LL-L "Orthography" 2002.02.24 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 24.FEB.2002 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Orthography"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Orthography
>
> How about considering for future reference (whenever you feel
> sufficiently refreshed) the maxim "Consistency over Looks"?  In other
> words, it doesn't matter if you use English-inspired devices or
> whatever, as long as the orthography is systematic rather than
> haphazard.

I don't think this would work - it goes back to the problem
of the way people are. Even a very small consistency like
deciding to always write <z> for /z/, while very agreeable
in theory, would cause a visceral reaction when people
actually see the text.

Even when English is more to the background, there are
psychological problems. Consider the <ee>, <ie>, <ei>
problem in Scots, for example. All three represent /i(:)/
to most speakers and writers (though to John, Andy and me
get broader functionality out of the three graphemes). Not
only that, but many Scots enthusiasts are romantically
attached to the <ei> grapheme, and I mean that literally -
they see this grapheme as having come down to us from the
non-existent "golden age" of Scots and become quite agitated
at the suggestion of using any other grapheme - though that's
not to say that they're consistent about this! It wouldn't
really matter if such people were in the minority, but they're not.

At the moment I'm thinking of resorting to computers to see if
there is a solution to this problem. The idea would be to devise
an orthography without regard to how it looks, then use software
to experiment with transforming this orthography until you have
something writable and teachable - and maybe even familiar-looking!

Currently I'm writing a software suite to help me with
proofreading ScotsteXt (it will probably end up as a free
download on the site), and I may well have such a "spelling
lab" as a feature.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================