it seems to automatically place it within a Nordic context, and that is a political positioning.

Secondly, it seems to specify it as a language, rather than a dialect, and that issue is not just a linguistic one, it is a political one, as you'll notice on other threads.

 

I'm glad Evertype got in and asked Malachy this question, so saving me the bother!

 

I think an important point to make here is that, insofar as 'Shetlandic' may have a political connotation (depending of course on how you define 'political') it is not alone. Almost all of the suggestions in the poll may have political connotations, except possibly for 'Shetland Dialect', and even here there would be a question as to whether it should have the definite article 'the'. Whereas 'The Shetland Dialect' implies an Entity with an Identity (how's that for a catchphrase?) 'Shetland Dialect' without the definite article could imply 'the various forms of dialect that are found in Shetland.' Already we are dealing with a subtle - or maybe not so subtle - difference in perception.

 

The word 'Dialect' used without either 'Shetland' or 'The', and used as a name rather than a description, certainly has a political connotation, in that it implies, I would say, lack of status, lack of definition, and lack of identity. 'Shaetlan' also has a political connotation, if the clear implication that it refers to a form of speech unique to and characteristic of Shetland as a whole is regarded as political (and I'm not clear why it shouldn't be.)

 

This raises the question of why 'Shetlandic' should be regarded as political if the other names are not. My theory is that in this context, political means 'objectionably political,' in other words, expressing a perception which is found to be offensive because it contrasts with mainstream views, whereas the equally obviously political 'dialect' is not offensive because it does not contrast with mainstream views.

 

Take this remark by Tom Morton:

 

“How much of a gesture is Shetlandic, to give the varying forms of dialect a jarringly jargonistic name? It will never be a consistent set of grammatical rules and pronunciation. It is not and never has been, though there have been various attempts to control it, to render it in some kind of set form.â€

 

Any linguist will point out that dialects do, in fact, have consistent grammatical rules and pronunciation, otherwise they would not be capable of containing meaning. Why, then, does Morton make these palpably inaccurate statements? Is it merely ignorance? The tone that it is written in doesn't suggest so. Rather, it seems to me, it is a statement, not of the actual characteristics of dialects, but in defence (and, indeed, defensive defence, if that makes sense) of the absolute position of standard English - which is, of course, the area of competence of broadcasters - as the only definable entity. I am not clear why the word 'Shetlandic' should be regarded as political, while statements like these are apparently not.

 

I've just realised that I've answered the question inadvertently in my response - I naturally wrote 'a few Shetland writers' rather than 'a few Shetlandic writers'. 'Shetland' is the adjective to describe something or someone from Shetland, so it is natural for it to be the language/dialect name also. It works in English or Shaetlan.

(But then I've lived here since I was a young boy, so while I don't speak dialect (at least not in public) my language is obviously very influenced by it)

 

Yes, 'Shetland' is the natural adjective in these contexts. I think there is a misapprehension on the part of some posters on this thread, in that they are assuming that Shetland is a place in its own right, like Iceland or Greenland. But while to speak of an 'Iceland writer' or 'Faroe writer' would sound illiterate, it would be perfectly natural to speak of a 'Yorkshire writer' or 'Liverpool writer.' It all becomes clear when you realise that Shetland is not perceived as a place with its own identity, as Faroe and Iceland are, but as a part or subsidiary of another place. (Although which place that is - Scotland or Britain - may be a source of disagreement. The subsidiary status is the common factor.)

 

However, this is not a complete answer to the question. Although the word 'Shetland' is natural in that position, it still isn't natural as a term for the speech form - 'speaking Shetland' still sounds illiterate in standard English, as several people have pointed out. This is presumably because, Shetland not having been traditionally perceived by speakers of English as having the sort of identity that would require an adjective in this context, none has ever evolved or been developed.

 

The difficulties in using the term 'Shaetlan' in standard English have also been pointed out.

 

It seems to me, then, that there is, indeed, no acceptable name for the Shetland tongue in standard English - there are only unsurmountable difficulties. I have argued elsewhere that, although the word 'Shaetlan' is the natural term for the tongue when speaking in that tongue itself (see how this situation prevents me from speaking naturally about the subject at all?) it is being replaced by the word 'dialect' even when conversing in that tongue itself (boy, talk about awkward circumlocution) and especially in the speech and writing of those who are most involved in promoting it. Witness the following extracts from ShetlandForWirds e-mailings:

 

- We previously agreed to give a prize for the best dialect performance at this yearâ€s Schools Music Festival to be held 8-12 March

 

- X explained that some time ago Visit Shetland had approached SFW with a view to producing items with dialect texts

 

- X will update the Action Plan for the dialect project accordingly.

