Talk:Auld Lang Syne/Archive 1

OR
Original research? Running proquest to make a perfunctory determination of when song entered popular culture? Lotsofissues 15:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Catalonia it is also used as a farewell song, and the translation to Catalan language is "L'hora dels adéus" ("Time to say Goodbye")

Yet, it is sometimes referred to jokingly as "the song that nobody knows", since many people can recall the melody easily but know only a fraction of the words, perhaps because it is written in the Scots language. Who refers to it in this way? No source, methinks. --84.68.200.235 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you put "the song that nobody knows" into google, a lot of the hits seem to be Auld Lang Syne. Admittedly, there aren't many hits in total but I've heard this song refered to as such by people so not completely unfounded. - JVG 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gies
Gies is indeed a Scots word (pronounced "geeze") and means gives as in "He gies a bane tae the dug" meaning "He gives a bone to the dog" in English. However gie's in the line "gie's a haund" is pronounced "geese" and is a contraction of "gie us a haund", meaning "give me a hand" in English. That is why it should have an apostrophe. It's a similar case to "I'll" which also has a different pronunciation and meaning depending on whether the apostrophe is present or absent. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This one's ancient history - but its ghost seems to be lingering. An obviously well-intentioned editor, whom I hesitate to revert, has changed "gie's a" to "give me a" in the minimalist translation. I would really prefer for us to keep "give us" - as this is "standard" colloquial English - in my own native dialect we'd probably spell it "gissa" if (like the Scots) we affected our own spelling. (Which Heaven forfend, incidentally!) "Give me" is indeed standard, formal English in either case - but is translating colloquial language into formal "minimalist"? Mountain out of a molehill, perhaps, but in Strine "gissya hend" is a very different thing to "gimmiya hend". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was a pretty trivial change that might be slightly clearer to ESL speakers. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - tend to agree, especially about the "trivial change" bit - otherwise I'd have reverted it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the modification is an improvement. The implied "us" is not a reference to a number of people in the plural, as the standard grammar of a non-native English speaker would understand it.   It is actually about a singular "me".  Otherwise the reader may think the singer is speaking for a group of people, which would subtly change the meaning of the song.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gude
Gude is also a mispelling. It should be spelt guid (pronounced gid or gweed depending on dialect). -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct Lyrics
It's also interesting to note that my two volumes of Burns poetry, an early 20th century Collins one and a late 19th century Nelson one each have different versions of this poem. Not only do the words differ but the verses are in a different order in each book. The Nelson edition spells "guid" and "gie's" properly; uses "days of auld lang syne" for the first verse but nowhere else; and puts the "pint-stoup" verse at the end of the poem. The Collins edition doesn't use the phrase "for days of auld lang syne" at all and puts the "pint-stoup" verse in second place. The Wikipedia currently has a third version based on the Collins but with "days of" added to several of the verses. It looks like we need to do more research in order to find out what Burns intended the lyrics to be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, a quick check indicates that the Collins order is the one that Burns used, so that's a part answer to the question. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Double right. I think the interpretation (and the punctuation ascribed to Burns) in this article is completely wrong. Why would anybody suggest that old acquaintance be forgot? The lyrics mean "should" in the sense of "lest": should memories begin to grow dim, let this cup (this toast) serve as a remembrance, i.e., a thing to freshen the memory. The interpretation in this article is somebody's personal interpretation, and should be reported as such — or, preferably, removed altogether. rowley (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have proposed a solution, with a slight change of wording that leaves the meaning open to interpretation. rowley (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear from the old poem that it's a "what if," not a "rhetorical question."i.e. "Should this happen, it would be bad," not "Do you think this should happen?" 67.188.189.41 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the other
SAMPA: [s@in] or IPA: [saɪn] Uh... what? I'm pretty sure that SAMPA translates as [səin]. I think that it should be [saIn]; anyone who can actually be arsed to look up the lax high front vowel in SAMPA is welcome to correct me. But actually, the best thing to do would probably be to just write [sajn], which is more accurate (since there's no non-syllabic diacritic in the current version) and doesn't require a SAMPA transliteration. 69.140.12.199 02:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Drinking Song
The lyrics below were added recently. If this version was written recently enough, it would still be under copyright, unless the writer released them. That may even be the case, I have not looked myself. If they are in the public domain, then they could be put back (either as a link, or at the end of the article as an alternate version) If they are not public domain, a link could be added to a site that includes them. —MJBurrage 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne As A Drinking Song: Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind ? Should old acquaintance be forgot, in the days of auld lang syne ?


