LL-L "Orthography" 2004.06.07 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.JUN.2004 (01) * 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: Kevin Caldwell <kcaldwell31 at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2004.06.05 (03) [E]

> From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
> Subject: "Orthography" [E]
> Ron also wrote:
>
> "Furthermore, this type of system is by its very nature interdialectal,
> because phonological differences (in the phonetic output) between dialects
> do not even enter the equasion in reading and writing."
>
> This statement puzzles me - surely dialects are the bane of a phonemic
> system? I don't think it can be done without diaphonemics, and even that's
> just a compromise.
>
> Tom again:
>
> > This is fine when talking of consonants but surely vowel sounds are
> > extraordinarily different. In a western culture I doubt that you could
> > rely on the consonants for spelling and leave vowels to the speaker to
> > fill in at will. Who would finally choose the written form of the
> > vowels? The economically powerful?
>
> This is particularly true of English and Scots, where most unstressed
> vowels
> are simply a schwa. I've tried devising (dia)phonemic systems for both
> languages but it tends to fill up with the letter "i". When I first joined
> Lowlands-L one of the Lowlanders here directed me to his web pages for a
> reformed English spelling system but, apart from the fact that I could see
> it was American pronunciation (he had thought it was universal), it
> suffered
> from what I call "The Solicitor Effect" in English, ie, that different
> people have different ideas about the vowels in words like "solicitor".
> Where I would write "solisitir" or possibly "solisiter", others would
> write
> "slistr" or "slicty" (where I've used "y" at random to represent the vowel
> the English use for "-er" endings - I, of course, pronounce the "r"). IN
> other words, he often dropped vowels were I felt they were necessary.

I too do not understand how a phonemic spelling system for English could be
devised without regard to dialectal differences.  I remember how surprised I
was when I ran across a list of words with "silent letters" - it was a list
of the English alphabet and words for each letter in which that letter is
silent.  For the letter "L", they listed words like "walk" and "talk."  I
thought, "The 'L' in 'walk' and 'talk' isn't silent!"  Then I started to
listen carefully to other people's pronunciation of those words and began to
notice for the first time in my life that most people do _not_ pronounce the
'L' in those words!  As though the words were actually "wock" and "tock"!
It was a revelation to me, as I have always pronounced the "L" in those
words (or at least it "colors" the preceding vowel to some extent).  But I
would expect that a phonemic spelling system would drop the "L" from those
words, and where would that leave me and others who pronounce the "L"?  The
same might go for the "h" in "wh-" words (I pronounce "wh" differently from
"w", as do a lot of US Southerners).

Kevin Caldwell
Kcaldwell31 at comcast.net

---------

From: Peter Snepvangers <snepvangers at optushome.com.au>
Subject: Orthography

Tom Maguire jmaguire at pie.xtec. wrote....
I agree that uniformity has not been seen as a virtue in English
speaking countries. However I don't see that as an argument for asking
foreigners how to speak or write your native language. (The next thing
they might set up an "Académie Royale" in Paris or Brussels to decide
what English spelling is acceptable and what not.) This kind of
prescriptive uniformity, accepted as the norm in many countries, is
decidedly unscientific.

Hello Tom,
you might end up with something like this
If GH   can stand for P  as in  Hiccough
If OUGH stands for    O  as in  Dough
If PHTH stands for    T  as in  Phthisis
If EIGH stands for    A  as in  Neighbour
If TTE  stands for    T  as in  Gazette
If EAU  stands for    O  as in  Plateau
 The right way to spell POTATO should be: GHOUGHPHTHEIGHTTEEAU
Cheers
Peter Snepvangers
snepvangers at optushome.com.au

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