 

- Most heritage centres have shops and would probably be pleased to stock dialect items

 

- The web address will be either shetlanddialect.org.uk or shetlanddialect.co.uk...the fact that X is a dialect speaker is a big advantage.

 

- X is scheduled to hold an evening class this winter on Writing for Bairns in Dialect, suitable for 8-14 year olds

 

Discussion on this forum is, of course, irrelevant. As ShetlandForWirds are the only thing even close to an official representation of the Shetland tongue, and as they use the word 'dialect' by default, this is the de facto name - or, rather, no-name.

 

If, as I am arguing, this means that there can never be a more suitable name for the Entity without an Identity, does this mean that Shetlanders have simply slipped through a semantic black hole - that they have been prevented from taking their tongue seriously by an unfortunate trick of nomenclature? If they had belonged to an area with a ready-made adjective (I wonder about Orcadian as an example? Or Mancunian? Or even Geordie or Scouse?) would everything have been different?

 

I don't think so. I once wrote:

 

"If we were speaking here about something called Shaetlan, which we might translate into English as Shetlandic, and if we believed that this tongue was dying out, then we would be busy identifying the characteristics of Shetlandic, and coming up with structured teaching material so that they would be passed on to children. In other words, we would be strengthening the skeleton, as well as feeding the body.

 

But of course we’re not - we’re speaking about ‘dialect’. And as we know, in the public concept of the word, dialect is like a jellyfish - it has no bones, no grammar."

 

The controversy about nomenclature isn't just about a word. It's about the entire view that Shetlanders have of their traditional tongue. Resistance to any sort of standardisation, both of grammar and spelling (the only documented means of reviving an ailing tongue as far as I know) are part of the same complex. Which is that Shetland as a whole, and certainly at the administrative level, has a thoroughly mainstream Lowland Scottish viewpoint which has no affinity with the approach of peoples who take minority speech forms seriously. The conflict of this mainstream perception with the visceral frustration that many feel at the demise of their native tongue is the nature of the problem. However, as this frustration will last only until the tongue finally passes from memory, or at least from spoken use by more than a smattering of geriatrics, the problem will be reasonably short-lived.

[Rasmie]

am kinda blett aboot pittin my head abun a fgrev fur fare a hit gitten slagged. hoosumver my wird wid be "Shetland", said foo ivver du liks , i da sam wye as whan I read Burns or Broons I pit my ain accent apon it.

We were educated to write in standard english, but rarely spoke it.

Perhaps in a similar way to bokmal and nynorsk?

There's no doubt we speak Scots with an accent and perhaps we retain some older Scots words that has been forgotten on the mainland. Maybe the best we can hope for is to keep the accent.

[Evil Inky]

But while to speak of an 'Iceland writer' or 'Faroe writer' would sound illiterate, it would be perfectly natural to speak of a 'Yorkshire writer' or 'Liverpool writer.' It all becomes clear when you realise that Shetland is not perceived as a place with its own identity, as Faroe and Iceland are, but as a part or subsidiary of another place.

Cornwall (Cornish), Liverpool (Liverpudlian), and Glasgow (Glaswegian) have their own adjectives: are you saying there's some fundamental difference between those places and, say, Yorkshire and Shetland ?

[Malachy]

As a preamble I might point out that, in an article I once wrote for Shetland Life (requested by Malachy, although he probably regretted it!)...

Nope, it was a well-written, provocative article, which is what I asked for.

 

It all becomes clear when you realise that Shetland is not perceived as a place with its own identity, as Faroe and Iceland are, but as a part or subsidiary of another place. (Although which place that is - Scotland or Britain - may be a source of disagreement. The subsidiary status is the common factor.)

I think you are overstating this, or at least you are making a slightly unfair comparison. I believe Shetland is very much seen as a place with it's own identity. It is seen as 'subsidiary' only to the extent that that is a political reality. Shetland's legal system, its education system, its services, popular culture and demographics are integrated with the rest of Britain to a degree that is not true of Iceland or Faroe. Both were (and Faroe remains) part of Denmark, but it was a different kind of relationship - a more 'arms length' one (certainly in the last 100 years) and that was in part due to the much greater distance between them and the 'centre of power'. Shetland can feel quite far away sometimes, but it can still comfortably sit on the map with the rest of Britain, and that has an impact. I realise there are blurry boundaries in all of this, but if you think it's necessary to undo Shetland's many integrations with Scotland you've got an impossible fight on your hands.

 

Shetland not having been traditionally perceived by speakers of English as having the sort of identity that would require an adjective in this context, none has ever evolved or been developed.

Again, I don't think you're correct here. Orcadian has it's adjective, and as Evil Inky's pointed out, many others do too. In some ways you could say there's a certain accidental quality to what places to and what don't. Liverpudlian and Mancunian, but Leedshish or Londonion? Glaswegian and Aberdonian, but Edinburghian or Perthic? I'm not sure you can glean much from these differences, unless you've got a theory.

