<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>summary, thanks, advice</title></head><body>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">Dear All,</font><br>
<font face="Times" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">Thanks to everyone who
wrote/responded to my request for help and advice (about the revised
edition of my historical linguistics textbook). Unexpectedly,
many answered (I believe I received some 50 messages addressed just to
me, not to the group as a whole, which is what I expected, plus the
large number who wrote to the whole group, unexpected). I write
now to thank all, and also to apologize for being so swamped I'm not
able to respond to everyone individually. Given the number of
responses, perhaps I should provide something of a summary of answers
with respect to the 2 main questions I had asked.</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">First, though, I received only
a couple of (very helpful) messages with feedback on how to improve
the book and with corrections that ought to be made. I would be
extremely grateful to receive more advice of this sort.</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">About whether the IPA forms
should be replaced by or supported by the addition of American
phonetic spellings brought interesting comments and much helpful
advice. It is clear the majority see IPA as best.
However, many also point out how it is important in citing forms from
language and language areas with their own traditions to utilize the
conventions of those areas. My tentative decision at the moment,
then, is as follows. I will rely on the IPA and use it wherever
possible, but at the same time when citing forms which have a
conventional spelling, I will use those representations also.
Thus, Sanskrit, Gothic, etc. will look the way Sanskrit, Gothic, etc.
typically look but will have IPA representations whenever needed.
Similarly, Finnish, Estonian, Spanish, German, French, etc. will be
cited in their standard traditional orthographies but with IPA to make
them clear. In the case of American Indian languages and others,
where there is a strong tradition of, say, "y" instead of "j"
or of "s" and "c" plus haceks instead of long s and t+long s,
I will present both the form as expected by people working with these
languages and in IPA. In the end, most examples that occur in an
introductory historical linguistics book are not going to require
detailed or complicated phonetic transcriptions -- some
do.</font></div>
<div><font face="Times"
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab>As an aside, though, as some respondents pointed out, it
is probably important to keep in mind that there is a good deal that
the IPA does not handle at all -- sounds which have no IPA symbols --,
other things it does not handle well, and that there is considerable
variation in the deployment of IPA symbols among scholars in spite of
the fact that mostly we use such a system of transcription for the
potential uniformity it provides. One other comment,
American phonetic usage is not at all the hodgepodge some seem to
suggest. It is clear and consistent and codified in most
of the matters where the IPA is clear (cf. for example, Geoffrey K.
Pullum and William A. Ladusaw. 1986. Phonetic symbol guide.
Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.) It also has
a history to rival the IPA and probably until very recently numbers of
users comparable to the IPA. That said, I do intend to rely
principally on the IPA and utilize representations only when the
tradition surrounding the languages involved seems also to require
other representations in addition. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"> </font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000">About whether UK or US
spelling conventions/orthographic practices should be used, most felt
it was not a big deal one way or the other. This is also my own
feeling; I asked for advice on this because of unclear advice I had
been given about switching. It should be noted, for the record,
that with respect to the -ise/-ize, -isation/-ization, this is not
really a division along national lines. Rather, in the UK the
Oxford dictionaries (OED in particular, but also the Pocket Oxford
Dictionary and others) follow the -z- tradition, while many others go
for -s-. In New Zealand, most use -s-, but a surprising number
instead use the -z- conventions, in spite of overwhelming support for
the -s- versions in schools, institutions, government,
newspapers. I will weigh the matter further and then
decide which convention to follow. However, to repeat, I agree
with the majority who do not see this as a very significant issue.
(However, the tradition one is educated in appears to have powerful
impact on what one considers proper or best in this matter; I have to
admit, coming from the -z- school, I find myself subconsciously
thinking that -civilisation- with -s- is uncivilized
-- sympathies with and apologies to all who feel just the
opposite!)</font></div>
<div><font face="Times"
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab>(Just one additional parenthetical remark about this -- I was
surprised by a couple of strong anti-American comments I received in
this context. I believe you can be for or against George W. Bush
and what he stands for using either spelling convention. I
was sad to imagine the many Americans who share these moral and
political stands who would apparently not be exempt from the negative
sentiments. Weren't there some "-ise" UK supporters of
Bush (and Blair) thickly involved in recent events?; I know plenty of
"-ize"-ites deeply opposed. Moral: don't spell
at all?)</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" color="#000000"><br>
Thanks, Lyle<br>
</font></div>
<div>-- <br>
Professor Lyle Campbell, <br>
Dept. of Linguistics<br>
University of Canterbury<br>
Christchurch, New Zealand<br>
Fax: 64-3-364-2969<br>
Phone: 64-3-364-2242 (office), 64-3-364-2089 (Linguistics dept)</div>
</body>
</html>