 * CHORUS:
 * For auld lang syne, my dear,
 * for auld lang syne,
 * we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
 * for the sake of auld lang syne.

Let's have a drink or maybe two ! Or maybe three or four ! Or five or six or seven or eight, and maybe even more !


 * CHORUS ×2

When it gets to closing time, And you still want more, I know a pub in Invemess That never shuts its door!


 * CHORUS ×2

''This version is an actual drinking song sung in pubs in Ireland, Scotland and England. The Celtic Punk band, the Dropkick Murphys, did a verison of the song with those lyrics.'' —User:68.158.253.245, 25 March 2006 (UTC) THE DROpkick version is on LIMEWIRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.30.33 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if you research this, you'll find that the question marks were added by someone who understood neither the sense of the song nor punctuation. It changes the meaning considerably. rowley (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thailand
In Thailand, there's a song named "สามัคคีชุมนุม" (Sa-mak-kee-choom-noom, litterally, "harmony assemble") with a tune of Auld Lang Syne. The similarily goes further also when Thai people sing this song, they crossed-hold their hands together, just the way people do it during singing Auld Lang Syne in Hogmanay night. -- 172.173.110.5 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the melody? Bastie 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dropkick Murphys?
I'm a fan of Dropkick Murphys, and I've never heard of them recording a drinking song version of "Auld Lang Syne". If someone can't prove otherwise, I'm gonna delete the reference in a few days. Joltman 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about the Murphys, but Real MacKenzies did in Clash of the Tartans. 82.93.133.130 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Under usage, where it has a list of bands that have covered "Auld Lang Syne", I again added the Dropkick Murphys, as well as a clip of them performing the chorus.

University of Virginia
There have been repeated references in this article to the "Good Old Song" (a/k/a "Good Ole Song") as the University of Virginia's "fight song." It's not the fight song; it's the alma mater. The tune of this song hardly fits a fight song. UVA's actual fight song is the "Cavalier Song," although I'd wager that 95% of our fans don't know the words. Either way, please stop changing the article to refer to it as a fight song. 1995hoo 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Theres a copy on limeWire its really good  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.30.33 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone give here the pronuncation of all the scottish words in the song?

80.95.109.155 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Prokop, Czech R.


 * I'll try but there is some variation according to which dialect of Scots you speak. IPA tends to be a bit too specific in these cases. Plus my IPA is a bit vague. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is a very valid concern, IPA isn't really going to work for this -- I started trying to translate it to IPA, but stumbled as soon as I came across the word "auld". I (fae Dundee/Fife) say (and sing) something like "awld" (IPA [ɒld]), but Derek (fae Aiberdeen) obviously says something like "aald" (IPA [ald]). Similar problems come up with words like "tae" and "surely", which get different pronunciations depending on where you come from. Also there are a lot of words like "acquaintance" and "be" which don't differ in pronunciation from English. Might it be better, rather than having the pronunciation guide, to put in a link to Scots_language there and let the reader work it out? Or maybe someone could do a recording of a recital (rather than a sung version, for clarity) and put it up? I'd do it, but I a) don't know how to record OGG b) don't have a microphone. Mendor 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. That's the problem with IPA alright. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone replace the pronunciation guide that used to be here. What's here now is not a guide for English pronunciation, it's a foreign language. (asked someone who didn't sign).


 * Your wish ... -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to mention a bugbear of mine where residents of the United States (and some in the UK. pme pf whom just appeared on TV) appear to have the total inability to pronounce the word "Syne" with an "S" as opposed to a "Z". Please stop it, as most of my fillings have now fallen out...82.6.1.85 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

For old time's sake
Could "for old time's sake" work as an appropriation of the original meaning? If it would work, it would be a little clearer than what we have there already. IMFromKathlene 07:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. "Sake" doesn't come into it. The simplest translation of the phrase "Auld lang syne is "Long ago". That seems clear enough to me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've addressed this by translating the phrase as days of long ago which is idiomatically correct but fits the metre of the lyrics better than long ago. -- Derek Ross | Talk


 * My original intention with the minimal Anglicized translation was to present a version that an English speaker could understand, with out actually changing what the song sounds like, hence keeping Auld Lang Syne, which everyone sings without translation – even if they do mangle it :-) I.E. these were the lyrics I gave to some friends when they wanted the "correct" version of the song, but also wanted to know what they were singing. The title's meaning had been pretty well covered in the text, so I left it as we would sing it, and it certainly sounded better than everybody trying to sing in Scots, especially when none of us knew what the words are supposed to sound like. :-) —MJBurrage • TALK  • 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well if you want to put it back the way it was, that's fine. I only changed it because you seemed unhappy with what was there already. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Isaiah 65:17 comment

 * ''The first two lines of the lyrics seem to be an allusion (although perhaps not consciously intended) to Isaiah 65:17, which reads:


 * ''Behold, I will create


 * ''new heavens and a new earth.


 * ''The former things will not be remembered,


 * ''nor will they come to mind.

This comment about Isaiah 65:17 is based on a quote that appears to be taken from the New International Versionof the Bible  published in 1978. The Author of this comment has not quoted his source so we can't Verify it.

Nor could I find a version Isaiah of 65:17 that Robert Burns (1759-96) would have had access too, that matched the text quoted. (The King James versionis different).

Also "seem to be an allusion" is a theory. According to Wikipedia policy a source for a theory should be cited.

For these two reasons I felt that immediate removal was justified.

JollyTom 13:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What does "imitate removal" even mean? rowley (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A pretty obvious typo for "immediate" - and it's been gone for four years now! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all that obvious; and it's still there. rowley (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops - spell checker gone awry. Jmrowland, thanks for spotting it. Soundofmusicals was correct. It's fixed now. --JollyTom 08:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New Year's Day
Yesterday, I added the tidbit about it being sung at midnight in the introduction, as this is what the song is most popularly known for. I noticed someone changed New Year's Day to New Year's Eve, and wanted to point out that it is sung at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Day, not eve, as the day has changed. That's the whole point. Herr Lip 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected this. It is the stroke of midnight on hogmanay, new years'eve. After that stroke is new years day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.171.127 (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But are you sure your correction is correct? By definition, the stroke of midnight signifies not the last of the evening, but the first of the morning. If you doubt this, check your watch. Herr Lip's version is the correct one. rowley (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Performances
Someone added the following as a seperate page. It can be merged with this page but it doesnt seem reasonable to add every parody of lyrics. Removing link to new page

Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind? Should old acquaintance be forgot, and auld lang syne ?


 * CHORUS:
 * For auld lang syne, my dear,
 * for auld lang syne,
 * we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
 * for auld lang syne.

We two have waded in the brook, in days of bright sunshine, but oceans now beteween us lie; since auld lang syne.


 * CHORUS

Now here’s a hand my trusty friend, And give a cup of thine! We’ll take a take a cup of kindness yet, for auld lang syne.


 * CHORUS

I think of all the great high hopes, I had when I was young; and now who are these sad old farts, I find myself among?