 

It's about the entire view that Shetlanders have of their traditional tongue. Resistance to any sort of standardisation, both of grammar and spelling (the only documented means of reviving an ailing tongue as far as I know) are part of the same complex. Which is that Shetland as a whole, and certainly at the administrative level, has a thoroughly mainstream Lowland Scottish viewpoint which has no affinity with the approach of peoples who take minority speech forms seriously. The conflict of this mainstream perception with the visceral frustration that many feel at the demise of their native tongue is the nature of the problem.

This is a very complext thing, and I often find baffling the attitudes that some Shetlanders have. Their pessimism is so willful that they'd rather see it die than be proved wrong and have it survive. And anyone who actually acts in a positive way is shot down (Shetland ForWirds being the obvious example. Rather than engaging with the group, maybe even joining it and joining the discussion in a positive way, lots of people just prefer to sit back and criticise, as though SFW were a sinister organisation, out to destroy people's heritage. Which they are clearly not).

[upmakk]

(Shetland ForWirds being the obvious example. Rather than engaging with the group, maybe even joining it and joining the discussion in a positive way, lots of people just prefer to sit back and criticise, as though SFW were a sinister organisation, out to destroy people's heritage. Which they are clearly not).

Well said, again.

 

Whether or not Shetland as a speech form survives isn't something any one of us, or any sub-group of Shetland residents, can determine. It's what happens in the community as a whole that'll matter. What individuals and groups can do is to encourage and help the transmission of Shetland, to younger folk and to soothmoothers with enough interest to want to learn. That, in my understanding, is what SFW is trying to do, and why I'm supportive of it. Better to do something than nothing, and to do it now - by the time we'd all agreed on an ideal plan, there might well not be much left to work with.

[DePooperit]

But while to speak of an 'Iceland writer' or 'Faroe writer' would sound illiterate, it would be perfectly natural to speak of a 'Yorkshire writer' or 'Liverpool writer.' It all becomes clear when you realise that Shetland is not perceived as a place with its own identity, as Faroe and Iceland are, but as a part or subsidiary of another place.

Cornwall (Cornish), Liverpool (Liverpudlian), and Glasgow (Glaswegian) have their own adjectives: are you saying there's some fundamental difference between those places and, say, Yorkshire and Shetland ?

 

No - but I think there's a difference of usage between all those places - whether they have an adjectival form or not - and the names of countries, which means that the word 'Shetland' used as an adjective is natural where 'England' would not be.

 

As Malachy points out in another post, which areas have developed distinct adjectival forms appears to be almost accidental. Glasgow has Glaswegian, but I can't think of one for Edinburgh (although some of these may not be very well known.)

 

What I am saying is that, even where a different adjectival form does exist, the usage is different. I would find it more natural to talk about 'A Glasgow poet' than 'A Glaswegian poet' and 'The Dundee jam factories' than 'The Dundonian jam factories' even though the terms 'Glaswegian' and 'Dundonian' exist. Some may disagree, but this seems to me to be more natural usage, and it appears to be characteristic of what I might call 'internal' areas of the UK rather than countries in their own right.

 

On the other hand, I might say 'Bert is a Glaswegian' - but in this context, the word for an inhabitant of Shetland is 'Shetlander'.

 

So what I'm saying is, it doesn't do to make a straight comparison between 'Shetland' and 'England' or 'Iceland' in trying to find out why the term 'Shetlandic' has not been felt to be necessary for the place, and going on from there, why it is felt to be objectionable to refer to the speech form. My argument is that the word for the place is naturally used as an adjective to refer to internal areas; that the word Shetlandic has therefore not been felt necessary in this context; and this is part of the reason why it is felt to be objectionable with reference to the speech - because, it not being familiar in other contexts, it is felt to have been 'made up' specifically for that purpose.

 

Another problem might be the fact that internal areas do not normally end in '-land' and so there are probably no other areas, other than countries, which have an adjectival form '-andic'. This probably makes the term 'Shetlandic' sound pretentious to some, as if the area were trying to represent itself as a country.

 

I would also go on to say that this is unfortunate, because there is actually no other practical way of translating the native term 'Shaetlan' into standard English without sounding either illiterate or laborious. And BTW this is not only a problem when dealing with people from outside of Shetland - it means that it is difficult to write about the speech within Shetland as well. The problem wouldn't arise if we could write in that speech itself - when we could use Shaetlan - but expository writing in that speech is not usually acceptable. So a double whammy of difficulty, to which I can see no solution.

 

Of course, this is only an issue if you consider that the Shetland tongue is an issue. To most Shetlanders, I would imagine there is no motivation to solve the problem because there is not a perceptible problem.