LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.24 (14) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 24.SEP.2003 (14) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
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
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Orthography"

> From: John Duckworth <jcduckworth2003 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Orthography
>
> One point that I have just realized is that getting rid of the
> apostrophe s
> (in a spelling reform) would be perfectly tenable except in one
> case: where
> you have a plural genitive / possessive of a word ending in -s. When we
> write <the brother's sons>, we are referring to the two or more
> sons of one
> brother; when we write <the brothers' sons> we are speaking of the two or
> more sons of two or more brothers! I am not quite sure how we could solve
> that without killing the construction altogether (and writing <the sons of
> the brothers>).

I think this point sheds a lot of light on the art of devising writing
systems.

One rule of thumb should be that if something in an orthography isn't found
in speech, gesture, tone, stress, or any other physical phenomenon in the
production of the language, then there's no need to represent it in the
orthography.

This raises the question of why <the brother's sons> and <the brothers'
sons> causes no problems in speech even when we foresee problems in omitting
the apostrophe in writing. Some (overlapping) reasons why it's not a problem
in speech may be:

1. a speaker can always construct his utterance so that it's unambiguous;

2. it's clear from the context, otherwise the speaker would give more
context;

3. a speaker uses constructs that the grammarian is trying to prescribe
against.

4. The grammarian loses the plot and tries to derive expressive power from
chimerical features of the orthography.

In the case of 1 & 2 it's just a question of being able to write clearly:
there are many potentially ambiguous constructs in speech that a writer has
to find ways of expressing clearly, and this is just another of them.

An example of 3 would be if a speaker used a productive process and said
"the brotherses sons" to make himself extra clear, but the grammarian
considers this too ungrammatical to be written.

Item 4 would be like where in speech a person might clarify the meaning with
a qualifier such as "that brothers sons" vs "those brothers sons" or "the
three brothers sons".

I think it all adds up to the fact that you really don't need the
apostrophes, you just need to adjust your writing style slightly to reflect
the strateges of the spoken language better.

I would think the same applies to capitals but not to commas, since they
represent pauses. I'm not so sure of thinks like colons and semicolons - I
could believe they represent special lengths or patterns of pauses used when
itemising lists and suchlike in speech.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: John Duckworth <jcduckworth2003 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Orthography

Sandy wrote:

"The statement also seems to imply that somehow it's a bad thing that
the most common words in the language don't have regular spellings. In fact
this matters less than with the most common words, as people are so familiar
with common words that it doesn't much matter if they're spelled
irregularly."

My intended implication was that irregular spellings in such common
vocabulary make the orthography difficult to teach either at the primary
level, or to foreign students. I agree that these spellings present no
problems to habitual users of the language, and indeed neither do the vast
majority of spellings.

"In some of these, orthographic revision may be desirable, eg, "walk",
talk","would", "could", "one", "two", "were". Others might make the English
look odd (which isn't a problem in itself, if everyone is open-minded enough
(which they aren't, alas!)), eg, "of", "is", "was", "as", "are", "have"."

Taking the <l> out of 'would' and 'could' would at least bring our
orthography closer to Scots. The other day I tried writing a text in a
simplified orthography and by the time I had finished it bore more
resemblance to Dutch than English! I remember in the 1960s the Initial
Teaching Alphabet was introduced into many primary schools in England, in an
attempt to ease children into reading without having to be immediately
exposed to standard orthography. Even that alphabet, which wasn't even very
far from English orthography, looked odd.

I said that I considered one of the reasons for older books having fewer
spelling mistakes than new ones is the decline in good education.

Sandy replied:

"Your reasons being what? You haven't addressed the point I made about
faster-turnaround publications being more poorly spelled both now and in the
past."

I retract my statement. It would be unlikely for employ anyone as a
proofwriter if his education were not of a sufficiently high standard, and
his spelling were not up to scratch. Your point about faster-turnaround
publications is also relevant.

"Hmmm... well, I don't know what you do, so I really need an explanation of
where you get the opportunity to judge educational standards on a wide
enough basis to compare the two countries."