 * CHORUS

Dmanning 07:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical Content In "Melody"
The whole latter section of "Melody" discusses convergent melodies, using examples that are irrelevant to the main article, though interesting in themselves. Although this holds up the main article, the material is valuable. Could this part of the text be footnoted, or even transposed to another Wikipedia article?

-- Actually, the irrelevant material takes up less than a paragraph. Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Auld/Old, Land/Lang Syne? Old Land Time.
It seems to me that lands and language were often tightly connected. One spoke the language of the land in which one inhabited and rarely lived in a land (for long) that did not speak the same language. "Lang" in the song could perhaps mean both (land and language) fondly in a way our language has no match for. Auld, I would guess means old. Syne... it is time or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.240.173 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No it really, really doesn't. The words "Auld Lang Syne" are cognate to "Old Long Since" and the entire phrase means "Long, Long Ago" -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So what is it actually about?
It's been around for a couple of hundred years now, surely someones come up with a meaning? 81.77.136.231 (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose to add one of the explanatory pages to the external links. Perhaps:

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/newyearcelebrations.html

Carlos_X (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No need. We've already got a complete translation in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed; however, the translation in the article is wrong. rowley (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material
The following is unsourced information:

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The melody to "Auld Lang Syne" is thought to be a strong candidate for the solution to Sir Edward Elgar's "Enigma"; that is, he said that the theme of his Op. 36 Variations was actually a countermelody to some other well-known tune, but he never revealed what the popular tune was.
 * American guitarist Jimi Hendrix played "Auld Lang Syne" as the opening of his second set at the Fillmore East, December 31, 1969-January 1, 1970.
 * Irish rock group A.E.R use "Auld Lang Syne" as the intro and hook of their song "Time Goes By". The songwriter had the idea of using it while thinking, "What can we do that Jimi Hendrix didn't?" He only found out that Jimi Hendrix actually had performed the song, three days after recording it.
 * This is the last song sung at every commencement for Fairleigh Dickinson University.
 * Friedrich Silcher, a German songwriter born at the time when Robert Burns died, translated "Auld Lang Syne" into German ("Soll's alte Herz vergessen sein"), which is probably the best translation of this song into a foreign language.
 * The poem is also sung/covered by Great Big Sea.
 * Satirical singer Allan Sherman included his own version in one of his "Schticks and Stones" medleys, in which the meaning is changed to refer to an old man named Lang who has a neon sign.
 * The University Of Virginia's alma mater, "The Good Old Song", is sung to the tune of "Auld Lang Syne".
 * A variation on the melody of the song is heard in the John Phillip Sousa march "Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company".
 * The German band Die Toten Hosen made a cover of this song in 1999.

Hotaru no Hikari
I really wish they kept the separete page for this song, since it has almost nothing to do with "Auld Lang Syne". However since they decided the page needed to be merged, I didn't want this lyric table to be lost, because it really doesn't belong on the main page. Meanwhile, I think I might try to figure something out on how to put the page for this song back up on Wiki. -Caryn (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese song "Hotaru no Hikari", "Light of Fireflies", is a song sang to the tune of "Auld Lang Syne". The lyrics, however, are quite different. "Hotaru no Hikari" is often sung on New Years Eve, though more commonly sung at graduations and funerals, as signifying an end, or saying goodbye. Stores and restaurants also play it at the end of a business day. The Japanese have embraced the song into their culture, and do not realize that it has the tune of another song. If heard outside of Japan to a native, they would believe that they were listening to a Japanese song.


 * I totally agree. I originally created that page, however anglo-centric Wiki editors with more time than me insisted it was "non notable."  Thanks for posting the lyrics here; feel free to make the page anew.  brain (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"The sake of" corruption

 * "The last line of the chorus is frequently mis-sung by crowds and untrained groups as "for the sake of Auld Lang Syne". This is partly because the words themselves are not understood, but also because it has become common practice."

This doesn't seem to make sense. Firstly, millions of people aren't going to corrupt the song identically and independently of each other, just out of not understanding the words. Somebody must have been first to bungle the song by inserting the words "the sake of" there. The question is of who this somebody was.

Secondly, "it has become common practice" isn't an explanation at all. It's just saying the same thing as the first sentence.

Somebody ought to be able to find some information somewhere about the origin of this all-too-common error. -- Smjg (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Lock
Around UK new year midnight there was a 'personalisation' of the lyrics of Auld Lang Syne, that was followed by a number of re-attributions of authorship, etc. I note that most of these were corrected within a few minutes.

However, might it be worth locking the page over the new year period next year? I'm not sure if there is a policy for this sort of thing, as I guess there are a number of pages that are at risk of this sort of 'cyclic vandalism'.

RichardRothwell (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics: Last line of first verse.
For Burns' version, the WP page (as of 2009-01-10) had "And days o' lang syne." without the "auld". worlburnsclub (.com) and digi-trad (mudcat.org) use "And days of auld lang syne".

However, the pronunciation guides (and the minimalist English translation) seem to have worked from "And auld lang syne." This is the version in wikisource and at burnscountry (robertburns.org).

For the sake of consistency on the page and between WP and WS, I have changed the line to "And auld lang syne" Cathalwoods (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How about instead of having a guide to how Scot's spekaers would pronouce it, we have a modern Scot's translation? This ouwld be more useful than the Scottish pronunication thing we have now. Jimjom (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree because the pronunciation guide describes one dialect of Scots. For example, in my dialect Auld is pronounced "ald" rather than "awld" like in other dialects. I found this on a Scots fan site after a quick google search:

Auld Lang Syne Shoud auld acquentance be forgot, An niver brocht tae mynd? Shoud auld acquentance be forgot, An auld lang syne!

Owerwird:

For auld lang syne, ma dear, For auld lang syne, We'll tak a cup o kyndness yit, For auld lang syne.

An shuirly ye'll be your pint stowp! An shuirly A'll be mine! An we'll tak a cup o kyndness yit, For auld lang syne.

We twa hae rin aboot the braes, An pou'd the gowans fine; But we'v wandert mony a weary fit Sin auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidelt in the burn, Frae mornin sun till dine; But seas atween us braid haes raired Sin auld lang syne.

An thare's a haund, ma trusty fere! An gie's a haund o thine! An we'll tak a richt guid-willy waucht, For auld lang syne.

Is this good enough? Doing this would treat Scots a bit more like we would other languages, rather than having a pronunciation guide. Scroggie (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you've just identified the problem. Your dialect pronounces it one way, another pronounces it another way.  And there'll be a third and fourth pronunciation on different words in different dialects.  We can't have them all. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we shouldn't have a pronunciation guide. That is why we are suggesting having the lyrics written in modern Scots instead, which is more standardised in spelling than pronunciation. for instance the example I used above of "ald" and "awld" are both spelt "auld". Using the pan-dialect spellings (PDF) means we don't have to make the arbitrary choice of dialect in the pronunciation section. Scroggie (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ye i think we should scrap a speculative pronunciation guide we should just use modern Scots. As for dialects, although there isn't an absolute standard Scots as far as i know, on Scots Wikipedia we manage to write plenty of articles without too many problems, so I'm sure English Wikipedia could use that form of Scots. Jimjom (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As difficult as this all is for an American to digest, it could be worse. Just imagine if the Scots had invented rhyming slang. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank goodness the Cockneys invented it, and we have sensible rhymes like "Rabbit & Pork" = "Talk", "Babble Bath" = "Laugh" and "Round The Houses" = "Trousers". Left to the Scots these wouldn't rhyme at all!  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "...off with one terrible roar...nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force..." Sometimes rhymes don't really rhyme. Hence the term "poetic license". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhyming slang relies on the rhyme being spot on, otherwise it would never work. "Rabbit & Pork" does rhyme with "talk", but only if you're cockney.  Same applies to Scots rhyming slang; "Corned Beef" = "deaf", so Scots rhyming slang is no different or worse than any other.   But we're getting off the point.

