LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.18 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

18 January 2006 * Volume 01
=======================================================================

From: Ian Pollock <ispollock at shaw.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography"

> From: Heather Rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.16 (01) [E]
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>> Ekh, just some tired thoughts, but I'd be curious what you lot thing
>> of
> Reformed Inglish. <
>
> For a language like English that has so many homophones a spelling
> reform
> would be a silly move, in my opinion.
>
> If English ended up with only one version of
>
> so
> bow
> rite
> rode
>
> etc
> there would probably be more people having difficulty understanding
> what it
> is they read more easily ( if the latter is the intention behind any
> spelling reform)
>
> Heather

The reform I spoke of in fact allows homophones with different
spellings, e.g., knoe (know) and no (no).

-Ian

----------

From: jpkrause <jpkrause at sunflower.com>
Subject: Orthography

>From: Heather Rendall
>
>>Ekh, just some tired thoughts, but I'd be curious what you lot thing of
>>
>>
>Reformed Inglish. <
>
>For a language like English that has so many homophones a spelling reform
>would be a silly move, in my opinion.
>
>If English ended up with only one version of
>
>so
>bow
>rite
>rode
>
>etc
>there would probably be more people having difficulty understanding what it
>is they read more easily ( if the latter is the intention behind any
>spelling reform)
>
>Heather
>
>----------
>
>From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
>
>(1) How many problems do you have with homophones when
>      you speak or listen to someone speak?
>
>(2) Is keeping homophones orthographically apart worth
>      lifelong learning of the spelling of individual words (versus
>      initial short-term *system* learning)?
>
Deer Ron & Hethr,
 Didn't u no peepl r alredy doing this?  i think its called txtmsgng.
yrs
Jim Krause

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.17 (09) [E]

Ron:
> > Hey, Rikus, am I being militant enough for you? ;-)
>
> Sounds more like Tant Milli to me.

A much, and foolishly, underestimated lady.

By the way, isn't it funny how harmless, even a bit ridiculous and
doddering, you can make anybody sound by adding "Aunt" or "Uncle" to their
name? Even Attila the Hun had plenty of nieces and nephews!

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Rikus Kiers <kiersbv at tiscali.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.17 (09) [E]

Gabriele and Ron,

>Gabriele asked me am I militant enough for you?

Hey Ron its time for me to become militant. Since when do you suppose I
cannot answer Gabrieles  personel addressed questions myself?

Gabriele you are militant enough and more perfect then you think yourself.
You made clear to me that in arts (and politics) you can less with
scientific argumentation, unless you made up the headline of your beliefs
and aims.

So all the arguments, how widespread and contradicting are not to answer as
such with true/false, unless you know th headline person who argues.
Quoting Ron in my way people talk and write the way they like to. It's more
a question of taste and gradual developing which causes new pronunciation
and writing.
I repeat my observation, nobody reacted to till now. Astonishing?!
The observation is the almost total change in Dutch, especially in the
crowded, influencing west part of the country of the 'jij kunt into jij kan,
jij zult into jij zal and kun jij, zul jij into kan jij zal jij'.
It is not according to the till now accepted spelling even after all the
changes of that. People do it probably because in over-all language use the
western Dutch are extremely speeding up and careless. And 'kan je''  is a
little bit easier to pronounce, if you use language in such a way. 

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