网曝吃瓜

The difference is that in Standard English, you can use 鈥渢o be鈥� as an auxiliary with verbs of motion and change, such as 鈥淚 am come to rescue you!鈥� But in Orkney and Shetland, you can use it with any verb, including transitives (I am done something). This is unusual, compared to other varieties of English. Just over a hundred years ago, Wright鈥檚 English dialect grammar claimed to have heard such sentences with 鈥渂e鈥� instead of 鈥渉ave鈥� in southern Norfolk, Bedfordshire and Rutland. However, as Gunnel Melchers has pointed out, a century later it seems to have disappeared. Could it be something archaic which has survived here, but died out elsewhere? Interestingly, Yuri Yerstov has found that is certain areas of Canada, people say 鈥淚 am done [something]鈥�, 鈥淚 am finished [something]鈥� and 鈥淚 am started [something]鈥�. While now restricted to these three verbs, Yerastov notes the similarity to the Shetland dialect, which he uses for comparison in his study, and he concludes that the Canadian usage probably has a Scottish origin.

So 鈥渂e鈥� and 鈥渉ave鈥� are now in free variation in the Orkney and Shetland dialects: You can say 鈥淚鈥檝e had me dinner鈥� or you may equally well say 鈥淚鈥檓 had me dinner鈥� 鈥� it doesn鈥檛 matter which, except the latter perhaps makes you sound a bit more local. How has 鈥渢o be鈥� come to be used so broadly?

Many people would now point to our usual suspect: Norn! Is this another instance of Norn鈥檚 influence on our Scottish dialect? Personally, I don鈥檛 think so. But I will attempt to explain what the argument in favour of such a claim is, before explaining why I don鈥檛 agree.

Various researchers have upheld the claim that the 鈥渂e鈥� instead of 鈥渉ave鈥� has to do with Norn influence, but only one, as far as I know, has made an attempt at any in-depth proof. This is Alexander Pavlenko, writing about Shetland dialect. He makes two observations:

1)      When you abbreviate for example 鈥渉e is changed the tyres鈥� to 鈥渉e鈥檚 changed the tyres鈥�, you no longer know whether the 鈥渟鈥� is supposed to stand for 鈥渋s鈥� or 鈥渉as鈥�. (This, of course, applies to 鈥渟he鈥檚鈥�  and 鈥渉id鈥檚鈥� as well.)

2)      In late fragments of Norn, 鈥渆verything鈥� seems to end in 鈥渁鈥� 鈥� which is easy to spot for example in the following Norn fragment collected by Jakob Jakobsen: 鈥�Jarta, bodena komena rontena Komba.鈥� This is supposed to mean: 鈥淢y heart (my dear), the boat (a boat) has come round de Kaim [a hill in Foula near the coast]鈥�.

Now, Pavlenko makes a link from observation two to observation one. In order to do that, he needs to show that Norn also had confusion between 鈥渉as鈥� and 鈥渋s鈥�. He thinks that the fact that 鈥渆verything鈥� ends in 鈥渁鈥� in late Norn caused a similar confusion to that between 鈥渉as鈥� and 鈥渋s鈥� when both are abbreviated to 鈥渟鈥� in Scots/English.

To show what he means, he quotes three versions of a Norn verse known as The Troll鈥檚 Message. Pavlenko鈥檚 own English translation of this verse is: 鈥淕o home to Fivla, and tell Divla that the dogs were fighting (or had/have fought) and had/have/burnt the bairns.鈥� This translation seems to be based on the Fetlar version of the verse, which is in a mixture of Scots and Norn, and goes: 鈥淕eng hame to Fivla, and tell Divla at de honnins wis lopen in a 鈥榯uilly鈥� and brunt de bonnins.鈥� He also quotes two versions from Foula, which are entirely in Norn, but doesn鈥檛 attempt to translate them any differently from the Scots/Norn hybrid version from Fetlar.

The Foula 1 version contains the expression 鈥渉蓴艈d菨na bradna鈥�. Pavlenko says that the 鈥渁鈥� at the end of the first word can mask either the Old Norse word for 鈥渉as鈥� (hefir)  or the word for 鈥渋s鈥� (er), but that these have both been merged into this one sound. In that sense, the situation is similar to 鈥渟鈥� masking both 鈥渋s鈥� and 鈥渉as鈥�. He therefore concludes that this confusion in Norn influenced the native islanders鈥� learning of the incoming Scots language, leading them to generalise a limited use of 鈥渂e鈥� in Scots in expressions such as 鈥淚鈥檓 done 鈥︹�� and 鈥淚鈥檓 begood 鈥︹�� to all verbs, including transitives.

I will now explain why think Pavlenko鈥檚 argument doesn鈥檛 hold. Pavlenko reconstructs 鈥渉蓴艈d菨na bradna鈥� as Old Norse 鈥渉undinn hefir bruninn鈥�, which would translate as 鈥渢he dog (hound) has burnt鈥�.  However, this understanding must be based on the mixed Scots and Norn version from Fetlar rather than on the Foula version itself, where it is not at all clear what the 鈥渉蓴艈d菨na鈥� is supposed to mean.

Indeed, when the Foula versions are examined without reference to the mixed Fetlar version, the dog doesn鈥檛 seem to feature at all. In a completely unrelated article, Yelena Helgad贸ttir also happens to examine The Troll鈥檚 Message.  Being a folklorist, she is able to provide parallels from Norway, Iceland and the Faroes, which in turn allows her to translate the Foula versions as 鈥淗ear, hear ride/rider; Ride, ride, run; say [to] her [to] Divla, that [she] Vivla; copper-kettle; hand burn[t]鈥� 鈥� which is quite different from Pavlenko鈥檚 translation. There is no dog in it! So 鈥渉蓴艈d菨na鈥� instead represents the Old Norse 丑谦苍诲颈苍补 meaning, not dog, but 鈥榯he hand鈥�! And in that case, the 鈥渁鈥� is part of an entirely grammatical definite suffix (鈥渢he鈥�), and does not represent 鈥渢o be鈥� or 鈥渢o have鈥� at all. Assuming that Helgad贸ttir鈥檚 translation is right, we now have no evidence in the Troll鈥檚 Message that 鈥渉efir鈥� (has) and 鈥渆r鈥� (is) were merged into 鈥渁鈥� in Norn. We can therefore not assume a Norn origin for constructions such as 鈥淚鈥檓 changed the tyres鈥� either.

However, Pavlenko does make one good observation, and that is his observation number one: That, for example, 鈥渉e鈥檚鈥� could represent both 鈥渉e is鈥� and 鈥渉e has鈥� and therefore cause confusion. However, this also applies to other varieties of English, and doesn鈥檛 explain why the generalisation of 鈥渢o be鈥� has happened in Orkney and Shetland in particular. Why not everywhere? That, I cannot answer. I can only observe that it might have been helped along by the second person singular. If a Shetlander says 鈥淒u鈥檚 changed the tyres鈥�, you don鈥檛 know if they what they mean is 鈥淒u has 鈥︹�� or 鈥淒u is 鈥︹��. This is possible because 鈥渄u鈥� takes 鈥渋s鈥� rather than 鈥渁re鈥�. This means that out of the three persons singular, you can only see the difference between 鈥渢o be鈥� and 鈥渢o have鈥� in the first person: 鈥淚鈥檓 changed the tyres鈥�. So in two out of three, you hear a sentence where you can鈥檛 tell the difference between 鈥渋s鈥� and 鈥渉as鈥�. In Standard English, this happens only in the third person. I don鈥檛 mean to say that this explains the whole emergence of free variation between 鈥渢o have鈥� and 鈥渢o be鈥� which we see in Orkney and Shetland, but at least this frees it from the Norn connection by explaining it with reference to current language usage only.