LL-L "Orthography" 2010.11.05 (05) [EN-NL]

Fri Nov 5 19:10:24 UTC 2010

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 05 November 2010 - Volume 05
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================

From: William Paterson <wm.paterson at ymail.com>
Subject: LL - "Orthography"

I've read that the British value vocabulary, pronunciation (Received
Standard), and something else, whereas Americans value spelling and grammar
(it seems to me the Americans had a third item as well). Can anyone
elaborate on this, confirm or deny it, based either on scholarship or
personal experience?

     As an American from the Philadelphia area, it seems to me that
Americans do value spelling, though many of us are not especially good at
it. It could be that spelling is so valued because so few of us have a
strong foundation in formal grammar, which seems scarcely even taught these
days. (I'm twenty-eight years old, and despite attending what was considered
one of the better public schools in the area, I was never taught how to
parse a sentence, and learned there only a very basic level of formal
grammar.) It could be that spelling is so valued because so few of us have a
strong foundation in formal grammar, and whereas spelling can be picked up
incidentally through reading, I think a formal, articulable understanding of
grammar requires deliberate attention to study. Despite the attention to
spelling, though, Americans are pretty tolerant of "creative" spellings in
marketing.

Despite the lack of formal grammar, a lot of people do seem to get pretty
worked up about grammar here. In particular, the double-negative and "ain't"
seem especially scorned - and in general, it seems to me that the
constructions that suffer the most disdain are common in African American
Vernacular English (or whatever one may like to call it). I think that the
vast majority of Americans have little understanding of language contact and
change, and do not realize that AAVE is a legitimate mode of expression, and
instead tend to think that it just reflects a failure to "learn English
properly" - and, sadly, the cause attributed may range from lack of proper
educational resources to downright racial inferiority. I think that in many
cases the disdain for AAVE is in reality a disdain for the people who speak
it, which just manifests as a love of proper and ordered grammar, or
something of the sort. That said, I do not think that *most* Americans are
racist - but I do think most hold strong linguistic prejudices.

However, despite the fixation with grammar, some features of "proper"
grammar now tend to seem very pedantic to most Americans (of course this is
a natural development), and are very frequently ignored, especially in
speech and informal writing like text messaging or email. For instance, one
is far more likely to hear, "What are you looking at?" than, "At what are
you looking?" The latter, frankly, feels ridiculous. And the who/whom
distinction is observed by very few, these days. I think very few Americans
would judge others for using what feel like the more natural forms in these
cases.

In terms of pronunciation, Philadelphia speech deviates a fair deal from
what one hears in the national media, and I do not think people generally
attach much significance to pronunciation, except as it bears on:

1. The speaker's geographical or ethnic origin, and

2. A misapprehension of the spelled form (like the pronunciation
mischiev-ee-ous).

In the north, a southern accent may be taken as a negative marker, and I
imagine the reverse may be true in the south.

As a final note, having grown up a mere twenty minutes away from
Philadelphia, in its Southern New Jersey suburbs (South Jersey, we call it),
I always thought I had a Philadelphia accent, but according to my wife, when
I get angry, I "get all Jersey" and apparently my accent shifts. This came
as a surprise to me, and is still hard to believe, as I cannot hear any
difference.

Bill Paterson

Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, USA

----------

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2010.11.04 (04) [EN]

Not a Learned Lowlander myself, but I'll throw in my two penn'orth.

Our standard spelling, punctuation etc are in deed only a few centuries
old.  So is the vast majority of our mathematical notation, and all the
rules of any modern sport or game.  And all for the same reason: as you
reach or interact with more people with your ideas and concepts, the more
important it becomes that everyone follows what you are doing or talking
about.

Thair is no reezun y u cahnt spel or rite wot u wont.  The problem is people
spend more time looking at your idiosyncratic spelling, grammar and
punctuation than thinking about what you're trying to say -  assuming they
can even work out what you are trying to say.   Which is fine if you're
intended statement is "I am not bound by your rules", but counterproductive
if you are trying to get ideas across.

I see three main problems with most reformed spellings:

1) The attempts to be "rational" eliminate any ability to separate
homophones, other than by context ("beer/bier, hoarse/horse, bow/bough
etc.).

2) For those of us with an interest in the history and relationships of
languages, it cuts us off from our roots and connections.  The fact that
"daughter" no longer sounds a lot like "Tochter" or "dogter", but retains a
visual link, is interesting to me, and potentially useful.

3) If you are going to be phonetic, whose pronunciation are you going to
pick as "correct"?  Or is every accent type in the English language going to
have it's own spelling?  fine if you are promoting regional identity, but it
kind of limits the potential readership of your novel.

Much of the argument for reform is that some people find it hard or
confusing; given the vast volume of English literature and the huge number
of people who read it, it can't be that difficult.

Paul

----------

From: Hellinckx Luc <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography"

Beste Theo,

You wrote:

Tomas, please, install an email spelling program.
And if explorer doesn't has one, Firefox can help you.

Zuiderlingen werpen meestal wat minder met stenen dan noorderlingen (tenzij
ze misschien héél ver weg in het zuidoosten wonen ;=)...misschien is dat
onze katholieke aard wel...maar...euh...heeft je spellingchecker (of is het
spellingschecker?) dat vijfde woord in je tweede zin opgemerkt?

Toch met vriendelijke groeten,

Luc Hellinckx, Halle, Belgium

=========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498<http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#%21/group.php?gid=118916521473498>
=========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20101105/4ec64806/attachment.htm>