Selkirk Grace

[Nick Cramer]

As Christmas draws nigh, let us give thought to Rabbie's words:

Selkirk Grace

Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

[Thirsty Bert]

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

Amen Nick...and a Merry Xmas to you and the missus.

May I add - just in case Larry is listening

Round and round the table....

Fill yer guts while yer able!

[Jim]

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

As I recall there's two versions - the only difference being the second line.
In one version we have:

And some wad eat that want it;

and in the other it's:

Some cannot eat that want it;



My dad gave the selkirk grace at the last Burns' Night that we went to :-)

Slainte.

Jim

[Nick Cramer]

Post by Jim

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

As I recall there's two versions - the only difference being the second
And some wad eat that want it;
Some cannot eat that want it;
My dad gave the selkirk grace at the last Burns' Night that we went to :-)
Slainte.

Hi Jim. Wonderful about your Dad giving the Selkirk Grace! Goin' on five
years since I attended a Burns Night celebration. That was with the London
Hibernian Supporters Club. Go Hibs! I know of none such here in Los
Angeles, but my daughter makes cock-a-leekie soup, neeps and tatties for
me every January 25th. I wash it all down with many quaffs of SMS. ;-)

As to the Selkirk Grace:

What does the second line of the first version, "And some wad eat that want
it;" mean?

The second line of the second version is really just a restatement of the
first line, and I think, a corruption. I modified that line in what I
posted.

Slainte!

[Paul Arthur]

Post by Nick Cramer

Post by Jim

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

As I recall there's two versions - the only difference being the second
And some wad eat that want it;
Some cannot eat that want it;

What does the second line of the first version, "And some wad eat that want
it;" mean?

It's fairly straightforward. Some wad [would] eat that want [lack] it.

Post by Nick Cramer
The second line of the second version is really just a restatement
of the first line, and I think, a corruption. I modified that line
in what I posted.

It's not a restatement, since in the first line they have meat and in
the second they don't. On the other hand, it does seem odd that both
lines would say they cannot eat rather than going for a full inversion
(and using 'cannot' rather than the Lallans 'canna' makes the line
even more likely to be spurious).

[Nick Cramer]

Post by Paul Arthur

Post by Nick Cramer

Post by Jim

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

As I recall there's two versions - the only difference being the
And some wad eat that want it;
Some cannot eat that want it;

What does the second line of the first version, "And some wad eat that
want it;" mean?

It's fairly straightforward. Some wad [would] eat that want [lack] it.

Aha! Thank you, good Sir! That clears things up for me.

Post by Paul Arthur

Post by Nick Cramer
The second line of the second version is really just a restatement
of the first line, and I think, a corruption. I modified that line
in what I posted.

It's not a restatement, since in the first line they have meat and in
the second they don't. On the other hand, it does seem odd that both
lines would say they cannot eat rather than going for a full inversion
(and using 'cannot' rather than the Lallans 'canna' makes the line
even more likely to be spurious).

Slainte mhor!

[Jim]

Post by Nick Cramer
The second line of the second version is really just a restatement of the
first line, and I think, a corruption. I modified that line in what I
posted.

Right, this has prompted me to dig out my 'Complete Poetical Works of
Robert Burns' (bicentenary edition, edited by James A, Mackay).

In this there is only one Selkirk Grace (also known as 'Burns Grace at
Kirkcudbright') and it goes thusly:

Some have meat and cannot eat.
Some cannot eat that want it:
But we have meat and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

Burns is said to have delivered it extempore in Standard English, hence
'have' not 'hae' etc (although 'sae' seems to have krept in). The
version that is used at Burns' Suppers is the Lallans version (also
known as the Galloway Grace or Covenanters' Grace) and dates from the
17th Century. I'm not sure that it's in the Complete Works as it isn't
technically a work of Burns.

Hope this helps :-)

Slainte!

Jim

[Nick Cramer]

Post by Jim

Post by Nick Cramer
The second line of the second version is really just a restatement of
the first line, and I think, a corruption. I modified that line in what
I posted.

Right, this has prompted me to dig out my 'Complete Poetical Works of
Robert Burns' (bicentenary edition, edited by James A, Mackay).
In this there is only one Selkirk Grace (also known as 'Burns Grace at
Some have meat and cannot eat.
But we have meat and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.
Burns is said to have delivered it extempore in Standard English, hence
'have' not 'hae' etc (although 'sae' seems to have krept in). The
version that is used at Burns' Suppers is the Lallans version (also
known as the Galloway Grace or Covenanters' Grace) and dates from the
17th Century. I'm not sure that it's in the Complete Works as it isn't
technically a work of Burns.
Hope this helps :-)
Slainte!

Thanks, Jim. I have the complete works of Robert Burns in one of my
bookcases. It hadn't occurred to me to look there. I'll have to find it.

[Jacues Loofjes]

Post by Jim

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

As I recall there's two versions - the only difference being the second line.
And some wad eat that want it;
Some cannot eat that want it;
My dad gave the selkirk grace at the last Burns' Night that we went to :-)
Slainte.
Jim

That one Jim is the only one I know.
Here's wishing you all a malty X-mas and a very peaty New Year.

Peace,

Jock

[Halmyre]

In article <20081214211234.618$***@newsreader.com>, ***@pacbell.net
says...

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

What about

"Doon wi' yer heid
An' up wi' yer paws
An' thank the guid Lord
For the use o' yer jaws."


but I prefer

"For God's sake fa' tae"

[Nick Cramer]

Post by Halmyre

Post by Nick Cramer
Selkirk Grace
Some hae meat and canna eat,
Some hae no meat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

What about
"Doon wi' yer heid
An' up wi' yer paws
An' thank the guid Lord
For the use o' yer jaws."

Thanks, Halmyre. I like that!

Post by Halmyre
but I prefer
"For God's sake fa' tae"

Would you be so kind as to re-state that in American English for this
left-pond Colonist?

[Paul Arthur]

Post by Nick Cramer

Post by Halmyre
but I prefer
"For God's sake fa' tae"

Would you be so kind as to re-state that in American English for this
left-pond Colonist?

'For God's sake, fall to.'

(To 'fall to' is, of course, to begin to eat.)

[Halmyre]

In article <***@shasta.marwnad.com>, flowerysong00
@yahoo.com says...

Post by Paul Arthur

Post by Nick Cramer

Post by Halmyre
but I prefer
"For God's sake fa' tae"

Would you be so kind as to re-state that in American English for this
left-pond Colonist?

'For God's sake, fall to.'
(To 'fall to' is, of course, to begin to eat.)

An ideal grace for those in a hurry!