[RNLD] misinterpreting historical spellings

[Piers Kelly]

Hi all,
AustKin is thinking of preparing a handy guide to the spelling systems
used by the likes of Daisy Bates, Spencer & Gillen and many others who
recorded words in Aboriginal languages before any standard emerged.
This will not be a general guide to principles, like Paper and talk,
but a very specific reference document to the conventions of
individual scribes.

Our problem is trying to sell this idea to funding bodies. So I just
wanted to begin by collecting anecdotes of how a misinterpretation of
an early source had embarrassing or disastrous consequences. Eg, a
native title connection report that failed to recognise that four
recorded placenames were actually variant spellings of a single
placename. Or a historical reconstruction that rested on a dodgy
interpretation of quirky spelling in an old word list etc.

All I can think of now are the contemporary disputes between the One-N
Ngunawal and the Two-N Ngunnawal in Canberra.

I'm sure there are many egregious examples of rubbish spellings
devised on the fly by arts centres, journalists etc in the present
day, leading to problems (see for example this post and the
comments/links). But what I'm really looking for are cases where the
misinterpretation of tricky historical spellings produced some kind of
shambles.

Looking forward to your responses,
Piers