Print

Print


Must have been a glitch in the system, Nancy.  I didn't receive your second message, though I was able to read it in Peter's later reply.  As for "faulty attribution," as far as I can see looking back over the posts, no one--not CR, not Wikipedia, and not you--attributed Watson's version to Burns.  Since it appeared several decades prior to Burns's, the Wikipedia conjecture of an earlier version that was "collected" by Watson and also served as a model for Burns seems reasonable.  That sort of thing happens all the time in my field, where the same putative (and usually lost) original gets transmitted through two (or more!) independent traditions to produce several, often very different, later incarnations.  The three versions of the Ancestress of Israel in Danger (Gen 12; 20; and 26) are a classic example.

Jerry

From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Auld Lang Syne

Dear Jerry,
 
I went back and saw that: please check my second message. The faulty attribution was not Wikipedia's. Nonetheless, I have found errors in Wikipedia before. Perhaps they are doing better or have some checker now? In any case, I think one can never rely on a source that does not have editorial fact checking; it often is useful, however, for links.
Best,
Nancy

>>> Jerome Walsh 01/01/13 9:21 AM >>>
Actually, Nancy, the Wikipedia article is quite careful in its attribution.  It attributes CR's verse not to Burns (whose authorship it mentions right from the start) but to James Watson (1711).

As I may have mentioned in earlier posts, I have regularly and consistently been surprised at Wikipedia's accuracy and lack of polemic in a field such as mine (biblical studies), where scholarly controversy so often pales in comparison to the uncritical debates fueled by faith commitments.

Jerry Walsh




From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Auld Lang Syne

I don't know where that came from, but here are the lyrics Burns wrote. So much for Wickpedia as a source. (Burns's songs are easily available and in thin Scots. Whatever that is, it's not "Auld Lang Syne.")
Nancy
 
Auld Lang Syne
by Robert Burns
(1759-1796)

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

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint-stowp,
And surely I'll be mine!
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes,
And pu'd the gowans fine;
But we've wandered mony a weary fit
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidled i' the burn,
Frae morning sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And there's a hand, my trusty fiere,
And gie's a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a right guid-willie waught                    (good will draught)

For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

 
 
>>> Chokh Raj 12/31/12 7:14 PM >>>
Auld Lang Syne

Should Old Acquaintance be forgot,
and never thought upon;
The flames of Love extinguished,
and fully past and gone:
Is thy sweet Heart now grown so cold,
that loving Breast of thine;
That thou canst never once reflect
On Old long syne. 

  CHORUS:
    On Old long syne my Jo,
    On Old long syne,
    That thou canst never once reflect,
    On Old long syne. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Lang_Syne

And we'll take a cup o' kindness yet, for auld lang syne.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/auld-lang-syne-does-mean-again-151037267--abc-news-topstories.html

CR