I have taken early retirement, and now spend my time writing, but I have
pursued a number of careers in my earlier life; one of these was working as
an advisor to the government, during the course of which I and a number of
inspectors had to gather and collate information on the standards of
education in secondary schools. I was detailed to deal with schools in the
three areas I mentioned.

"What do you mean by imprssve? I don't understand this word, it's not in
my dictionary. Have you been reading The Times again?"

I knew that was going to happen! Ah well, to err is human ...!

"I'm sure The Times isn't "so full" of such stuff that people stop buying it
or have trouble understanding it."

I do keep belabouring the point, for which I apologize, but I do come across
mistakes in the Times on a daily basis. ('Switch newspapers!' I hear you
say!) The Times actually is mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records: on
page 19 of the 22 August 1978 edition there were 87 misprints in 51/2 single
column inches! I agree, though, that the readers of that or any other
newspapers would in the main be unconcerned with this.

"soz, bt i thk ftr lies w txtg! ol nglsh b wrtn lk ths wthr u lk it or nt!"

Texting is becoming so much a part of our lives, and more so of our
childrens lives that I can't see how the language will escape its influence.
Maybe the very fact that we are used to seeing such drastic abbreviation of
texts will ease the way to our accepting a radical orthography change. And
if there is to be such a change, I think the individuals who effect it could
do worse than to adopt a few conventions from texting. The funny thing is
that my son, who is currently at university insists on me maintaining
standards even in texts, and I have to write eveything out in full,
punctuation and all! Now that's pedantic!

Lang may yer lum bren athoot cloods o' reek,

John
Preston, UK.

----------

From: John Duckworth <jcduckworth2003 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Texting

Dear Lowlanders,

Sandy's text-message got me thinking; today I sent a text written in Turkish
but I didn't abbreviate any of the words at all. When people send texts in
English they use all sorts of abbreviations like: 4 (for, four, fore), 2moro
(tomorrow), thanx (thanks), wiv (with), u (you) the end result is often
further from present English orthography than any reformer could ever hope
to go. I wondered, when people text in Dutch, Frisian, Afrikaans or Low
Saxon (do they text in Low Saxon?), do they abbreviate in the same way?

Groeten,

John
Preston, UK.

----------

From: John Duckworth <jcduckworth2003 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Orthography

Cræshy;ostóir Ó Ciardha wrote:

"Grammar? One of the strengths of English worldwide is that it has a fairly
malleable grammar - one can move things around in a sentence and still be
understand, whereas in other languages (I'm thinking of the Celtic languages
in particular here) you might completely alter the meaning of your sentence.
For example, as a native Nottingham English speaker, I always have
difficulty with constructions like John's "stirring up a hornet's nest" - is
it "stirring up a hornet's nest" or "stirring a
hornet's nest up"? (I'd say the latter.) I've been pulled on on this on a
number of
occasions by snobbish types accusing me of the "wrong" grammar. Invariably I
felt like shit afterward."

What you describe as malleable here is syntax, and syntax in English is not
as flexible as in many languages because we lack the other element of
(formal) grammar - accidence. In other words we don't decline our nouns and
/ or adjectives; if we did it wouldn't matter much which way round we stuck
the elements of the sentence.

In the sentence you give, I would find it natural to say "John's stirring up
a hornet's nest", but I have no idea why I find this preferable. On the
other hand, I don't consider one form as less grammatical than the other.
English grammar is flexible, and I am all for people saying ''aint'' and
"int", but wouldn't it be preferable to keep such forms out of written
standard English, unless they are used in written speech?

Personally, I would never accuse someone of using the wrong grammar, that
would be extremely rude and inconsiderate. The foremost requirement for
spoken English is that both parties should use a mutually understandable
language, whatever that might consist of.

When I praise the foreigners' use of English grammar I am basically
referring to their use of correct verb forms and using adverbs correctly. In
certain countries they are also very effective in their use of vocabulary
and idiom.

Regards,

John
Preston, UK.

================================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.
=======================================================================