[sw-l] New Website

[Valerie Sutton]

SignWriting List
October 25, 2004

Dear Bill and Everyone -
Thank you for you interesting email below...Want my real
opinion?...smile..I think the current accepted spellings for many
English words are out-of-date and should be officially changed...Like
the word LIGHT. That word stems from the way people used to say the
word, hundreds of years ago. The reason there is a GHT, is that the
word LIGHT used to be pronounced in English, more like the German word
LICHT...maybe not exactly the same, but with some similarities. And so
the spelling LIGHT stems from a different pronunciation. Then spoken
English changed, but we never updated our spellings to match the way we
pronounce things...Other languages have...German has a more up-to-date
spelling system that is more closely tied to the way modern words are
pronounced...so why can't English?...Well...I cannot solve that
question...If I were spelling it, I would spell LITE or something
similar...So that is why I believe letting the Editors of the
dictionaries do what is best for them, regarding their spoken
languages. Hopefully the SignSpellings will be more up to date than
English - ha! If Editors request feedback on their SignWriting entries
in their dictionary, I will be happy to help with that on the
List...that is a fun way to share information and discuss
SignSpellings...but only if I am invited...smile...I look forward to
more SignWriting on the List in the future...all these spoken language
messages are not nearly as interesting - ha! So if you find a sign in
our ASL dictionary that you do not agree with, please tell us...and
then suggest another spelling for the sign itself...all in SignWriting,
Bill. Our ASL dictionary is:

ASL Online Dictionary
http://www.SignBank.org/signpuddle/sgn-US

Val ;-)

------------------------


On Oct 25, 2004, at 7:09 AM, Bill Reese wrote:

> It's an interesting subject, Val.  :-)
>
> For the sake of not impeding the natural development of a language, I
> don't really want to say that one way of spelling something is
> "wrong,"  and yet my natural inclination is to correct what I perceive
> as mispellings.  Makes me appreciate Noah Webster's effort even more.
> How do we differentiate between dialectal differences or a natural
> change in a language and just plain mispellings?  For that matter,
> should mispellings always be allowed as a natural change or a possible
> dialectal variant?  Since the goal is improved literacy, such
> determinations seem to be paramount when developing a dictionary.
> This brings up the question of how to do that and be fair to the
> language itself.
>
> For instance, since "lightning" has an unusual spelling in the pairing
> of the "t" and "n", we could surmise that it would be a common error
> to insert an "e" between them - especially since there is such a word
> as "lightening" and that it's a more natural flow in typing english.
> Also, since "lightening" can be used to describe the effect of
> lightning, there is a need to differentiate between the two.  Then,
> looking at the pronounciation of "lightning," we would note that
> pronouncing it the same as "lightening" confuses those who hear it (I
> actually tested this last night with my son, who became confused and
> asked for clarification).  Additionally, "lightning" has a prevalence
> of use in published works. Therefore, for the sake of clarification,
> we could chose to not accept "lightening" as an alternative spelling
> for "lightning."
>
> This leads me to the idea that a sign language's gloss needs to adhere
> more strictly to the commonly accepted spelling of the gloss.  If
> there are alternative spellings of a gloss that have a prevalence of
> use in the gloss's language, then all spellings need to be included in
> the gloss - requiring us, therefore, to be able to link alternative
> glosses to a sign.
> However, this assumes a continued use of glosses as a means of
> defining signs and searching for them.  If one of the goals is to wean
> a sign language from it's gloss, then we could very well leave the
> determination of a gloss's alternative spellings to the user and
> simply use the one that's more prevalent in use as a gloss.
>
> So, indeed, if a sign language community uses "lightening" as a gloss
> for the sign for "lightning" then it's use should be continued, even
> if it would be construed as a mispelling in the gloss's own language.
> However, I believe that, for the sake of developing literacy in the
> gloss's language, this departure would need to be indicated.
>
> Bill
>
>
> Valerie Sutton wrote:
>
>> SignWriting List
>> October 24, 2004
>>
>> Dear SW List, Sandy, and Bill!
>> Smile...Bill...My knowledge of the English language is not that
>> great. And when I lived in Europe years ago, I found out that our
>> American dialect of English, is not the center of the world. What the
>> Australians or British people say, may not be the same...and no one
>> is right or wrong...the dialects simply exist...
>>
>> So I will leave the English languages to the scholars...the very fact
>> that there is a web site out there with two spellings for that word
>> is interesting and shows that other people see the spellings as
>> interchangeable, no matter what our dictionaries say...
>>
>> Sandy - Your web site looks very nice and congrats!!
>>
>> Val ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>