LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.23 (05) [E/LS]

Sun Feb 23 21:34:00 UTC 2003

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 23.FEB.2003 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have 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>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Ron, Chris and Criostoir,

If I may make one thing clear to start with - this
list is indeed about different angles and opinions.

Criostoir's contributions, especially through his own
travels, and his worldview have provided much
though-provoking input which I have much enjoyed.

I do have to object - but just a little! - to what
*appears to me* to be his accusing me and others of
what he could be accused of himself. To me accusing
Chris of being 'pompous' is a little strange, to me it
is more 'pompous' to claim that one single spelling
alone is 'conventional' with a whole raft of evidence
(including from Fleet Street) to the contrary. I
simply cannot see how there can be *any* evidence that
_judgement_ alone is the 'accepted' or 'conventional'
spelling given the sources Chris and I have quoted.

All that said, what strikes me as pompous may not
strike others as so (and vice-versa) - etiquette is
very much a question of personal opinion and is a
tricky one on an international list such as this.

Indeed, none of us is infallible. I thought 'queue'
was absent in American English - I stand corrected. I
didn't then continue to argue the case when I was
presented with the clear evidence!

I understand what Chris means too in his post about
'language learners'. While people do not join this
list specifically to learn languages, I know I do, to
a large extent, rely on postings for evidence of usage
in other languages (for example Elsie's re.
Afrikaans).

That is my personal judgment on the matter, no doubt
others are queuing to be advisers on all this!

Go raibh maith agaibh,
Ian James Parsley
----------------
Co Down, Northern Ireland

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.22 (12) [E]

Weeeellllll...

I haven't said anything so far since I had assumed that most people would
agree with Criostóir which, surprisingly, they didn't. He is most certainly
right when he says that the spelling "judgment" is not "conventional" (I
won't even try and touch "correct"). Without the silent "e" after the "g",
this word is basically unpronounceable according to English and
international spelling conventions. How would one pronounce words like
"badg", "edg", "fudg" or "hedg", then? Or "jugment" in French?

To me, this is a classic case where bad spellers have set enough precedence
that the, er, "unconventional" form has finally been accepted as "correct".
So I suppose that, along these lines, we can be looking forward to
acceptable spellings like "wierd", "definately", "recieve", "shephard", and
"cemetary" in the not-too-distant future, since most native English speakers
posting on the Internet these days (sometimes even on this forum) seem to
think that those are the correct forms.

Which brings me to a favourite gripe - the recent German spelling reform.
The official reason was that they wanted to make it easier for bad spellers
so they wouldn't feel discriminated against. They certainly achieved that,
for now there are ONLY "bad" spellers left. I never, ever used to need to
look up German words for their spelling until recently. Now I need my
spelling dictionary in my translation work all the time, because I no longer
know which composite verbs are still one word these days, and which are now
two or more.

Regards,
Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Peter Meylof <p.meylof at planet.nl>
Subject: Nedersaksische skriefwieze

Moi Loaglaanders,

Veur da'k begin met mien vroag: Henno, bedaankt veur oewn oetleg.

Reinhard, hef d'r ooit wa es ene veurstelt um ne newe skreifwieze te
loatn onstoan vanoet de den oaln? Ik bedool, is it gin idee um dee
spraoke so as se dat, bieveurbeeld, in de tied van de Hanse broekt hebt,
as veurbeeld te nemn en den dan as basis te nemn veur ne newn? Ik deank
dat d'r op disse wieze minder tegnstand sal wean van leu dee 'nit
oawer-de-kim-wilt-kiekn', umdat it eegnlik son betje de sproake is van
oonse veurvadern/mooders.

Ik geleuf dat de oale Noorn dit idee a biejn kop heb had en met skier
succes hebt oetvoert. Oaldnoors as basis veur Newnoors.

Ik gooit it bie dissen gewoon in nen groop, as't niks is gooit de groop
it vanselm wa weer trugge.

Goodgoan,

Peter

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Gabriele (regarding "judgement" versus "judgment", above):

> To me, this is a classic case where bad spellers have set enough
precedence
> that the, er, "unconventional" form has finally been accepted as
"correct".

