Re: USAGE: YAEPT:Re: Shavian: was Re: USAGE: Con-graphies

From: Tristan Alexander McLeay
"Umm... Half of those don't look terribly different from standard English.
Sometimes, the orthography differs; but the pronunciation is well within
reason, such as:



> <We used t'ha t'wauk t'eawr work.>
> [wI jY:st a? wO:k t&:r w8k]
> "We used to have to walk to (our) work."


Or with "Australian" (somewhat Broad of course; and not phonemic; but not as
bad as it could be): [wIi ju\:st@ r\ &ft@ wo:k t@ w &: w2:k]



Other times, the "translation" is gratuitously different, such as:



> <That's t'ro:d heaw t'throw t'money away.>
> [Da?s ro:d &:? Tro: ?'mUne @'we:]
> "That's how you end up waisting money."


[D&ts &:  j@ fr\3u\ j@ mani j @w&i]



Which is perfectly legitimate and something I've heard my olders and betters
warn me against."



<That's the road how you throw money away.>

Isn't the same thing in Standard English. The Standard English translation
was appropriate.





"Also, this one in particular I'm not sure if I'd notice it was any more
different than the pronunciation diffs:"



> <One of his mates is cume.>
> [wOn @v Iz me:ts Iz kUm]
> "one of his mates has come"


[wan @ r\ Iz m&its @s k_ham].



"Not saying there aren't any differences; but again, the extent of the
difference seems exaggerated."



Here there is a big grammatical difference which shows that verbs of motion
are used with <be> rather than <have>.



Question: [Iz i: kUm]? not [az i: kUm]?





Here's another one: <He's getten noan> [i:z gEtn_= no:n] = "He hasn't got
one."



--------------------------------------



"A lot of it is just the effect of retaining a second-person singular that
Standard English has lost, and phonetic process regarding "the"/this
pronoun&case. As well, the orthography seems designed to exaggerate the
differences, with things like "wauk" for Std English "walk" (but intended
pronounciation of "wauk") or "bin" for Std English "been" (but Americans say
/bIn/ anyway, even when stressed, and don't bother re-spelling it). Where
does this orthography come from? Do locals use it much, nowadays, oris it a
rival of an oldfashioned thing?

Tristan."





No, the spelling changes were mine and they were spontaneous. I was
deliberately  staying close to Standard English in the orthographic
representation.



There is a substantial amount of Lancashire dialect poetry andit has quite a
few more orthographic idiosyncracies, e.g. <eaw> for [&:] which is the
Lancashire reflex of ME /u:/ = ModE /aU/;



Other words like, <noan>, <whoam>, <allus> etc.



I could list up a number of verbal paradigms and forms that are quite
different from standard English, i.e.





/gY:/ "go"



1sg   /aI gY:/

2sg   /D&: gUz/

3sg   /i: gUz/, /8:(r) gUz/

1pl   /we: gUn/

2pl   /jo: gUn/

3pl   /De: gUn/



These are the traditional forms, but many speaker use modified forms like
/gY:/ for the plural.



-----------------



The 3sgf. pronoun <her> /8:(r)/ is relatively new. The traditional form
though has died out from living memory. Lancashire is allegedly an area that
preserves OE <heo> as <hoo> /Y:/, but I've never heard this form.



------------------



Some other verbs preserve plural forms such as <want>:



<we wanten> /we: wantn_=/ "we want"



-------------



<mun> for "must"



"must" is considered "posh";



--------------



There are more differences that are difficult to scribble down with but a
few examples. I'd have to write a whole grammar.



Dan