<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Matthew:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
>Do you mean a new script (i.e. not Roman script), or an orthography?<br>
><br>
><br>
>such a script. (orthography, though no one here <br>
>uses that word.) <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">No one where? On this list, or in your offices in Chiang Rai? It is common usage among most people I interact with to use "script" to mean collections of characters of common origin and characteristics, whereas the application of a script to a particular system for writing a particular language is commonly referred to as an "orthography" or "writing systsem". ("Orthograph" differs slightly from "writing system" in that it also includes spelling conventions, whereas "writing system" generally is not understood that way.)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So, using the way that I think most participants on this list use terminology, you are talking about orthographies, not scripts. All of the things you referred to apparently used Roman script.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">>Catholic: zang <br>
>Lewis: zah (pronounced as commonly said in english this would say the word <br>
>"pig" not the word "law" <br>
>New: zauh (as the same pronunciation as used closely to "taught" in english) <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">These are orthographic differences, not script differences.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">>The group that I worked with felt that the Bible was a highly political issue <br>
>here and that missions were using it to undermine and destroy the culture in a <br>
>similar way as it might be applied in a partisan fashion in Ireland for <br>
>instance. <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I understand. It sounded from your earlier message that you had made a commitment to assist some group in publishing the Bible, which they apparently wanted. I gather from the additional info you've provided that you're now working with a different group. Is that right? If so, what connection is there between these groups as far as desire to work with the new orthography is concerned?</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">>>>Numerous Akha have complained that the religious proprietary scripts have been <br>
>>>used to divide their people and have not been used for the promotion or <br>
>>>preservation of their culture. <br>
>><br>
>>Which makes me surprised that the group you are working with wanted to develop <br>
>>yet another orthography.<br>
><br>
><br>
>Why is this surprising? The two groups were partisan, and the people I worked <br>
>with wanted a non partisan writing method with NO religious overtones. <br>
><br>
>The third method gave them this option, it is used by various groups, and <br>
>presents information on the culture that was heretofore not available. <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It was surprising to me because creating a third orthography is potentially just as partisan as the others. This is not at all uncommon: faction B doesn't like the orthography that faction A developed, so they create a new one. Then faction C doesn't like either, so they create another. And so on. In the end, each new orthography only serves to divide rather than to draw people together.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">That's not to say that new orthography work can't be uesd to unite. It can, if careful effort is made to draw the different parties together. I get the impression that in the Akha situation, though, that the group you are working with did something new and hoped to see consensus from the other groups follow, rather than building the consensus at the same time. Is that correct? If so, then they probably will face an uphill battle in trying to gain acceptance for this orthography from the other groups.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">>However, the ethnolinguistic subvarieties for instance among the Chin were <br>
>created by the missions, not the other way around. <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Sorry, but that's not the case. There are several distinct Chin languages. As in many places around the world, these language distinctions arose over the course of time as peoples migrated and became socially or geographically segregated. Missionaries had little to do with that.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
>The missions have carefully used the religious issues to divide the Akha and <br>
>their families. This is carefully documented here and will not wash off the <br>
>hand readily... </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This is all debatable, but I'm not in a position to enter that debate, nor is it what I've been interested in focusing on in this thread -- let's stick to orthography and standardisation and the impact that has on cultural survival.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">>...It isn't necessarily the case that a common literature <br>
>would be *the* key factor in cultural survival in their situation, but it can <br>
>certainly contribute to cultural survival.<br>
><br>
><br>
>I would agree with this.... <br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So what prospects do you see of the various Akha factions coming together to agree on orthography and development of a common literature? Is the group you're working with interested in dialoging with the other factions and perhaps even willing to make some consessions on orthography if that can lead to consensus? Are other groups showing any interest in dialoguing with them?</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Peter Constable<br>
<br>
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International<br>
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA<br>
Tel: +1 972 708 7485<br>
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org><br>
</font>