LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.25 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.SEP.2003 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Orthography

Folks,

Stan Levinson wrote (among other things):

> I guess I haven't been following this entire thread
> that closely, but I don't understand why the
> orthography needs to be so slavishly influenced by
> speech.  This is a very "alphabeto-centric" way of
> thinking.  How about writing systems that are only
> somewhat phonetic, like Chinese?

Of course, non-alphabetic systems are a possibility, but ...

(1) I assume people shy away from it because ...
   (a) they are not really familiar with ideographically-based systems, and
...
   (b) they assume, not unjustifiably so, that such a system is too
cumbersome
   and too hard to learn, i.e., would take a lot of educational investment.

(2) "Phonetic" (ideally "phonemic") writing systems (be they alphabets,
syllabaries, or whatever) will still be needed at least as auxiliary systems
for conveying individual language varieties, spell names, etc.

Look at sign languages for the hearing-impaired as an, in my opinion,
exemplary system: there are "ideographic" signs, oftentimes expressing more
than simply individual words, and capable of expressing nuances, emphasis,
etc.  Within this system, or "appended" to it, if you will, there is a
system (in this case a finger spelling system) that allows you to spell out
the "pronunciation" of names, etc.  I can well imagine a "writing" system of
this sort as a universal "scriptura franca."  If we based it on existing
sign languages (this requiring prior universalization) and a written (thus
ideographic) form of these (be it the currently proposed one or an
esthetically more pleasing one ;) ), we would kill three birds with one
stone: (1) create a universal writing system, (2) create a signed universal
lingua franca, and (3) integrate communication for hearing-impaired people
into the "mainstream" (thus breaking down barriers, because everyone would
be able to sign and understand signing).  A moderated, assumedly "smaller,"
version could be used in communication with sight-impaired people, much like
those used nowadays with people that are both hearing- and sight impaired,
and there would have to be some sort of touch-reading version of the
"mainstream" script for hearing-impaired people.

Such a system could be designed to be less cumbersome and learning-intensive
than for instance Chinese characters.  This could be done by using a limited
number of basic signs/symbols in various combinations to convey new
meanings.

Of course, the basic system would need to be culturally as neutral as
possible, which does not mean that "culturally-based accents" would not be
permissible.  Furthermore, it should not use "phonetic hints" like in
Chinese and earlier Egyptian scripts, since these would be specific to
certain languages or language groups.  (Anyway, to speakers of Modern
Chinese languages, these "phonetic" hints in Chinese characters are rather
vague, since they refer to Ancient Chinese pronunciation.)

I know all this sounds like big-time pie in the sky.  But I could see it
working as an auxiliary for international/interglottal communication.  I can
*not* see it *replacing* language-specific writing sytems though, at best
employed as an auxiliary aid for clarification in communication between
closely related language varieties, besides universal communication.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

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