"Auld Lang Syne" Heresy

**Phil** · 13th January 10, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by OC Richard

The trouble with Burns' poetry is that it's written in a dialect of English that few speak, can read, or understand.

I would just like to correct a misconception in that Scots is not a "dialect of English" but it is, in fact, closer to the truth to describe English as a "dialect of Scots". Both languages have a common root in the Anglo-Saxon language which was the prevalent language in southern and south-eastern Scotland when the people of Northumbria or Bernicia as it was then known settled in those parts, bringing their language with them. Subsequent invasion by the Normans as well as other Scandinavian "Viking" settlers resulted in both languages evolving separately but Scots remained the language of the court until the union of the crowns and is still prevalent in the language of the Scottish legal system. So, please, do not dismiss our language as merely some aberration of English. Despite the best attempts of the Establishment to stamp it out it has managed to survive the last 400 years or so in many people's everyday speech and I hope it will do so for many more years to come.

**highlander_Daz** · 13th January 10, 04:43 AM

Id half disagree with you there Phil, Burns wrote in Lallans which is lowland Scots dialect, how Burn wrote doesnt represent how "scots" speak, I dont know who decided that a borders dialect could suddenly be the "scots language" when the majority of people living north of Stirling speak nothing like that, Im all for preserving the specific way that Burns wrote , but in my view , and its only my opinion which, in the grand scheme of things doesnt really count for much outside my front door . its delusional to suggest a regional dialect that represents only a percentage of how people speak could be presented as the "Scots language" One could suggest that Gàidhlig is the Scots language on that basis, which of course it isnt, as not that many people speak it. just sauce for the goose .

happy new year by the way

**Phil** · 13th January 10, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by highlander_Daz

Id half disagree with you there Phil, Burns wrote in Lallans which is lowland Scots dialect, how Burn wrote doesnt represent how "scots" speak, I dont know who decided that a borders dialect could suddenly be the "scots language" when the majority of people living north of Stirling speak nothing like that, Im all for preserving the specific way that Burns wrote , but in my view , and its only my opinion which, in the grand scheme of things doesnt really count for much outside my front door . its delusional to suggest a regional dialect that represents only a percentage of how people speak could be presented as the "Scots language" One could suggest that Gàidhlig is the Scots language on that basis, which of course it isnt, as not that many people speak it. just sauce for the goose . happy new year by the way

And a good New Year to you too - and everyone else reading this. Without knowing your background I can't comment on your experience of Scots or Lallans as a language but, as I said, it was the predominant language in south and south-eastern Scotland and would not have been heard in the Highlands as you rightly suggest. It is subject to regional variations such as Doric in the north-east and Ullans in Ulster and nowadays is rarely if ever spoken as a distinct language. It is more usual nowadays to hear it as English interspersed with Scots words but still retains its grammatical differences. You will no doubt tut-tutted when hearing someone say they "have went tae the shops" but this is, in fact correct usage in Scots. Similarly when you hear someone pronounce a word such as "pattern" as "pattren" this again is correct in Scots. I could go on but the point I am trying to make is that Scots or Lallans is not a quaint regional dialect but was once the established language of Scotland both in the royal court and legal system from about the 14th century. Before that the nobility generally spoke French would you believe but thereafter took on the language spoken by the majority of the population. This is not to diminish Gaelic which was widely spoken in the south-west and the western seaboard but the seat of government was in the Scots-speaking areas and this prevailed, just as English has nowadays.

**OC Richard** · 13th January 10, 05:49 AM

About the approach that English is a dialect of Scots, in me referring to Scots as a dialect of English I am following the normal usage in books about language that uses the word "English" as the overarching term for a family of dialects which includes Standard English, Scots, African-American English, etc etc. Yes it would be just as incorrect to think that Scots is a dialect of Standard English as it would be to think that Standard English is a dialect of African-American English. All are sister dialects.

Yes it's true that Scots has many archaic aspects, features going back to Old English (the term "Anglo-Saxon" seems to be out of favour presently), features which have been lost in Standard English.

For example, from the Book Of Genesis in the Old English Bible:

God tha spraec to Noe, thus cwathende: "Gang tha ut of tham arce, thu and thin wif and thine suna and heora wif..."

Now "gang ut", pronounced approximately "gang oot", is incomprehensible to a speaker of Standard English but I would think quite understandable to a Scots speaker.

