Kevin Riley: Fonts with buailte characters

[Elizabeth J. Pyatt]

From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley at alphalink.com.au>
To: "The Celtic Linguistics List" <CELTLING at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Subject: RE: Dorothy Milne: Fonts with buailte characters (was: Irish Lenition
          &            Orthographic  Depth)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:05:22 +1000


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: The Celtic Linguistics List
>>[mailto:CELTLING at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG]On Behalf Of Elizabeth J.
>>Pyatt
>>
>>From: Dorothy Milne <dmilne at morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
>>To: The Celtic Linguistics List <CELTLING at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>>Subject: Re: Cecil Ward: Fonts with buailte characters (was: Irish
>>Lenition &
>>
>>
>>
>>hello Cecil
>>
>>
>>>>   We can all agree that it is not the case that the choice between
>>>>   postposed h's and superscript dots is more "phonetic".
>>
>>          perhaps not more, but also not less ...
>>
>>
>>>>   And would this not in fact *reduce* the correspondence between sound
>>>>   and symbol if dots were used for initial lenition, but not for
>>>>   word-internal lenited consonants.
>>>
>>          i was under the impression it would be used for
>>          word-internal lenited consonants as well ...
>>          wasn't it that way in the past ? ... i don't have
>>          a text in the old script to check to see..
>
The same system was used for lenited consonants in any position.
>
>>>
>>>>   And what about words that have a
>>>>   permanently lenited initial? These are not "the result of a mutation"
>>>>   in the mind of the native speaker. Imagine if I were to write "tall"
>>>>   (Scottish Gaelic), with superscript dot on the t, for "thall"?
>>>
>>          yes .. and that's how it was done in the past ...
>
I think you will find that the superscript dot was not associated primarily
with a mutation, but with a sound - th=h, not th = mutated t.  That doesn't
mean they weren't aware, at least subconsciously, that the sound change was
the result of a mutation.
>
>>
>>
>>       I think the question is, is  'b with a dot' a more easily read
>>       symbol to represent  /w/ or /v/  than 'bh' ... wherever
>>       it appears in an Irish word ...
>>
That was the original question.  While it would seem at first the answer
would be 'it depends on which system you learn', it may not be.  The whole
question of 'ease of reading' is interesting.
But can you separate out interference from the learners' native language, or
conventions they already are familiar with?  There has been a long-running
debate over the use of either double vowels or macrons to mark long vowels
in Maori.  Most Maori oppose the use of double vowels because they 'don't
look right'.  If the language they usually read in was Finnish or Dutch,
rather than English, would they have that objection?  If you use English
speakers to test the ease of reading for Irish with either superscript dots
or 'h's, won't the familiarity of using 'h's in English contaminate the
results?
>>
>>>>   I presume that we would still have digraphs for nasalization, so in
>>>>   that case we would a confusing mix of different strategies.
>>
>>>>
>>>>   This idea seems to throw up so many problems...
>>
>>     The method that is being suggested for study is in fact
>>     the method that was used for generations ... up till the
>>     script reform in the 1960's.
>>
>>     The older generation of readers make the claim that that
>>     system was easier to read than the current system of using
>>     'h''s.
>>
>>     It should be pointed out that the system with 'h's also
>>     goes back to the 17th century, perhaps even earlier...
>>
>>           le meas,  Doireann
>>
>>--
If my memory is correct, the use of 'h's is the original system, with the
superscript dot [punctum delens] being restricted to the 'f' as it became
silent.  The use of 'h' was borrowed from similar conventions used in
Romance and British languages.  Nasalisation was not originally marked at
all, but was left to the reader to supply.

Kevin

--
o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o

CELTLING
Post: celtling at lists.linguistlist.org OR celtling at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archives: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/celtling.html>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe - Go to Archives, then click "Join or leave" link

Website: <http://www.personal.psu.edu/ejp10/celtling>