LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.27 (01) [E]

Tue Dec 27 18:39:30 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L * 27 December 2005 * Volume 01
======================================================================

From: "Dave Singleton" <davidsin at pt.lu>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.26 (04) [E]

I am glad that someone finally accepts that "would of" is in fact dialect
But why do so many accept that thowing away the verb and replacing it by
changeing the dialect form "av --ev--ov--uv" to "of" which is not
dialect form. This is mis-interpretation and the "ofs of this world" are
sorely over-worked. They now request peace and an extra holiday or a pay
rise.

Personally, change goes out of my pocket so fast now that the bank can't
keep up. I am for leaving it alone, it has done OK so far; (!) I trust
it to see justice done in time

Dave Singleton

>From: "Sandy Fleming" <sandy at scotstext.org>
>Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (03) [E]
>
>>From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
>>Subject: LL-L Phonology
>>
>>I would also argue this case with the 'could of/have'
>>debate. Sticking to 'could have' is sticking to a
>>written form, as if this is sacrosanct, whereas a
>>written form should portray the way a language is
>>spoken and not the other way round.
>
>I really don't think a written form can portray the way a language is
>spoken - it's just impossible for writers to get it right. Even writers
>who do this, meaning dialect writers, only  partially succeed with it.
>Dialect writings are usually done as literature so the writers are
>usually taking plenty of time to pore over it and polish it, what chance
>do journalists, technical writers and casual writers have?
>
>At the same time, I think it's a mistake to treat the usual written
>forms of the language as sacrosanct or "standard", because there are
>often gross inconsistencies and inefficiencies in them due to the
>difficulty in persuading people to allow them to evolve. The problems in
>English orthography are particularly bad.
>
>This is why I think objecting to an oft-used variation such as "would
>of" is such a bad thing. If people, especially educators, are getting
>worked up about trivia like this, what are our hopes for doing anything
>about the more serious problems in the current writing system?
>
>Having said that, the writing system in English does keep evolving, just
>very slowly. Maybe that's good but I do think it would be better to
>raise the temperature* a little.
>
>*In genetic algorithms, the "temperature" is a constant defining the
>amount of change involved in a single evolutionary step. The higher the
>temperature, the greater the changes in the system over time due to
>being able to take larger steps and cross barriers which couldn't be
>crossed at lower temperatures. American orthography seems a little
>"warmer" than British, but still isn't hot enough to allow many kinds of
>changes!
>
>Sandy Fleming
>http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: "Global Moose Translations" <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.26 (04) [E]

Sandy wrote:
> At the same time, I think it's a mistake to treat the usual written
> forms of the language as sacrosanct or "standard", because there are
> often gross inconsistencies and inefficiencies in them due to the
> difficulty in persuading people to allow them to evolve. The problems in
> English orthography are particularly bad.

Quoting http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhat04.html:

What is "ghoti"?
by Jim Scobbie

It's an alternative spelling of "chestnut". :-)  O.K., it's
"fish", re-spelled by a Victorian spelling-reform advocate to
demonstrate the inconsistency of English spelling:  "gh" as in
"cough", "o" as in "women", "ti" as in "nation".

   "Ghoti" is popularly attributed to George Bernard Shaw.  But
Michael Holroyd, in Bernard Shaw: Volume III: 1918-1950: The Lure
of Fantasy (Chatto & Windus, 1991), p. 501, writes that Shaw "knew
that people, 'being incorrigibly lazy, just laugh at spelling
reformers as silly cranks'.  So he attempted to reverse this
prejudice and exhibit a phonetic alphabet as native good sense
[...].  But when an enthusiastic convert suggested that 'ghoti'
would be a reasonable way to spell 'fish' under the old system
[...], the subject seemed about to be engulfed in the ridicule from
which Shaw was determined to save it."  We have not been able to
trace the name of the "enthusiastic convert".  Bill Bedford
(billb at mousa.demon.co.uk) writes:  "I seem to remember a film/TV
clip of Shaw himself referring to this - but don't ask for chapter
and verse."

   It has also been suggested that "ghoti" could be a spelling
of "huge":  "h" having its usual value, [h]; "g" making [j], the
sound of "y" in yes, after the *following* consonant as in
"lasagne"; "o" = [u] as in "move", "t" = [d] as in "Taoism", and
"i" = [Z] as in one pronunciation of "soldier".

   In the same vein is "ghoughpteighbteau":

P    hiccough
O    though
T    ptomaine
A    neigh
T    debt
O    bureau

   Supposedly, this is an example of how awful English spelling is,
and why it ought to be reformed.  In fact, it argues that English
spelling is kind and considerate, and easy.  Why?  Because "potato"
*isn't* spelled "ghoughpteighbteau".  It's spelled "potato"!  O.K,
O.K., "neigh" isn't spelt "ne", and we can get into all the old
arguments, but these really fun examples overstate the case and
strike those of us opposed to spelling reform as self-defeating.

>end quote<

Gabriele Kahn

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