summary, thanks, advice

[Lyle Campbell]

Dear All,

Thanks to everyone who wrote/responded to my request for help and
advice (about the revised edition of my historical linguistics
textbook).  Unexpectedly, many answered (I believe I received some 50
messages addressed just to me, not to the group as a whole, which is
what I expected, plus the large number who wrote to the whole group,
unexpected).  I write now to thank all, and also to apologize for
being so swamped I'm not able to respond to everyone individually.
Given the number of responses, perhaps I should provide something of
a summary of answers with respect to the 2 main questions I had asked.

First, though, I received only a couple of (very helpful) messages
with feedback on how to improve the book and with corrections that
ought to be made.  I would be extremely grateful to receive more
advice of this sort.

About whether the IPA forms should be replaced by or supported by the
addition of American phonetic spellings brought interesting comments
and much helpful advice.  It is clear the majority  see IPA as best.
However, many also point out how it is important in citing forms from
language and language areas with their own traditions to utilize the
conventions of those areas.  My tentative decision at the moment,
then, is as follows. I will rely on the IPA and use it wherever
possible, but at the same time when citing forms which have a
conventional spelling, I will use those representations also.  Thus,
Sanskrit, Gothic, etc. will look the way Sanskrit, Gothic, etc.
typically look but will have IPA representations whenever needed.
Similarly, Finnish, Estonian, Spanish, German, French, etc. will be
cited in their standard traditional orthographies but with IPA to
make them clear.  In the case of American Indian languages and
others, where there is a strong tradition of, say, "y" instead of "j"
or of "s" and "c" plus haceks instead of long s and t+long s, I will
present both the form as expected by people working with these
languages and in IPA.  In the end, most examples that occur in an
introductory historical linguistics book are not going to require
detailed or complicated phonetic transcriptions -- some do.
        As an aside, though, as some respondents  pointed out, it is
probably important to keep in mind that there is a good deal that the
IPA does not handle at all -- sounds which have no IPA symbols --,
other things it does not handle well, and that there is considerable
variation in the deployment of IPA symbols among scholars in spite of
the fact that mostly we use such a system of transcription for the
potential uniformity it provides.   One other comment, American
phonetic usage is not at all the hodgepodge some seem to suggest.  It
is clear and consistent  and codified in most of the matters where
the IPA is clear (cf. for example, Geoffrey K. Pullum and William A.
Ladusaw. 1986.  Phonetic symbol guide.  Chicago and London:  Chicago
University Press.)  It also has a history to rival the IPA and
probably until very recently numbers of users comparable to the IPA.
That said, I do intend to rely principally on the IPA and utilize
representations only when the tradition surrounding the languages
involved seems also to require other representations in addition.

About whether UK or US spelling conventions/orthographic practices
should be used, most felt it was not a big deal one way or the other.
This is also my own feeling; I asked for advice on this because of
unclear advice I had been given about switching.  It should be noted,
for the record, that with respect to the -ise/-ize,
-isation/-ization, this is not really a division along national
lines.  Rather, in the UK the Oxford dictionaries (OED in particular,
but also the Pocket Oxford Dictionary and others) follow the -z-
tradition, while many others go for -s-.  In New Zealand, most use
-s-, but a surprising number instead use the -z- conventions, in
spite of overwhelming support for the -s- versions in schools,
institutions, government, newspapers.   I will weigh the matter
further and then decide which convention to follow.  However, to
repeat, I agree with the majority who do not see this as a very
significant issue.  (However, the tradition one is educated in
appears to have powerful impact on what one considers proper or best
in this matter; I have to admit, coming from the -z- school, I find
myself subconsciously thinking that  -civilisation- with  -s- is
uncivilized  -- sympathies with and apologies to all who feel just
the opposite!)
        (Just one additional parenthetical remark about this -- I was
surprised by a couple of strong anti-American comments I received in
this context.  I believe you can be for or against George W. Bush and
what he stands for using either spelling convention.   I was sad to
imagine the many Americans who share these moral and political stands
who would apparently not be exempt from the negative sentiments.
Weren't there some "-ise" UK supporters of Bush (and Blair) thickly
involved in recent events?; I know plenty of "-ize"-ites deeply
opposed.  Moral:  don't spell at all?)

Thanks, Lyle

--
Professor Lyle Campbell,
Dept. of Linguistics
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand
Fax:   64-3-364-2969
Phone: 64-3-364-2242 (office), 64-3-364-2089 (Linguistics dept)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling/attachments/20030525/b546725d/attachment.htm>