You are probably right, but that's how many a cookie crumbles, especially
when you get the lethal combo of a haphazard, historical orthographic
"system" and declining educational standards in which the two "r" words
"rule" and "rote" have become unmentionable four-letter words, and talk of
orthographic reform has a history of knee-jerk rejection.

I, too, privately hate the spelling <judgment> with a passion, also
<Wedgwood> (a part of Seattle).  However, I also know that we don't always
get what we want, or in this case better to say that we sometimes get what
we don't want.  Of course you are right in saying that this spelling makes
no sense going by the little that there is in the way of rules in English
orthography.

I think that the word "conventional" is the sticky point in this debate in
which, seen from my vantage point, people who are really on the same side
squabble about details and semantics ("How do you define "conventional" in
this context?").

In my experience, <judgment> is not only found as one of the acceptable
spellings in most dictionaries, but it is the predominant spelling in the
United States, and I see it used in Canadian, Australian and British
publications as well.  Moreover, there are several place names spelled
<Wedgwood> in the world, perhaps more than those spelled <Wedgewood>.

I don't know how long <judgment> has been in use, but I have known it most
of my life (and that's longer than I care to admit), and <Wedgwood> must be
a pretty darn old spelling too.  The exact number of years is perhaps not
important.  Important is that they are at least _de facto_ established.  The
two times I used <judgement> in publication manuscripts it was, much to my
chagrin, changed to <judgment> by American editors who called it "American
conventional" when challenged.  Similarly, I abhore spellings such as
<buses> (instead of <busses>), <focusing> (instead of <focussing>), etc.,
which in my opinion call for the pronunciation ['bju:z at s] and [foU'kju:zIN]
respectively.  However, it is a fact that they are not only predominant in
American orthography, but, as a number of Americans have assured me, they
are the only acceptable way of spelling these words.

> He [Críostóir] is most certainly
> right when he says that the spelling "judgment" is not "conventional" (I
> won't even try and touch "correct").

> ... "unconventional" form has finally been accepted as "correct".

I assume you mean something like "logical" or "consistent with the rules"
when you say "conventional."  If you used "conventional" in the way I
understand and use it -- and I assume Ian had meant it -- namely
"accepted/established by way of general use," the two utterances above would
be contradictory.

As for the recent German spelling reform, my gripe about it is that it was
way too little of a good thing, but at least hypenation rules have been
cleaned up and the use of _ss_ versus _ß_ (es-zet) has at long last been
made consistent.  So there you have it.  _D'n een sien Uul is d'n annern
sien Nachtegall._   However, German spelling is not within the focus of this
list, unless a definite Lowlands angle materializes.

Peter (baven):

> Reinhard, hef d'r ooit wa es ene veurstelt um ne newe skreifwieze te
> loatn onstoan vanoet de den oaln? Ik bedool, is it gin idee um dee
> spraoke so as se dat, bieveurbeeld, in de tied van de Hanse broekt hebt,
> as veurbeeld te nemn en den dan as basis te nemn veur ne newn? Ik deank
> dat d'r op disse wieze minder tegnstand sal wean van leu dee 'nit
> oawer-de-kim-wilt-kiekn', umdat it eegnlik son betje de sproake is van
> oonse veurvadern/mooders.

Ik bün mit Dy eyns, dat wy 'n aard schryvwys' bruukt, dey sik up öldere
Sassische vörbilder (so as Hanseaatsche) stütten dayt un dey sik tou lyker
tyd lichtvardig un aan [zonder] "tüydelkraam" schryven lett.  Dat hebt ook
al 'n paar annere lüyd' vörslaan.  Man [moar] dat wült dey etableyrden
vereynen nich anvaten; dat smytt sey korthandig an dey syd.  In Düytschland
meynt sey, dey "Plattdüütschen" sünd tou dummerhaftig or dösig wat neyes tou
leyren, besünners wen dat nich "Düytsch" lett -- ofschoonst dey sülvigen
"dösigen" minschen in dey schoul tou mindst Ingelsch as vrömdspraak un mit
dat Ingelsche eyn vun dey snaakschsten schryvwysen in dey welt [wereld]
leyren möött un leyren dout.

Gröytens,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
* 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>.
 =======================================================================