LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.27 (01) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2003 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Wim <wkv at home.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.02.26 (08) [D/E/LS]

>From wim wkv at home.nl

Moi,

Veur e- mail köj better 'n düüts woord gebrüükn...  " E-Mühl
".....vanmorng zat mien boks ok al weer vol mè troep.

Lol...

Wim.
[Wim Verdoold]

----------

From: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Ben,

Phonemic spelling? Are you mad? That would be like
allowing officials to use technology for every call!
Just likes sportscasts rely on people arguing about
officials' decisions, lists like these rely on
ridiculous spelling systems! You can't just go around
providing solutions and expect everyone to like you!
<grin>

In all seriousness, a phonemic spelling does not solve
the problem I put forward. In the dialects of Ulster
Scots I am familiar with, the equivalents of English
'old' and 'cold' rhyme. In other dialects (such as
East Central), they do not.

A wholly phonemic system does not solve this problem.
Why would an Ulster speaker want to spell what to them
is the same sound two different ways to suit East
Central speakers? Why would an East Central speaker
want to spell what to them are two distinct sounds the
same way just to suit Ulster speakers?

You would even have the same problem with English. I
would pronounce 'were' and 'where' differently (the
initial first sound is different) just as all English
speakers once did, whereas most contemporary English
speakers wouldn't. So how would a wholly phonemic
system resolve this? Spell them the same way because
people in SE England or East Coast United States
happen to? Or reflect the historical distinction still
retained by many speakers (albeit a minority)?

Ultimately, bizarre though it at first seems, it is
often just easier to resolve such debates by simply
relying on etymological origins or simple
(traditional) convention, and a dose of commonsense.

So in Scots it's _hauld_ and _auld_ on the basis of
etymology, no disputes at all... <covers ears again>

Kind regards,

=====
------------------
Ian James Parsley
www.ianjamesparsley.net
+44 (0)77 2095 1736
JOY - "Jesus, Others, You"

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