Fw: [Lexicog] sorting of digraphs AND PHONETIC VS PHONEMIC SPELLING

[goodtracks at peoplepc.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <goodtracks at peoplepc.com>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] sorting of digraphs AND PHONETIC VS PHONEMIC SPELLING


>> my impression is that lexicography for minority languages done by
>> linguists usually follows the advice to keep phonemes as the basis for
>> sorting, including phonemes represented by bigraphs
>>
>> In the case of indigenous languages in Latin America, this practice may 
>> be
>> supported by the fact that Spanish also treats the two digraph-phonemes
>> "ll" and "ch" as separated entities when it comes to alphabetical
>> ordering.
>>
I am amplifying my dictionary for the Ioway, Otoe-Missouria language.
Along with the thought above, I have listed in
 the Baxoje Jiwere native section, all nasalized "An's" that begin a word
 first, before separately listing the words that simply begin with the
 letter, "A".  I follow along in course similarily with nasalized "in's &
 i's" & "un & u".  Also, I have the consonants (bigraphs/ graphemes) "dh, 
th,
 t^", preceed the regular "t" entries.  Other glottal stop phonemes also
 preceed their regular letter.  I do this to call attention to their unique
 quality which is not usually in the awareness of English speaking and
 writing IOM community members.  I note that when the different phonemes are
 intergraded in the usual English dictionary fashion, these phonemes that
 start words are usually overlooked or not found very readily.  I am not
 aware of how the Lakota and other Siouan languages are handling the
 variations of phonemes in their lexicography.  The members of the community
 are most accustomed to the sounding out of IOM words in English phonetics,
 which we are aware  how the same word could be and are sounded out in by
 different persons in different ways.  By keeping all the "graphemes"
 separate, seems more condusive to language literacy and learning by
 non-speakers community members.
 What is the thoughts of others in this regard.

 I note especially for the non-speakers of IOM, the notation of the phoneme
 "R" in the language.  For the older speakers, they rarely try writing the
 language, but when they do, it is a problem of how to represent the "R".  I
 state:

 [Note:  This sound does not occur in English.  It is common in many Native
 American languages.  It is made with a quick single flapped movement with
 the tip of the tongue, somewhat similar to the "tt" in English "kitty" in
 rapid speech.  When it begins a word, it sometimes sounds to be a "dh" as 
in
 English "the", or even as "d/ dh/ l/ n" by some speakers.  As such, in the
 example above,  "ráye (name)" may also be heard as if saying "dháye".
 However, as it occurs within the word, as in "warúje (eat something)", it
 always maintains a clear rendition of a flapped "r".]


 This brings up the issue of writting phonetically VS phonemically.
 Generally, most speakers and speakers have no common orthography.  Thus, 
the
 need to establish a standard.  Should the understood linguistic rules be
 taught, or should one change the phonetic spelling to a phonemic spelling
 for the language community.  For example:
 Is it easier for the learner to see--

 nanpo (finger) vs  nampo,
 Mina ne (Sit down!)  vs  Mina re,
 pi dana ke (It's very good)  vs  pi danra ke,
 wahusna  (nothing but bones) vs  wahusran

 I hope the above will suffice for the discussion, as I have tried to keep 
my
 examples limited and in simple format for comment.  I know there are 
several on the list that are actively involved in the writting, study, 
teaching of language to the communities.   Is phonemic spelling preferred 
over a phonetic spelling, in communities that
 have used only a variety of English sounded out phonetic spellings in the 
past.

 Jimm

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sebastian Drude" <sebadru at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 5:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Lexicog] sorting of digraphs
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> my impression is that lexicography for minority languages done by
>> linguists usually follows the advice to keep phonemes as the basis for
>> sorting, including phonemes represented by bigraphs (e.g., Shoebox 
>> manuals
>> and "Making Dictionaries" suggest that you should follow this method).
>>
>> (By the way, exactly this relation of orthography and phonology should
>> provide the basis to introduce a sound notion of "grapheme", which can
>> consist of sequences of letters.)
>>
>> In the case of indigenous languages in Latin America, this practice may 
>> be
>> supported by the fact that Spanish also treats the two digraph-phonemes
>> "ll" and "ch" as separated entities when it comes to alphabetical
>> ordering.
>>
>> However, I ever felt that this is an unecessary complication.  I don't
>> know if there are pragmatic/psycholongusitic studies or systematic 
>> studies
>> of usage of dictionaries around that tested how much extra learning and
>> mental processing it needs, for instance for the speakers of Spanish, to
>> follow this rule.  I guess it is a complication; for learners of Spanish
>> it is awkward at best.
>>
>> For the ends of linguistic analysis, e.g., formulation of search
>> conditions, alphabetically treating multigraph graphemes as units on 
>> their
>> own may be useful, but I would suggest that this does not mean that a
>> dictionary for a speech community which is in the process of becoming a
>> litterate society should necessarily follow this principle; on the
>> contrary, I would subscribe to Allans sentence below, which, in the case
>> of minority languages, is to be taken, however, less as an empirical
>> statement than as a methodological principle.  So substitute a "should"
>> for the "usually":
>>
>>> "Dictionaries
>>> usually alphabetize letter by letter rather than phoneme by phoneme".
>>
>> I would like to know if other practicioners of lexicography in this list
>> agree with my point of view.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Sebastian Drude
>>
>>
>> Literature on this topic for German:
>>
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphemik , there are citations of:
>>
>> Peter Eisenberg: Die Schreibsilbe im Deutschen, in: Schriftsystem und
>> Orthografie, hrsg. von P. Eisenberg/H. Günther, Tübingen 1989, S.57-84.
>>
>> Peter Eisenberg: Linguistische Fundierung orthographischer Regeln, 
>> Umrisse
>> einer Wortgraphematik des Deutschen, in: Homo scribens, hrsg. von Jürgen
>> Baurmann e.a., Tübingen 1993, S.67-91.
>>
>> -- 
>> |   Sebastian   D R U D E         (Lingüista, Projeto Aweti / DOBES)
>> |   Setor de Lingüística   --  Coordenação de Ciências Humanas (CCH)
>> |   Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi,  Belém do Pará   --  CNPq  --  MCT
>> |   Cx.P. 399  --  CEP: 66 040 - 170  --  Tel. e FAX: (91) 274 40 04
>> |   Email:   sebadru at zedat.fu-berlin.de    +   drude at museu-goeldi.br
>> |   URL:   http://www.germanistik.fu-berlin.de/il/pers/drude-en.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
>>
>> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>>
>> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>