LL-L "Orthography" 2006.01.16 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
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 * 16 January 2006 * Volume 01
=======================================================================

From: Ian Pollock <ispollock at shaw.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography"

> From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: LL-L Orthography
>
> English has more written in it than any other
> language. A new generation growing up learning the
> reformed spellings, will also have to learn the older
> spellings to function in the real world. If a learner
> has for example the word 'right' written as
> 'rait/rite' or whatever, they would probably struggle
> to understand and read texts with the word spelt
> 'right'. I don't see this as something that will be
> eliminated in just a couple of years - this would
> stretch on for at least a century if not more. The
> only way to remedy this would be to 'translate' older
> books and the like into this modern English spelling,
> which would be a huge expense.
>
> The next point, which has been made already, is which
> dialect? English is unfortunately not a language which
> shares a common phonology everywhere you go. There
> would at least have to be different spelling systems
> between different countries if not different regions.
> I know this exists to a certain extent already in
> differences between British and American etc
> spellings, however, national spelling reforms will
> accentuate the differences between the countries
> rather than unifying the language.
>
> Just one point in many is spellings of words with a
> final 'r'. In American there wouldn't be a problem, as
> this is always pronounced as an 'r' (although even
> here this is an over-generalisation), however in
> England English this is not the case, and for the vast
> majority of English the words 'dear' and 'idea' rhyme
> (yes with intrusive 'r' when followed by a vowel). So
> writing these words as say 'dir' and 'aidia' is not
> representing England English. On the other hand, for a
> lot of Americans there's no difference in
> pronunciation between the words 'Mary' and 'merry', in
> British English there is a clear difference. This is
> why different nations would probably have to adopt
> different reformed spelling systems. One of the 'good'
> things about the current spelling system is that it
> favours no current dialect, and so must be learnt by
> all English speakers - none of us have it easy.
>
> The most common vowel in English is the schwa, which
> appears in a huge amount of unstressed syllables. If
> this was to be represented in a reformed orthography
> then the ties between certain words would be less
> obvious. We'd have for derivatives of 'photo',  say,
> 'fëutëu', 'fëutëgraaf', 'fëtogrëfi' and 'fëtogrëfë',
> or else there would have to be some way of expressing
> the accentuated syllable in writing. Being able to
> determine in which syllable a word is stressed is not
> something that comes automatically to the majority of
> English speakers, this would however have to be done
> in a reformed spelling system.

All these misgivings apply only to a reformed spelling working upon the
phonemic or phonetic principle. I think that a better option would be
Axel Wijk's Reformed Inglish which iz spelled sumthing like this if I'm
not mistaken. It makes sounds predictable from spelling if not spelling
from sounds, and still has that mystically English look. Incidentally,
in my opinion here is the finest sort of work on English spelling
reform, done by a Swede. Native speakers can learn a lot from second
language learners.

As for the dialects and unity - are we really all so proud that we
cannot choose a standard written form from one dialect? I would have no
problem personally as a Canadian speaker writing according to an RP
standard or something similar.

Ekh, just some tired thoughts, but I'd be curious what you lot thing of
Reformed Inglish. If you look it up on google you'll find lots of
information. Or perhaps it's already been brought up? I haven't been
following the thread.

-Ian 

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