LL-L "Orthography" 2002.11.23 (01) [S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 23.NOV.2002 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 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) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Orthography"

> From: John M. Tait jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk
> Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2002.11.16 (02) [S]
>
> Is this an ettle ti _describe_ English spellin or ti _justifee_
> it? (I'm no
> juist shuir whit ye'r sayin maugre ye gie a puckle mair examples.) Thon
> aboot closed an open syllables seems ti me ti be clutchin at clessical
> straes.

My description mair or less gauns wi Letts "Getting to Grips
with Spelling" (Letts being thon educational/office stationary
publisher here in the UK). It's naither the tane nor the tither,
mair like "prescription bi description". For English spellin I
dout the'r nae ither option - ye canna prescribe till ye'v
described, an wi English spellin ye never come tae the end o
description - or no athoot writin a hale spellin dictionar,
onywey!

Weel, I should say ye _can_ prescribe wi a pairtial description,
but try that wi English spellin an ye'll suin see what little
wirth a pairtial description is, whan yer students starts rinnin
intae the exceptions that's awhaur!

"Getting to Grips with Spellin", bi the wey, haes chaipters the
likes o "Why Spelling is Difficult", "Adapting the Pronunciation",
"Jogging the Memory", "Informed Choice" an "Dealing with Doubt"!

> This seems ti me ti be airguments tryin ti justifee English spellin. Whit
> I'm speakin aboot is describin it. It disna seem ti me ti need onie o thon
> ti expone at:
>
> mat - mate
> rat - rate
> fat - fate
> fad - fade
> rap - rape
>
> etc. is a obvious eneuch reul. I dinna see nae need ti justifee it, or
> expone it historically, whan it's fairly obvious whit the 'e' dis.

But ar thae examples comprehensive? Whit aboot:

mat - mate - material, maternal
rat - rate - fraternity
fat - fate - fatal
fad - fade -
rap - rape - papal

How div ye describe thir:

natural - nature
national - nation
feral - federal
rational - rationale
lapidary, lapel - ape
age - agar
radical - radiation
&c &c &c

Ye can come up wi a description for thir, but yer rules juist
multiplies tae whaur they're wirth naething. Aa ye can describe
wi general rules is the simple cases.

> I canna see at <able> disna faa inti the uisual doobled consonant reul -
> compare able, maple, table, noble, bogle wi apple, babble, rabble, nobble,
> boggle. Here the <le> is juist a conventional wey o writin final
> [l], no the
> 'magic' e, but the convention for shawin the vowel soond is
> obvious eneuch.

Like afore, it seems tae wirk gin ye wale aesy examples. What
happens whan ye rin intae the likes o <maplet>, <goblet>, <ugly>
(cf <lady>, <juggling>), <Argentina> &c?

> In <change>, the problem is at the 'e' baith alters the vowel frae [a] ti
> [e:] (uisin Scottish Standard English pronunciations) an the
> consonant frae
> [g] ti [dZ] (or the group <ng> frae [N] ti [n(d)Z]. Compare:
>
> bang - change

Again, it juist wirks gin ye watch yersel an no wale haurd examples,
eg <banger>, <anger>, <angel>. Of course ye can describe aa thir but
like I says afore, ye need mair an mair rules.

> >This is whit wey yer "dooble-v" idea is wirthless, John -
> >it's liftin ae shui whan the hale midden wants reddin.
>
> I canna see at it's wirthless ti dae somethin juist cause ye canna dae
> aathing. Apply that wey o leukin at it ti life in general, an naething wad
> ivver be duin! Dooble <v> dis awa wi onie ambiguities aboot the
> pronuncin o
> words like 'ivver', 'rivven' an siclike bi uisin a convention
> at's weel kent
> in the likes o 'hidden'.

But we'r no applyin it tae life in general, we'r juist applyin
it tae English spellin - applyin it tae a system for writin
naething mair than the 40-odd phonemes o English. It juist
shows ye what a mire ye'v gotten yersel intae whan ye think
the natur o life in general is a appropriate analogy for
English spellin!

Fowk haes tae can write, an write richt. Fowk wi nae spaecial
intellectual pretensions should can maister a spellin system
tae the pynt whaur they can write wi some confidence. They
_should_ can dae aathing - it's only 40-odd phonemes!

> >I dout we can say that English orthographic rules is descriptive,
> >but asweel, that it's no possible tae mak a daecent description
> >o'd the wey it stauns. Ye end up wi circular airgyments, aa in
> >conflick wi ane anither.
>
> Ay, that's fairly true - but ye dinna need airguments ti describe
> somethin.
> Aa ye maun dae is describe whit's actually there - ie, ye can describe the
> mat-mate reul wi'oot tryin ti justifee it. Is it no tryin ti inhaud things
> at disna fit at maks maist o the fause threips? The 'dooble v'
> reul is juist

But ye _canna_ describe it. You'r giein ae rule, ignorin aa
exceptions an speakin as tho ye'r describin English spellin.
Yer rule's insignificant compared wi what a richt description
o English orthography wad tak. Naither "description" is ony
uise for onything - ane's ower simple tae help fowk tae spell
mair than the simplest wirds, the ither's ower complicate for
onybody tae apply.

> flittin 'v' frae the list o exceptions whaur the dooblin reul disna wirk,
> inti the 'body o the Kirk' as ye micht say, an it haes the advantage o
> makkin it less likely at fowk is gaun ti rhyme 'ivver' wi 'fiver' raither
> nor wi 'liver' (at wad than be 'livver' in Scots). It's a hauf-wey hoose,
> recognisin at (a) even gin ye div spell words wi English-like spellins (b)
> ye still canna lippen on fowk ti pronunce the Scots words richt bi sheer
> fameeliarity, like ye can in English.

But it disna tak ye a significant step nearer a mensefu spellin
system - ye'v hunders o rules an exceptions tae redd up yit.
Bi the time ye'v redd aathing up ye'll be left wi a radical
spellin system - ye'd a been a sicht better aff startin wi a
radical spellin system in the first place!

> This is a hauf-wey-hoose airgument, but ye _coud_ cleck a mair regular
> spellin foondit on English-like spellins. Here ye wad - for
> example - spell
> 'chainge' an 'aible', keepin the 'e' no cause it's a magic 'e' in
> thir cases
> but cause <le> final an <ge> =  [dZ] is ither orthographic conventions. In
> ither words, cause the final <e> canna wirk here, ye wad faa back
> on anither
> wey o shawin the vowel soond - bi a digraph. I canna see whit wey
> this wadna
> wirk, unless by 'wirk' ye mean at nae exceptions is allooed. It
> still wadna
> be completely regular, but it wad be mair regular nor the wey Scots is
> maistly written evenou.

It's no that nae exceptions can be alloued in a system - but
a system that leaves us wi hunders o exceptions isna wirth
onything. I think ye need tae try an git some perspective on
juist hou mony rules the ar in English spellin (an traditional
Scots is waur) an juist hou mony exceptions the ar tae maist
rules.

A wad say that exceptions is mensfu for awfu common wirds - it's
better tae write "we" an "be" an save the bather o extrae letters
for things that ony reader uizes that aften he disna need rules
tae mind them, an whaur the wirds is uized that aften that the
letters saved is significant. Ye micht mak exceptions for antrin
foreign wirds or even allou something like twice as mony rules
wi the wey Scots an English is baith creoles wi Saxon an Latin
strynds. But no hunders o exceptions tae vernear every rule!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

==================================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>.
=======================================================================