| calgacus
|
| 649734. Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:23 pm |
 |
|
| Sorry to see a pretty poorly researched question on Auld Lang Syne - on a couple of points the Elvish info was way out. Earliest version "Should Auld Acquaintance be Foryett" dates back a couple of centuries before 1724 - to the Bannatyne MS. On top of that, there is a compelling case that Burns did in fact write and re-edit a large part of his version of Auld Lang Syne; but adopted the conceit that it had been overheard being sung by an old man - to give it additional credibility as an authentic traditional song. Burns's genius was that, with a few tweaks he took a traditionally miserable song about betrayal and human fickleness and turned it into an anthem to the endurance of kindness - literally commonality - despite the distances and differences between people. I for one think this gives him a strong claim to be as much an author of the words we all try to remember as anyone. There is a great documentary on 31 Dec 09 on BBC2 Scotland about the song, which I hope will be available on i-player. Auld Lang Syne is renowned as the world's most famous song that no-one knows - shame to see General Ignorance perpetuated. |
|
|
|
 |
| Jenny
|
| 649754. Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:20 pm |
|
|
| Oooh - one for the retractions special, do you think, Flash? |
|
|
|
|
| gjb
|
| 650033. Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:51 pm |
|
|
I was also disappointed with the Auld Lang Syne question, especially when David Tennant, a Scot, made mistakes both with the words of the song and their pronunciation.
For a start, there's no 'the sake of' in the song. The last line is just "For Auld Lang Syne".
And he (like everyone else on the programme) also used the incorrect pronunciation of 'syne', as 'zyne'. The word should be pronounced exactly as 'sign' or 'sine' would be. There's no Z sound. I don't know how this came about, but it is irritating to me, as most people in the world get it wrong, including (to my dismay) many native Scots.
Until fairly recent times, the word 'syne' was heard in everyday speech in Scotland. Its use is now confined mainly to the elderly, and primarily those from a rural background, and its meaning varies subtlely depending on context. For example, it can mean 'subsequently' or 'afterwards', in the sentence, "He went doon the road syne". Or if one were to say, "It's been a guid while syne", the meaning would be closer to 'since'.
The phrase Auld Lang Syne does not literally translate to "Old Long Since", but is more idiomatically expressed as 'Old Times' Sake".
Incidentally, the tune which is universally used for the song nowadays is not the one which Burns would have sung. The old tune is quite different. |
|
|
|
|
| Daibhid C
|
| 650714. Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:29 am |
|
|
| Quite right, gjb. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins mentions "the sake of auld lang syne" as an example of a meme; a self-replicating idea. People hear other people singing it, so they sing it as well, and the idea propogates, even though a quick check of a book of Burns confirms it's wrong. |
|
|
|
|
| Davini994
|
| 650824. Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:30 pm |
|
|
| Was there anything said in the show that contradicts your post calgacus? |
|
|
|
|
| Ion Zone
|
| 650868. Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:13 pm |
|
|
| Memes have been discredited for ages. Link |
|
|
|
|
| calgacus
|
| 651034. Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:47 am |
|
|
| Davini994 wrote: | | Was there anything said in the show that contradicts your post calgacus? |
I think so - of course I was watching it late on Christmas Eve on i-player after a few gallons of mulled wine, but I seem to recall it being stated that ALS dated to 1724; that ALS isn't sung on Burns Night and that Burns didn't actually write the words to the version we all try to remember at New Year's Eve. I think that all of these were stated either explicitly or implicitly in the conversation. While the first two facts are just inaccurate (it's earlier and it is sung on both nights) -and it is mildly irritating to hear people mangling words and pronunciations as per previous posts - what is much more interesting to me is whether you can say Burns was the author of the modern version. He said that he wasn't, but that was very possibly a conceit he adopted to give his song a traditional pedigree - what is striking when you compare the words of the Burns version to all the many previous ones, is that it bears both his stylistic and philosophical stamp - and is quite different to all of them. See the following from today's Scotsman for a bit more background http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/Robert-Burns-Something-Auld.5944519.jp - but I think everyone may well have been hoodwinked by Burns, including the QI team. |
|
|
|
|
| eggshaped
|
| 651396. Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:36 pm |
|
|
Hi calgacus, Daibhid and gjb,
Thanks all for your comments on this question. I don't have my notes on this episode on this particular laptop (being away from home for New Year) so will try to give a fuller answer in due time.
I'm interested in this "conceit" that would make the very crux of our question incorrect. What is the strong case for it? Why should we not take Burns's word for the fact that the song is a traditional one, seeing as he is the most primary source we could possibly have?
