Talk:Phonological history of Scots

IPA
The mixture of X-SAMPA and IPA on this page is very confusing, given that one is supposed to tell which is which just by the font. It should all be converted to IPA, and the Template:IPA used throughout. rossb 22:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Should this be rather Scots language phonology? Alexander 007 04:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and converted (hopefully correctly) all the X-SAMPA to IPA, using the X-SAMPA article as a guide. --ian (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and moved the article to Scots language phonology. To quote: "Phonetics is more specifically the study of how speech sounds are produced, what their physical properties are...", while phonology is what we are concerned with here. Even more accurate would be Phonological history of the Scots language or some such, because Scots language phonology to me suggests a simple review of the current language's phonology, not the sound-changes from Anglo-Saxon to Scots. See also English phonology and Phonological history of the English language.Alexander 007 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Redoing Table
I intend to add Aitken's vowel numbers (as used in the article Scottish English) to the table. Thus I have started to separate it into the developement of consonants and vowels. The examples in the tables are of course the modern outcomes of the historical developments. I intend to expand the vowel history to include such information as in the article Middle Scots. Aitken's vowel numbers could be added there too.

Nogger 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone in a position to comment on the development of and  in murther / murder etc?

Nogger 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Turn to prose
We should really convert this article from a table to as much prose as we can. We should also source it. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In My Edits
It is possible I may have inadvertently deleted material. Include it. 96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted back to the last good table. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm in the process of formatting the table, so please bear with me......96.53.149.117 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've again removed the left-hand ("consonant"/ "vowel") column and used sub-headings instead. This improves the accessibility, usablity and editability of the table. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but where it stands now, it the table has only 2 categories. I actually think it that using headlines is not the best case for the article right now.  And because we only have 2 sections, a table of contents does not do much and the editability truly is not helped.  It makes the table more cohesive where the phonemic categories are spanning the rows.  And your forced TOC is creating an extra line.  Maybe you can fix that if you post this issue at bugzilla.96.53.149.117 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that you have again reverted to restore the first column, with only two, multi-row entries. This puts content below the bottom of the screen for most readers, reducing readability (= usability) and accessibility. It also means that editors have to remember to update the number in the rowspan, if they add another row to the table, If you cannot see the harm that this does, and are not willing to remove it, I'm prepared to request a neutral third opinion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the table now actually does not have all the content at the bottom. And even if editors forget to update the number in the rowspan, that's a minor issue to fix.96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole thing would be easier to digest as prose. Including the vowel numbers as in Early Scots and Middle Scots. Nogger (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Crap?
When I was reading through I found the the spelling of the scots' pronunciation of crept was crap.I thought this was probably vandilism but since I don't know any scottish, I don't know if this is correct or not. If this is just some vandalism them it should be changed, but if not then it's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.226.116 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's seemingly correct. I'd seen it in an old text somewhere. I'd lost it to link to. --Revolt (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Broun Moose
I noticed in one section the words broun (brown), cou (cow), nou (now) - and then in the same section the words - hoose (house), moose (mouse).

Since it's not written as broon, coo and noo, then should that read as hous (pron: hoose) and mous (pron: moose) using this "ou" form? Example as used in The Taill of the Uponlandis Mous and the Burges Mous. --Revolt (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess pronunciations should stick with IPA, to avoid confusion. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The forms used seem to reflect generally accepted Modern Scots spelling conventions rather than Older Scots ones. Nogger (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC).