Read on Twitter
I didn't have the opportunity to give a proper explanation of Norwegian at the @OorVyce panel the other day; we need to critique the ideologies around #Scots spelling. Language planning is v. complex: the idea you can just isolate the spelling of words from all else is weird 1/21
Languages are not externalised concepts like a stone or a tree. Scots exists in as much as individual people communicate in a way that is considered to be Scots. We live in societies where "named languages" are governed not just by top-down policy, but popular consciousness. 2/
Whatever "Scots" is (& I am pro-Scots, it is a legitimate language community), it is a multidialectal language variety which differs stylistically as much as it does geographically. The parallels with Norwegian are there, because Norwegian itself does not have static standards 3/
There are three premises to my beliefs: (1) Scots does not need to be distanced from English to have a standardised way of writing, (2) You do not need to have one standard, (3) Spelling conventions directly intersect with stylistic and aesthetic tendencies in written language 4/
The standard is always an abstraction. Scots, to me and many other linguists, is the marked vernacular of many Scottish citizens. There are distinct cases of Scots lexis and syntactic structure. The spelling of individual words, however, is never an isolated act 5/
The act of writing is a cultural practice. It is marked by ideological orientations around what we consider to be acceptable language. I'm going to give some examples of the wide variation that exists in Norwegian, and why this matters for #Scots standard advocates: 6/
Nor. has 2 state-sanctioned orthographies that go beyond just spelling. Nynorsk & Bokmål. The 1st is an elaborated synthetic mix of Norwegian dialect variation and avoidance of Danish spelling and stylistic tendencies. The 2nd is a Norwegianisation of Danish from the 1800s. 7/
Both allow great variation beyond just spelling. In Bokmål you can write "sten" and "stein" for 'stone', "syv" and "sju" for 'seven', "kastet" and "kasta" for 'thrown/threw". But you also have more marked choices - some people prefer to use "sjøl" for "selv", meaning 'self' 8/
'Syv stener ble kastet mot meg selv" and "sju steiner blei kasta mot meg sjøl" are both OK. And each carry a certain ideological statement about language. All linguistic practice does. The latter form is often called "radical Bokmål" and might be considered counter-cultural. 9/
Nynorsk on the other hand, gets a whole lot more interesting and complicated. Spelling preferences go hand in hand with vocabulary choice, very often. Some people prefer to write in a way that reflects their dialect, and/or in a way that stylistically distances from Danish. 10/
There are 16 ways of writing this word in Nynorsk, 'congratulation': lukkynska, lukkynske, lukkynskja, lukkynskje, lukkønska, lukkønske, lukkønskja, lukkønskje, lykkynska, lykkynske, lykkynskja, lykkynskje, lykkønska, lykkønske, lykkønskja, lykkønskje. 11/
How each one of these is used will often correlate with how you might use different words for the same concept. In Nynorsk, 'hope' can be expressed with 'håp' or 'von'. The latter is considered more Norse, and is used in many dialects still today. 12/
Other distinctions include 'kjensle' versus 'følelse' for "feeling". Følelse is clearly more Danish, as it takes an -else ending like many Low German words imported into Scandinavian dialects in the early modern era. Both are still allowed. 13/
'Now' can be no/nå. 'We' can be vi/me. 'You' plural can be de (subj), dykk (obj.)/dokker (subj. and obj.) You can write whole sentences in Nynorsk that make use of relatively "Danish" vocabulary, and conversely write something which is far more pure "Norwegian". 14/
De vonar at skulen kjem til å opna på tysdag.
Dokker håpar at skolen kjem til å opne på tysdag.
Dere håper at skolen kommer til å åpne på tirsdag.
All three are the same sentence written in different varieties and stylistic tendencies with in Norwegian. 15/
Dokker håpar at skolen kjem til å opne på tysdag.
Dere håper at skolen kommer til å åpne på tirsdag.
All three are the same sentence written in different varieties and stylistic tendencies with in Norwegian. 15/
And there's also register. I made the claim that registers evolve organically. Perhaps not the best phrasing. But formalities are part of social behaviour, especially where there is cultural formality and distancing. Sometimes register can be socially engineered as well. 16/
Scots could be written in a way that allows for several spelling conventions, and in a way that allows people to choose certain lexical items instead of others. The problem is also that there is a perverse desire to demarcate what Scots is and what it isn't. 17/
There are many ways sentences can be translated into Norwegian, not just by virtue of the 2 standards, but the plethora of alternatives that the standards offer. What unites it all is that there is a popular concept of the Nor. language as a set, autonomous language community 18/
Those asking for written Scots need to understand that any standard or planning carries with it ideological weight & aesthetic diktats about what Scots is. For some it needs to be revitalised with vocabulary from the past. Others perceive it as it is heard today on the street 19/
There are Norwegians today who write in a manner that is close to Danish. Inspect a copy of Aftenposten. And there are those who choose Nynorsk - loads of poets, authors, who write in far more purer "Norwegian" ways. Spelling is not isolated in this multidialectal language 20/
And it needn't be in Scots either. Yet, judging by this recent article by J. Derrick McClure ( https://www.abdn.ac.uk/pfrlsu/documents/Ch1_McClure_second_proofs.pdf), the Anglicisation of Scots is worth getting enraged about. Which is why you can't just focus on spelling along. It's a cog in a larger linguistic machine. 21/21