Ever interested in correcting mistakes, as much as we are in providing new information,
Elves x |
|
|
|
|
| masterfroggy
|
| 651416. Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:35 pm |
|
|
| calgacus wrote: | | On top of that, there is a compelling case that Burns did in fact write and re-edit a large part of his version of Auld Lang Syne; but adopted the conceit that it had been overheard being sung by an old man - to give it additional credibility as an authentic traditional song. Burns's genius was that, with a few tweaks he took a traditionally miserable song about betrayal and human fickleness and turned it into an anthem to the endurance of kindness - literally commonality - despite the distances and differences between people. |
I'm confused, he [Burns] took a "traditionally miserable song" and with "few tweaks" Auld Lang Syne was born
So you are saying he didn't write the song, right?
Anyway Are you a Harry Potter Fan? they quite often dispute the events in the Books, they claim, as you seem to be doing, that they know better than the person who wrote the books.
If Burns states that he didn't write the song, then I think we can all take it as fact that he Didn't write the doggerel. |
|
|
|
|
| MatC
|
| 651609. Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:42 am |
|
|
Thanks, Calgacus. I'm not sure if the research thread on this has been "declassified" yet, so I'll try to summarise what we had in the notes, re your points.
Stephen definitely did say on the show that this is a matter on which Burns experts are divided, which is indeed the true position - neither side has ever delivered a knockout blow to the other, as I'm sure you would concede. Those who claim to be telepathically linked to the late Mr "Spunkie" Burns ("He said he didn't write it, but of course he was winking at the time") really need something a bit more impressive than gut feeling to persuade the rest of us ... I'm not saying they're wrong, but they certainly haven't proved anything.
Here's what we put in the research notes:
| Quote: | This is a much-disputed matter amongst Burns scholars. Some accept Burns’ own version of events. Others, however, say that Burns took a mere fragment of an old song, and built upon it the song we know today. They point out that he did the same with several other songs which are now known for sure to have been substantially his own work. If true, his reasons for this modesty are obscure.
Gateshead Council, in 1998, claimed after “extensive research” that the song which would usher in the millennium worldwide had been written by a Tyneside man, William Shield, in 1748 |
I didn't catch what Stephen said about the date on the show, but this is what we had in the notes:
| Quote: | Burns (1759-1796) never claimed to have written the song. He said “I took it down from an old man’s singing". He sent a copy to a friend in 1788, and to the editor of an anthology of Scottish songs in 1793, because he said it was “an olden song” that had never before been written down. In fact, he was wrong - versions of it had been in print several times, most recently in 1770.
It has its origins in a 15th century poem - author unknown - and has gone under various names in various versions: Auld Kindries Foryett; Old Longsyne; and finally, in 1724, Auld Lang Syne |
And on wording and pronunciation:
| Quote: | | Syne is pronounced “sign” not “zyne.” And the refrain is “For auld lang syne" - not “For the sake of auld lang syne.” |
As for:
| Quote: | | that ALS isn't sung on Burns Night |
Did we really say that? If so, we were plainly wrong! |
|
|
|
|
| kelly7898
|
| 689585. Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:01 am |
|
|
| gjb wrote: | I was also disappointed with the Auld Lang Syne question, especially when David Tennant, a Scot, made mistakes both with the words of the song and their pronunciation.
For a start, there's no 'the sake of' in the song. The last line is just "For Auld Lang Syne".
And he (like everyone else on the programme) also used the incorrect pronunciation of 'syne', as 'zyne'. The word should be pronounced exactly as 'sign' or 'sine' would be. There's no Z sound. I don't know how this came about, but it is irritating to me, as most people in the world get it wrong, including (to my dismay) many native Scots.
Until fairly recent times, the word 'syne' was heard in everyday speech in Scotland. Its use is now confined mainly to the elderly, and primarily those from a rural background, and its meaning varies subtlely depending on context. For example, it can mean 'subsequently' or 'afterwards', in the sentence, "He went doon the road syne". Or if one were to say, "It's been a guid while syne", the meaning would be closer to 'since'.
The phrase Auld Lang Syne does not literally translate to "Old Long Since", but is more idiomatically expressed as 'Old Times' Sake".
Incidentally, the tune which is universally used for the song nowadays is not the one which Burns would have sung. The old tune is quite different. |
Thank you so much for your post.
_________________ |
|
|
|
|
| RLDavies
|
| 689648. Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:19 am |
|
|
| gjb wrote: | Until fairly recent times, the word 'syne' was heard in everyday speech in Scotland. Its use is now confined mainly to the elderly, and primarily those from a rural background, and its meaning varies subtlely depending on context. For example, it can mean 'subsequently' or 'afterwards', in the sentence, "He went doon the road syne". Or if one were to say, "It's been a guid while syne", the meaning would be closer to 'since'.
The phrase Auld Lang Syne does not literally translate to "Old Long Since", but is more idiomatically expressed as 'Old Times' Sake". |
In an Esperanto version I know, it's translated as "la iamo longe for" -- literally (and clumsily) "the sometime long far away". |
|
|
|
|
