11.1606, Disc: Writing and Speech

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-11-1606. Mon Jul 24 2000. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 11.1606, Disc: Writing and Speech

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U. <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Scott Fults, E. Michigan U. <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel, Wayne State U. <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan, Wayne State U. <karen at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Lydia Grebenyova, E. Michigan U. <lydia at linguistlist.org>
		    Naomi Ogasawara, E. Michigan U. <naomi at linguistlist.org>
		    James Yuells, Wayne State U. <james at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Sudheendra Adiga, Wayne State U. <sudhi at linguistlist.org>
                      Qian Liao, E. Michigan U. <qian at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded jointly by Eastern Michigan University,
Wayne State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:01:04 -0400
From:  rwilliams at naxs.com (Robert Williams)
Subject:  Disc: Writing and Speech

2)
Date:  Mon, 24 Jul 2000 05:11:01 EDT
From:  Nitti45 at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 11.1596, Disc: New: Writing and Speech

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:01:04 -0400
From:  rwilliams at naxs.com (Robert Williams)
Subject:  Disc: Writing and Speech

Members of the List:

Mightn't one argue that systematic orthographic systems (beyond
idiosyncratic pictographic representations and with emphasis on the
"systematic") largely originate, according to our best historical
knowledge, for economic record-keeping purposes?  Mightn't this subtly
'spin' the entire debate over primacy, representational purposes, etc.?
Hmmmmm.

Regards,
Robert

	*
Robert H. Williams, Jr.
Assistant Professor of English
Radford University
P.O. Box 6935
Radford  VA  24142
540-682-4350 (home)
540-831-5745 (office)
540-831-6800 (fax)
rwilliams at naxs.com
rohwilli at runet.edu


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 24 Jul 2000 05:11:01 EDT
From:  Nitti45 at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 11.1596, Disc: New: Writing and Speech

Dear Linguist:

In a message dated 7/21/00 11:50:51 AM, Dan Moonhawk Alford writes:

>English, we know, got thrust into the media while it was still undergoing
>
>dramatic sound shifts; thus, what was a fairly "tight" system loosened
>
>very quickly; I don't know enough about French linguistic history to know
>
>what happened there.

    Well, the fact is, Moonhawk's comments about English having been "thrust
into the media while it was still undergoing dramatic sound shifts" are even
more consistently applicable to French than they are to English.  Modern
French spelling adheres largely to the pronunciation prevailing in the
eleventh century.  Dramatic shifts were evident a mere two centuries later.
As a result, French orthography is quite different in a number of respects
from that of almost any other language on earth.
    At the same time, however, it should be pointed out that, while French
orthography can present some formidable challenges to the student, French has
far fewer exceptionally spelled words than does English.  Once the complex
orthography of French is indeed learned, it stands the student in good stead.
    With regard to English, there is an additional factor besides its
(relatively) sudden advent to the status of a major world language that must
be acknowledged.  While the factor Moonhawk mentions accounts for English
having a number of orthographic rules at variance with those of most other
Western languages, the sheer number of spelling exceptions originates, in my
judgment, from this additional factor, to wit, the fact that right while
major sound changes (including but not limited to the Great Vowel Shift) were
evolving, there was no codified orthography for English; spelling was
entirely *ad libitum* until sometime in the seventeenth century.  Indeed, a
writer of that era might have spelled the same word, in the same body of
writing, two or more different ways, according to whim.  Many words the
spellings of which constitute exceptions to English spelling rules can be
accounted for by realizing that they were variants that had already "caught
on" for various reasons by the time English orthography was indeed codified.
    Now here is something about which I should like to hear from anyone with
a background in Celtic linguistics in general, and Irish Gaelic in
particular.  I have heard it said that the only language that rivals English
for sheer numbers of spelling anomalies is Irish Gaelic.  I do not know
firsthand if this is true or not.  From what little I have observed of the
language, I find the assertion at least plausible.  If indeed it is true,
then it certainly can't be because of its having been "thrust into the media"
as a world language.  Would any experts in this field be so good as to join
this discussion?  Specifically, would they answer these two questions:  1) Is
the abovementioned assertion true?  If so, then 2) What, in your judgment,
would account for this fact?



Cordially yours,

Richard S. Kaminski
<Nitti45 at aol.com>


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-1606