A side note: oftentimes the words "dialect" and "language" are used interchangibly, but normal usage is that "dialects" are mutually comprehesible while "languages" are not. So if two people can understand each other they're speaking dialects of the same language; if they cannot undertand each other they're speaking different languages. There are many grey areas of course and the difference between Lallans and Standard English is one...oftentimes a Standard English speaker can understand very little.

**OC Richard** · 13th January 10, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Phil

Similarly when you hear someone pronounce a word such as "pattern" as "pattren" this again is correct in Scots.

Very interesting! This is called metathesis and crops up all the time in the history of English.

An example is the African-American pronunciation of "ask" as "aks/ax". The African-American pronunciation is not Standard English, but it is not at all a recent American innovation but is actually long-established in England itself:

And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in-to a hows and axed for mete; and specyally he axyed after eggys. And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no frenshe, but wolde have hadde egges, and she understode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde have eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she understod hym wel.

William Caxton c1476

(The letter g changed to y at some point, apparently by the time that Angles, Saxons, and Jutes brought their language to England. Then the large Old Norse-speaking settlement in the north east (the Danelaw) introduced Norse words which were similar to the English words but had retained the G. So yard/garden, eyren/eggs, yat/gate, etc.)

Another example of metathesis is "bird", which was originally "brid".

Many Americans pronounce "pretty" as "purdy". Etc etc.

**Asser 1** · 13th January 10, 06:12 AM

Burns...Haggis....Whisky

I love January and for that matter February(can't get all the suppers in in January).

Todd- I agree, with the greats like Tait and Cairney it is quite easy to learn how to do the poems correctly or almost correctly.

Nothing worse than a modern English translation of Burns works.

Here's to the Immortal Memory of the Ploughman Poet, a bit early.

**thescot** · 13th January 10, 08:06 AM

Now that's the sort of discussion I had in mind.

Obviously, Burns is hard to read/hear/understand at first, but that's no reason not to read or hear. As pointed out, hearing it properly (or nearly so) read or recited makes it much easier. And I do not recommend one staying within one's comfort zone, especially in regard to learning. (That's another tale.)

The same complaints are leveled against Shakespeare and Chaucer and the King James, or Authorized, Verson of the Bible.

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

OK, tough for anyone--even me, and I memorized it decades ago. but it's worth the effort. As is:

O that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d
His canon ’gainst self-slaughter!

I've had to drag a few recalcitrant fellows through that one, but it was worth the effort once they "got it." Along with the opening humor of Romeo and Juliet. (If you don't believe me when I say it's actually quite hilarious, go look it up and work through all the bravado and counter-palaver between Sampson and Gregory. Ole Gregory (I think it was him; been a while) doesn't understand taht Sampson is teasing him.)

Of course, Shakespeare is technically Modern English, but it's still Elizabethen and requires a "Shakespearean ear" as I call it. The same might be said for the KJV which is also Elizabethan, written at about the same time as Shakewpeare, and intentionally stilted.

But even though it takes effort, it important to hear Burns when he says:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us
An' ev'n Devotion

I put that one in our program for Saturday night.

And then there's my favorite:

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

Sheer beauty, I tell you. And wisdom. And genius if you ever take the time to examine the entire canon. (I even have a book somewhere with his unpublished naughty works, but that's another tale for another day, too.)

**macwilkin** · 13th January 10, 08:23 AM

Of course, Burns did write in standard English as well...witness one of the most beautiful of his verses found in the middle of his epic Tam O'Shanter:

But pleasures are like poppies spread,
You seize the flower its bloom is shed;
Or like the snow falls in the river,
A moment white - then melts forever;
Or like the Borealis race,
That flit ere you can point their place;
Or like the rainbow's lovely form
Evaneshing amid the storm.-

One of my favourite of Burns's lesser-known poems is his Impromptu on Mrs. [Maria] Riddell's Birthday, written in 1793:

Old Winter, with his frosty beard,
Thus once to Jove his prayer preferred:
"What have I done of all the year,
To bear this hated doom severe?

My cheerless suns no pleasure know;
Night's horrid car drags, dreary slow;
My dismal months no joys are crowning,
But spleeny English hanging, drowning.

"Now Jove, for once be mighty civil.
To counterbalance all this evil;
Give me, and I've no more to say,
Give me Maria's natal day!
That brilliant gift shall so enrich me,
Spring, Summer, Autumn, cannot match me."
"'Tis done!" says Jove; so ends my story,
And Winter once rejoiced in glory.

Let's keep this going...

T.