[RNLD] Re: misinterpreting historical spellings

[Piers Kelly]

Curse the plain-text button on the new gmail! Same post re-sent with the
link and italics (thanks John M for pointing this out):

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<http://www.paradisec.org.au/blog/2006/10/one-crap-spelling-system-is-better-than-two-good-ones/>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


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Piers Kelly <piers.kelly at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20130409/f47c6094/attachment.htm>