The point of having a Scots translation, is that this is how Burns himself would have said it. The spelling he used is not necessarily an accurate guide to the pronunciation. While other Scots dialects and modern accents may have it differently, that isn't the point. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lacking recording devices, how can we ever be certain how Burns really said it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * exactly why we should just scrap pronunciation guides, and treat Scots like other languages and have a modern spelling of the poem as opposed to pronunciation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjom (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. It would be just as difficult to get agreement on a modern Scots translation as it would be to get agreement on modern Scots pronunciation or spelling. The approach we have taken so far is to cite a particular published edition of the poem. It's the right approach and we should continue to use it. As for pronunciation, modern Ayrshire rural accent is much the same as it was in the 18th century (although the dialect is much weaker) so if people are being really pedantic about pronunciation, that's the one they should pick. However any Scots dialect pronunciation is better than none. At the moment we have a Northeast Scots one because that's the one I know. If a Southeast Scots speaker wants to replace it with an SE Scots version that's fine but I would suggest that a non-native speaker should leave it alone as they are more likely to make a hash of it than improve it. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So-called "Pronunciation guides" suck anyway - quite apart from dialect differences the "phonetic" spelling used in such guides is ambiguous and inexact (why we have IPA!!). Why not just present the poem in "standard" Scots spelling, which is at least much closer to being phonetic than English (or Irish!!) and gives a reasonable idea of what it sounds like in Scots. If you really want to get it right, there's no substitute for coaching by a Scots friend anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of syne
Somebody has added the IPA pronunciation of the title with "syne" pronounced as "zyne" instead of like the English word "sign". Though "zyne" may be a common pronunciation in the USA etc, the only correct way to pronounce it (per the Oxford English Dictionary) is "sign". I don't know IPA so could somebody who has the skills change it. Scroggie (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As it seems to be relevant to a disagreement at the moment I thought I'd draw attention to my post above. The OED only supplies the "sign" pronunciation therefore pointing out that that is how it is pronounced in English (not just in Scots or just in Scotland) is surely what we should be doing. Scroggie (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is often (whatever that means) pronounced like a "z" in English. Check out the ending of It's a Wonderful Life, for example. It's like they're making a possessive of it, like "Old Lang's Yne". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of the pronunciation in It's a Wonderful Life is unusual, to my ear. That's because they have American accents.  But it's not this article's place to decide the pronunciation is incorrect.  If a cite can be found we could perhaps discuss the differences, but until then all we really have is a note of how it is pronounced in Burns' native tongue.  We can't start noting what differences may be evident in every place on the planet.  Particularly as original research. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possessives, or even plurals (like "possessives") often pronounce the trailing "s" like a "z", and I think that's what happens with "Auld Lang Syne" - it gets run together as if it were "Auld Lang's 'yne", i.e. "Auld langz yne". There is no question that sometimes it's pronounced this way. The clip of It's a Wonderful Life demonstrates that. The slippery part is where the one editor said "often". How much is "often"? 25 percent? 49 percent? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of mispronunciations and misspellings are common. In principle "zyne" for "syne" is no different from "nucular" for "nuclear" or "aks" for "ask": common but wrong. And "often" is a time-based adverb so percentages don't come into it. If something happens every five minutes it happens "often" whether it constitutes 0.1% of utterances or 99.9% -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to get the (valid) point across that "syne" is Scots and therefore (in what after all remains a Scots song) correct - while eliminating any unnecessary quibble over the self evident fact that most non-Scots people insist on "Zyne". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merriam Webster gives the preferred pronunciation for the term itself with the "s" sound (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syne) but for this particular phrase, it gives the pronunciation with the "z" sound (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auld%20lang%20syne). You can't always analyze a phrase piecemeal and come away with a correct understanding of the entire phrase. The OED, in fact, cited by the OP in this section, gives "zyne" as the preferred pronunciation of the phrase with "syne" as only an alternate variation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1223795#m_en_us1223795). In light of these citations, the wikipedia article comes across childishly preachy with its odd emphasis on the pronunciation aspect of the phrase. I didn't think wikipedia's job was to actively lobby to change common usage, but rather only to accurately represent it as is extant. 97.127.69.170 (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many modern dictionaries record what is actually said and cop out of the whole right/wrong question. So an ENGLISH dictionary (especially an American one) may well give a pronunciation based on "common usage" by non-Scots English speakers. Fair enough, in context. To them whether a pronunciation is right or not is more or less irrelevant. They are recording a pronunciation as they usually hear it, not as they think they should hear it.

