LL-L "Orthography" 2002.02.28 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 28.FEB.2002 (07) * 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"

Andy Eagle wrote:

> Many of the 'traditional' practices, similar to english they may
> be, are not nonsensical. They are being used nonsensically i.e. in an
> unpredictable pick 'n' mix kind of way.

I don't agree with this - I'd say traditional practices
are actually nonsensical. While you might defend English
orthography to a great extent, Scots orthography _is_
pick'n'mix, and no alternatives have been proposed that
anybody actually uses. Even my (or yours, John's or Ian's)
spellings are a mixture of Scots and English, the guiding
principle being that English spellings are used if they
don't conflict with Scots pronunciation - ignoring the
fact that they do conflict with Scots spellings.

> There are inherrent advantages in the 'traditional' practices. People tend
> to recognise them. This makes learning and teaching them easier.

But this is a circular argument. People can't recognise
them if they haven't already learned them - so why would
recognisability be a criterion for learning and teaching?
They only seem recognisable to those who have already
learned them!

A similar situation exists in arithmetic. In the nineteenth
century the mathematician John Colson introduced a system of
arithmetic that did away with the necessity of learning
multiplication tables. In the late 20th century experiments
were done which showed that children do indeed learn arithmetic
much faster with Colson numbers. However, adults find them a
little odd, so children will just have to go on learning their
times tables.

Remember that my original point was that adults refuse to accept
unfamiliar stuff - it's no use trying to argue against this by
putting up "recognisability" as a desideratum - what I'm saying
is that the desire for recognisability is the whole problem!

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
=======================================================================