LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.25 (03) [E]

Tue Feb 25 16:01:45 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.FEB.2003 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
<http://www.lowlands-l.net> * admin at lowlands-l.net
<mailto: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
<mailto: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>
=======================================================================
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
<mailto: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: John M. Tait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.23 (12) [E]

Ian wrote:

>To turn the loop back to the original point, this
>little exchange has illustrated very neatly the
>problems facing Scots. My whole reasons for raising
>this (and continuing it) was to illustrate that we
>cannot just go around enforcing our own preferences -
>however logical they may appear to us. If a certain
>spelling is well enough established, we may have no
>option but to accept it.

I would argue that, whereas in English most spellings are well established
and the controversial ones are (probably) a small fraction of one percent,
in Scots it is the other way round. There are, in Scots, a number of words
which have conventional spellings, such as _guid_, even though in some cases
(like _maun_) they do not reflect common pronunciations. But any spelling
with 'ee/ei/ie', 'ui/u-e/ai/ee/oo', and many others, is up for grabs. The
consequences can be seen in some writing where triplets like 'guid', 'flair'
and 'toom' occur - all having the same underlying phoneme, but one spelt
with a representation of that (dia)phoneme; one a fossilised Central dialect
spelling, and one an inaccurate approximation to the older pronunciation,
the result being unpronouncable in any dialect. People who spell this way -
and similarly 'maitter', 'jaicket', etc - use exactly the argument that
these are the conventional spellings, though where they derive this
information from is beyond me. Does bad precedent have to be regarded as
convention, even in a language like Scots which hardly anyone knows how to
spell anyway?

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.24 (09) [E/LS]

Ian wrote:

> Apologies for my gender errors, although actually they
> make no difference to the point I was making - that
> feminine seems to reflect the voiceless final, whereas
> masculine/neuter doesn't.

But if "feminine reflects the voiceless final" - why is it they claim that
women always have to have the last word? :-)

Just wondering,
Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.24 (14) [E]

Ian wrote:
"Otherwise we wouldn't have adopted that barbaric
American _advisor_..."
Speak for yourself, mate! I haven't adopted it.

Your adviser, Criostóir.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>

Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.24 (09) [E/LS]
Ian wrote:
"I thank you for your 'evidence', but Chris' (and my)
point that _judgment_ stands as an *option* is to me
indisputable, since there is plenty of evidence for
*both*. _Judgement_ may be more common and more
logical, but _judgment_ remains clearly an option.
There *are* no authorities, which is why I have a
problem with people seeking to enforce one particular
spelling."

Amusing that my proof gets inverted commas but Chris' is indisputable
gospel... but anyway.

I don't have any difficulty with you attempting to use _judgment_ or
_queuing_ or suffixes like _-ize_ (or any of the other examples we've
agonised over) in a Non-US English context, but be prepared to fight your
case as you have here when they're 'corrected' (or 'de-optionalised' as you
might prefer) into more recognisably local forms. :)

Now: as I said a while back this is something we'll have to agree to
disagree upon, and I'd like to bring the issue to a close as I've far too
much time and effort to it. I enjoyed it while it lasted, though! :)

Go raibh maith agatsa mo chara

Criostóir.

----------

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

By the way, Americans are totally conflicted about the options _adviser_ and
_advisor_.  Both spellings are used all over the place, even by the same
person.  I don't think anyone really considers it important enough to lose
any sleep over it.

Cheers!
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
<mailto: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
<mailto:listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org>> or at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================