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and we approach things from another angle. It is a Scots phrase - not a "standard" English one, in fact the fact that so many non-Scots English speakers have no idea what it even means emphasises this. Badly pronounced Scots may or may not bother the compilers of a dictionary of English (although a Scots dictionary might well be another case). An encyclopedia is (on the whole) much more interested than a dictionary in "correctness". Like the correct (i.e. Scots) pronunciation of a Scots phrase, for instance. With respect - there is nothing "mature" about the dictionary approach, or "childish" about the encyclopediac one. They are simply different.

Finally - where do you get the idea that an encyclopedia "lobbies" for the truth over lies, facts over surmise, or correct over sloppy and innacurate use of language? It simply records these things, so far as they can be ascertained. People who prefer the alternatives are at perfect liberty... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I just read the article and I have to agree that all this emphasis on "sign" and not "zyne" seems entirely out of place and non-encyclopedic as currently written. It's why I ended up reading on the talk page.  I'm American and I had no real notion about how it ought to be pronounced and, indeed, wouldn't have had any reason to think that it is often pronounced (incorrectly?) with a z sound had the article not make it glaringly obvious that somebody has real strong feelings about the subject.  -- Joe 68.205.24.58 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Well, there are currently ten words in the article devoted to the pronunciation of "syne", five of which are in the IPA pronunciation note and the rest in a footnote to the pronunciation/translation guide. Both of these seem to be appropriate places so I fail to see how either of them are unencyclopedic or out of place. And ten words seems quite reasonable in an article of several thousand words. What gives you the impression that this is overkill? -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has no-one considered that there is no word, not a single one, in Scots, English or American starting with an "s" which id pronounced like a "z"? Can those who wrongly pronounce it "zyne" not understand this? Wmck (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree of course - but the "z" (or "soft s") sound does quite often creep into the way we say words in English (and even Scots). And, as people have (quite rightly) pointed out - not our job to "force" people to pronounce it properly, just to point out what is strictly correct. My irritation is with people who would contest even this - holding up their own ignorance as a higher authority - "an encyclopedia", they seem to say, "shouldn't tell me anything surprising". Oh dear. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Virginia
Should this comment even be in there? Since Auld Lang Syne is based on the tune of a traditional folk song, Virginia's music isn't really based on the tune of Auld Lang Syne, but the tune of that folk song. 12.152.207.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Correct tune?
Many scottish traditional musicians claim that the tune Burns used was not the one now sung. the tune they favour is within the range of one octave and much smoother, but while listening to it, I'd say it's also pentatonic..--Ginness (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have a link to a reliable source quoting these musicians? Or perhaps a link to a recording of the supposed original melody? It's not God Save the Queen, is it? 216.174.213.195 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

worthwhile cover versions mentioning
i think we should add the beach boys version of the song, because they're the number one rock group when it goes to harmony singing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.227.79 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Singer Tom Waits did a song he calls "New Year's Eve" on his album "Bad As Me". It contains his own variation of "Syne" within original music. Can this go in under "Notable renditions"? Circuitsmith (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)