LL-L "Orthography" 2004.06.05 (02) [E]

Sat Jun 5 15:18:44 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.JUN.2004 (02) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: Troy Sagrillo <meshwesh at bigfoot.com>
Subject: English Spelling Reform

on 04.06.2004 6.00 AM, R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mentioned are two types of attitudes: (1) total dismissal and ridicule

There are many reasons for this. The biggest problem, among many, is whose
pronunciation becomes standard? Received Pronunciation (now routinely
disparaged as being "too posh")? General American? General New Zealand? And
what of the pronunciations used in the Deep South of the USA or New Dehli?
Don't they count? What about those UK dialects whose speakers don't
pronounce L ("aaw the peepoew")? Personally I would like to see the ensuing
USA/Canada/Ireland/Scotland vs Southern England arguments over R -- should
it be written or not?

Reform also has the problem of losing historical distinctions between what
are now homonyms. Is "niyt uv the niyt" "night of the knight" or "knight of
the night"?

On a more practical level, these reforms are dismissed and ridiculed because
they are frequently extreme to the point of incomprehensibility to a native
speaker. Sample <http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/ess.html>

A simplifid speling sistem for the Inglish languaj shood be cler and
consistent, and yet retain sum degre uv familiarity, espesialy in regardz tu
tha ruts uv wurdz and cognaits in uther languajez, tu alow us tu red books
and maneuscripts euzing tradisional speling with relativ ez.

An even more extreme example <http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/epa.html> :

Tu be, or not tu be, dhat iz dh' kwesch'n:
wedh'r tiz nobl'r in dh' mind tu suf'r
Dh' slingz and aroz uv outraij's forchun,
Or tu taik armz 'genst ' se uv trub'lz,
and bi 'pozing, end dhem. Tu di, tu slep --
No mor, and bi ' slep tu sai we end
Dh' hart-aik and dh' dhouz'nd nach'r'l shoks
Dhat flesh iz air tu; tiz ' kansumaish'n
D'voutle tu be wisht.

Now as a native Anglophone I can read both of these with effort (frankly, I
have  an easier time with Scots), but they looks absolutely ridiculous and,
worse, they only barely reflect my own pronunciation. I have no doubt that
if someone from southern England were to re-write these, they would be
considerably different.

> (2) calls for reform backed by the claim that the irregular English
spelling
> "method" (by and large based on certain English dialects of 15th and 16th
> century England) is a serious obstacle for education and functional
> literacy.

I think the major problem now is poor educational practices, not the
orthography. Past generations of Anglophones from all over the world
managed, regardless of dialect, to learn to read and write though the
spelling system was substantially the same as now. What has changed since
the 1960s is the educational system. In the USA at least, children are no
longer generally taught to read via phonics but via the "whole word/look and
say" method (there are exceptions). This is a very highly political and
contentious issue in the US among educators and parents (less so than in
previous years). See

http://www.americanreadingforum.org/98_yearbook/html/01_monaghan_98.htm

> or, to put it differently, English speakers ought to feel obligated to
> consider non-native speakers when discussing the spelling of their
language.

With all due respect, what language has ever been "obligated to consider
non-native speakers" for any reason whatsoever? As a non-native learner of
Dutch, I personally find the latest AN spelling reform confusing and
inconsistent (will someone please suggest to the Taalunie that the terminal
"-sch" be changed to "-s"? Bedankt! And it would sure help me as a
non-native speaker to just read and write long vowels as doubled letters
*all the time* so there is no doubt in my mind. And while I am at it, if you
are going to have phonetic-based spelling in Dutch, could you kindly use "p"
and "t" at the end of words instead of "b" and "d"?). Unfortunately the
Taalunie didn't see fit to consult me about my needs as a non-native learner
of Dutch <grin>

In the case of English, I don't think there is any need to accommodate
non-native learners by completely overturning the language to the point of
incomprehensibility to natives. If this was a serious argument, every
language in the world should drop their traditional orthography and writing
system (esp. for those not using the Latin alphabet) and adopt the IPA
alphabet for the dominate/official dialect. (I am not sure what that would
be for English.)

Realistically English spelling will never be actively reformed. The language
and its speakers are too disparate and the traditional system is too
ingrained. More importantly, there is no government control over the
language in any country beyond basic education (i.e., there is no English
version of the Taalunie dictating anything at all, let alone orthography).
Such an organisation will never be set up because of the international
arguments that would ensue (not to mention the cost and legitimacy of such
an organisation). This is a situation that is often of great surprise to
those coming from countries with official language control. I can't imagine
even just the USA and the UK agreeing to a common orthography, never mind
Ireland, Australia, NZ, India, South Africa, and all the others. We don't
even agree on the changes suggested by Noah Webster 200+ years ago.

This isn't to say there will not be small changes here and there (and no
doubt differing by country), as has always been the case in the "evolution"
of English spelling. I have little doubt that in less than 100 years "thru"
will be a perfectly correct spelling of "through", at least in the USA and
Canada, just as "plow" (vs. "plough") is now. "Lite" and "miniscule" are
becoming more common in print (miniscule is even in my spell checker), while
"shew" (for "show") and "gaol" (for "jail"), common just over a century ago,
have all but disappeared.

This is of course a far cry from what these protesters are advocating. BTW,
here is the website of the picketers:

http://www.spellingsociety.org/

With respect,

Troy

----------

From: Troy Sagrillo <meshwesh at bigfoot.com>
Subject: Dutch Spelling Reform

Hello all,

With regard to spelling reform in English, I am curious to know if native
speakers of Dutch find reading 19th century literature written in Dutch
difficult given the number of spelling reforms that have taken place since
then. Being a foreigner (I live in Flanders), I really have no idea.

I think it safe to say that native Anglophones can read 19th literature in
English with little problem since the orthography is almost identical today;
changes in word meanings are the major problem. 18th century English is
perhaps not as easy, but still manageable by most native speakers.
Conversely, Shakespeare is usually a challenge.

Cheers,

Troy

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net>
Subject: Orthography

Welcome to the List, Troy, and thanks for sharing your views!

Reinhard "Ron" F. Hahn
Founder & Administrator, Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
http://www.lowlands-l.net

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