graphemes

Wed Apr 22 21:06:22 UTC 2009

Just wanted to add that none of my students here at I.U. had any 
trouble with the hu them...English majors, business majors...you name it.

Wild and whacky English orthography has been quite standardized, 
probably since Samuel Johnston's dictionary came out in the 1750s, 
right? There was an attempt, wasn't there?, in the 1960s or 70s to 
simplify the orthography so that kids could learn to read more easily, 
and that was shot down quite readily, owing to the fear, as John has 
mentioned in reference to Nahuatl, that the body of English literature 
would be inaccessible to children versed in the new orthography. 
Perhaps the folks in Mexico teaching k and c and the like aren't 
concerned whether native speakers' have access to "classic" Nahuatl. 
That may not be an issue either in literacy or language revitalization.

Personally speaking, I find it takes me longer--and two steps--to read 
this "modernized" Nahuatl orthography. This is because I "sight-read" 
so much of it with ease. This is not a great example, but a phrase such 
as "Iuhqui in mah miequintin totomeh ic tlahtoa" can go right in. With 
something as moderately modified as "Iwki in mah miekintin totomeh ik 
tlahtoa," I have to sound it out as I read it, although I first start 
out by saying "What the heck is 'iwki'? A misplaced kiwi fruit?"

I guess it's a matter of getting acclimatized.

Michael

Quoting "John Sullivan, Ph.D." <idiez at me.com>:

> Listeros,
> 	It is important to distinguish between sound documentation and
> spelling systems. If you want to represent sounds, you will
> eventually  have to create separate systems for each town, and as
> science  progresses, for each household and each native speaker. This
> is fine  for linguists and for teaching Nahuatl as a second language
> if you've  decided to eliminate the possibility of using native
> speakers as  instructors. But it will eliminate any hope of using
> writing as a  means of communication for native speakers. And this is
> fine if your  goal is the extinction of Nahuatl language and culture.
> 	Spelling systems, on the other hand, are a product of tradition. In
> Nahuatl, the use of digraphs comes originally from Spanish, but their
>  use was standardized to a great degree by the native speakers who
> created the immense corpus of Older written Nahuatl during the
> Colonial Period. The Mexican education system has gone to great
> lengths to separate native speakers from their written cultural
> legacy. So it is not strange that Miguel Barrios would think that by
> using the "k" and the "w", he is affirming his indigenous identity.
> He  obviously does not realize that he is actually widening the chasm
>  between Modern native speakers and their written cultural heritage.
> 	Is Miguel Barrios attempting to use letters to represent sounds? If
> so, why does he use one letter, the "n", to represent both a voiced
> nasal, such as the "n" in "tonal", and a devoiced nasal, such as the
> "n" at the end of "Kaxtillan"? Why is he using a single "l" in
> "tonal"  and a double "l" in "kaxtillan"? Why does he not represent
> the  devoiced "w" at the end of "itonalama"? If you want to depart
> from  tradition, fine, but you need to put your money where your
> mouth is.  Why is it that no one has proposed to change the horrible
> English  spelling system? First, because as I said, the result would
> be that  from now on, no native speaker would be able to read
> Shakespeare, Walt  Witman or Gloria Anzaldúa. Second, your first task
> would be to  dedicate the rest of your life (actually you would need
> a team to  continue after your death) writing a dictionary
> (preferably  monolingual) that applies your new system to every word
> in the  language. Because spelling systems are not codified by
> government  decrees or the whims of individuals; they are codified by
> dictionaries.
> 	There is also a thing called "standing on the shoulders of giants".
> Unless you are blinded by extreme Narcisism, you would see that in
> the  long history of Nahuatl alphabetic writing, many people actually
> have  dedicated their lives to the rigorous work of making
> dictionaries. And  when I say "dictionary", I don't mean "glossary"
> or "vocabulary",  because there is a big difference. Molina, Simeon,
> Campbell and  Kartunnen, for example, form a long tradition of giants
> who build on  the work of their predecessors. So, if you want to
> continue the  tradition, either go out and buy a dictionary or start
> making one. And  if you want to break with tradition, then sit down
> and get to work on  your dictionary.
> 	Lastly, and this is a rhetorical question, why do you suppose it is
> that in the many decades and billiones of pesos that have been
> invested in Mexican indigenous education, not a single reference work
>  (dictionary, thesaurus, grammar, encyclopedia) has been produced for
>  use in the system?
> John
>
> John Sullivan, Ph.D.
> Professor of Nahua language and culture
> Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
> Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology
> Tacuba 152, int. 43
> Centro Histórico
> Zacatecas, Zac. 98000
> Mexico
> Work: +52 (492) 925-3415
> Home: +52 (492) 768-6048
> Mobile: +52 (492) 103-0195
> idiez at me.com
>
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:35 AM, magnus hansen wrote:
>
>> Dear Michael
>>
>> I use w, k and s for writing modern nawatl that doesn't have any
>> established orthography - and I do use macrons to mark vowel length
>> when it is practical (i.e. not in quick e-mails) - and I have been
>> ridiculed for it before on this list.
>>
>> I do it to avoid digraphs and confusing double meanings of a single
>> letter (h for writing saltillo and for w, u for writing w, kw, and
>> k, q for writing kw and k, c for writing k and s, z for writing s
>> and ts, ) - and to help (english speaking) lay persons achieve a
>> better pronunciation and for example say ['na.watl] in stead of
>> [na.hu.'at.el]. And then I do it because some native speakers (like
>> Miguel Barrios Espinosa for example) prefer it because they find
>> that it is easier to learn in writing, and that it gives more of a
>> separate identity to their language.
>>
>> Barrios writes in the introduction to the first issue of Mexihkatl
>> itonalama: "Inin totlahtol okse: tleka tikihkwiloskeh kemen
>> kaxtillan?"
>>
>> And what's wrong with Goethe anyway?
>>
>> Magnus Pharao Hansen
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nahuatl mailing list
>> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl