spelling reform

Skywise   Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm GMT
<<So we can create an orthography that applies well to a wide range of dialects in a fair fashion, obviously.>>

Obviously, you can't do that!

<<That simply is something that you cannot do without having a strong linustic background for it.>>

Linguistic or scientific background doesn't prevent you from doing wrong. The german socalled ''Rechtschreibreform'' is the best proof. Look at linguistics or every other science you like, you will always find deviant or even contradictory opinions. So, what you consider ''an orthography that applies well to a wide range of dialects in a fair fashion'' may be judged unfair and inappropriate or even insulting by the ones who have to use it.

<<Just because people created orthographies in the past without a real linguistic basis does not mean that it is a good idea to do so today now that linguistics has actually been developed as a social science.>>

See here for some interesting notion which highly applies to orthography in a very natural way, the invisible hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

Travis, you do have too much confidence in science!

See also Josef Weizenbaum, Kurs auf den Eisberg, where he talks about his experiences on an university when he stated that science is not the only source of knowledge. (Unfortunately, I can't provide a link.)

The term ''social science'' seems very doubtful to me. It is a contradiction in itself, especially, when it is used to rule the people.
Travis   Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:12 pm GMT
>><<So we can create an orthography that applies well to a wide range of dialects in a fair fashion, obviously.>>

Obviously, you can't do that!<<

It is hard to do perfectly, but by choosing the closest thing to a common shared ancestral dialect that is feasible to use as the basis of an orthography probably would approximate that goal as well as possible.

>><<That simply is something that you cannot do without having a strong linustic background for it.>>

Linguistic or scientific background doesn't prevent you from doing wrong. The german socalled ''Rechtschreibreform'' is the best proof. Look at linguistics or every other science you like, you will always find deviant or even contradictory opinions.<<

That is true - but it makes it no less true that it is hard to get something like orthography *right* without a fundamental basis in linguistics.

>>So, what you consider ''an orthography that applies well to a wide range of dialects in a fair fashion'' may be judged unfair and inappropriate or even insulting by the ones who have to use it.<<

Well, of course, some may find trying to create an orthography for their specific dialect when they *expect* writing to be in some kind of literary standard to be patronizing, yes. But that is a different matter from trying to remodel English orthography so it more closely and accurately reflects Late Middle English phonology, which I somehow doubt would be patronizing to anyone alive today.

>>Travis, you do have too much confidence in science!

See also Josef Weizenbaum, Kurs auf den Eisberg, where he talks about his experiences on an university when he stated that science is not the only source of knowledge. (Unfortunately, I can't provide a link.)<<

Science can be most definitely misused and abused, especially but not solely in the case of social sciences, but one is much better off using science as a basis for things than not using science. (For instance, where would modern technology be without applied physical sciences and like?)

>>The term ''social science'' seems very doubtful to me. It is a contradiction in itself, especially, when it is used to rule the people.<<

Regardless of whether one believes the term "social science" to be valid or not, when creating a new orthography for a language from scratch, you are better off doing it with a solid linguistic basis than not, especially if one wants to create one that is internally phonemic in nature and is actually applicable to more than a single language variety. And when you somehow equate creating a new orthography for a language with "ruling the people", you are automatically assuming that orthography creation is necessarily something to be carried out by some kind of Academy or like, regardless of the circumstances of it, which is not necessarily true.
Skywise   Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:03 pm GMT
<<Regardless of whether one believes the term "social science" to be valid or not, when creating a new orthography for a language from scratch, you are better off doing it with a solid linguistic basis than not, especially if one wants to create one that is internally phonemic in nature and is actually applicable to more than a single language variety.>>

The point is, for languages like English, German, French, Dutch, Spanish -- languages with a writing tradition for hundreds of years -- you don't need to create a new orthography. (It's wast of time, BTW. No, not just your time, but the time of hundreds of millions of people.) There is already one, which has proven to be capable to meet the needs of the speakers (and writers) of that language. And creating if 'from scratch'' is even worse. This is disregarding the people and the writing tradition, which has become part of every individual able to write that language. Being able to READ and to WRITE a certain language is a skill you need many years to aquire, regardless of the orthography. Being able to READ is more than just to subsequently pick up one character and produce the assigned sound. Being able to write also is more than just produce sequences of characters. I claim that, if you already have learnt a writing system, you never will be able to learn a new one for that same language and being able to use it as intuitively as the one you first learnt. Human beings aren't computers, where you can exchange a cartridge with one set of rules to another.

Do the English speakers want to have an orthography ''that is internally phonemic in nature''?

<<internally phonemic in nature>> AND <<actually applicable to more than a single language variety>>

Is that possible for English without dividing the written form of that language (and maybe giving rise to divergent developement)?

You easily can create an orthography for a conlang, because typically, only you will use it, if at all. And if you reform that conlang-orthography, you will most likely get confused if you would really use it.

<<And when you somehow equate creating a new orthography for a language with "ruling the people", you are automatically assuming that orthography creation is necessarily something to be carried out by some kind of Academy or like, regardless of the circumstances of it, which is not necessarily true. >>

Just creating a new orthography for fun, but never impose it to people, ok,
but creating it and imposing it to people is ''ruling the people''. The latter happened in Germany. In France, there is such kind of Academy, and in France as well als in England, certain languages were oppressed a long time in the past -- and maybe still are, at least in France.
Robin Michael   Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:44 am GMT
Post: andy war hol, Whole, its whole as in wholes, Its, its warhol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA8u0dobFIo&feature=related


Liza Minnelli - Liza with a z Lyrics

One of the problems with 'spelling in English' is that it is catering for a whole range of different languages - as Liza Minnelli explains in this song about how to pronounce her name.

Similarly Andy Warhol came from Bratislava, Slovakia before growing up in Hell's Kitchen.