Language and Linguistics - Shaw

[Joshua Raclaw]

Outside of Tolkien, Anthony Burgess comes to mind - he constructed a conlang for a film back in the early 80s (the name of which is *completely* escaping me), constructed Nadsat for his _A Clockwork Orange_, and wrote a novel (_The Doctor is Sick_) where the protagonist is a Ph.D.-holding lecturer in linguistics, among other qualifications.

Joshua


Joshua Raclaw - PhD student
Department of Linguistics
Culture, Language & Social Practice
Women and Gender Studies
University of Colorado at Boulder
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~raclaw/


---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:11:56 -0000
>From: "Patrick, Peter L" <patrickp at essex.ac.uk>  
>Subject: RE: [Linganth] Language and Linguistics - Shaw  
>To: "Robert Lawless" <robert.lawless at wichita.edu>
>Cc: <linganth at cc.rochester.edu>
>
>   Link: File-List
>
>   I think Barbara is right - GBS was, certainly for his day,
>   linguistically sophisticated.
>
>    
>
>   He campaigned for a phonemic alphabet and even attempted to devise his
>   own - the Shavian alphabet (which however was actually implemented by
>   Kingsley Read, with a bequest from Shaw's will) has been incorporated
>   into Unicode, though I've never seen it used online except as a
>   curiosity.
>
>               http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/shavian.html
>
>   Each symbol has a  name - some of them are wonderful - my favourites
>   are "Whoops", "Tsadey" and "Dep".
>
>   This was perhaps less of a crank project in his day than it now
>   appears, after many more spelling reformers have come and gone without
>   affecting common practice at all. The principle behind Shaw's approach
>   (a phonetic orthography which is visually distinct from the Roman
>   alphabet) has survived into some attempts to create standard
>   orthographies for newly-written languages, though I think they mostly
>   now go the other way. An obvious flaw of Shaw's system is that
>   different spellings are required for each accent of English...
>
>    
>
>   Tolkien was another linguistically sophisticated writer...
>
>               -peter-
>
>    
>
>   Peter L Patrick
>
>   Dept. of Language and Linguistics
>
>   University of Essex
>
>   Wivenhoe Park
>
>   Colchester CO4 3SQ
>
>   UK
>
>   patrickp at essex.ac.uk
>
>    
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: owner-linganth at ats.rochester.edu
>   [mailto:owner-linganth at ats.rochester.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lawless
>   Sent: 10 March 2008 14:09
>   To: linganth at cc.rochester.edu
>   Subject: RE: [Linganth] Language and Linguistics
>
>    
>
>   In the preface to Pygmalion Shaw states, "Higgins is not a portrait of
>
>   Sweet, to whom the adventure of Eliza Doolittle would have been
>   impossible;
>
>   still, as will be seen, there are touches of Sweet in the play." At
>   any
>
>   rate, I'm not sure that writing about a linguist makes one a linguist.
>   Robert.
>
>    
>
>   At 08:59 AM 3/10/2008, Barbara Johnstone wrote:
>
>   >G.B. Shaw?  Pygmalion, remember?  The Henry Higgins character was
>   based on
>
>   >Henry Sweet.
>
>   >
>
>   >
>
>   >_________________
>
>   >Barbara Johnstone
>
>   >Professor of Rhetoric and Linguistics;
>
>   >Director of Graduate Studies
>
>   >Editor, Language in Society
>
>   >Department of English, Carnegie Mellon University
>
>   >Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 USA
>
>   >
>
>   >bj4 at andrew.cmu.edu
>
>   >412.268.6447 office phone/voicemail, 412.268.7989 fax
>
>   >http://english.cmu.edu/people/faculty/homepages/johnstone/default.html
>
>   >Pittsburgh Speech and Society: http://pittsburghspeech.com
>
>   >__________________________
>
>   >
>
>   >
>
>   > > -----Original Message-----
>
>   > > From: owner-linganth at ats.rochester.edu [mailto:owner-
>
>   > > linganth at ats.rochester.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Lawless
>
>   > > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:39 AM
>
>   > > To: linganth at cc.rochester.edu
>
>   > > Subject: [Linganth] Language and Linguistics
>
>   > >
>
>   > > Were any of the great (or even not-so-great) literary giants of
>   English
>
>   > > linguistically sophisticated? Is it of any benefit to a writer to
>   be able
>
>   > > to articulate the structure and history of the language? Robert.
>
>   > >
>
>   > >
>
>    
>
>    
>
>   .