Greetings!
I have several questions for now to ask of people advocating spelling reforms, and also some issues I'd like to see addressed.
1) To those advocating spelling reform, how would you decide which dialect to go by?
2) Also, how do you reply to claims set forth by Noam Chomsky that although phonetically English spelling does not appear sensible, the spelling represents underlying phonemic properties of the language?
A good example is in words such as "pat" /pæt/. A rather rigid rule of English is that syllables are almost never permitted to terminate in a lax vowel. (Schwa isn't usually considered a vowel, and only terminates the syllable in certain words, most of them borrowed.) In the word "pat", the lax vowel (/æ/) is closed with the /t/. When the past tense morpheme is afixed to the word, the spelling becomes "patted" (extra "t") /pætəd/. When spoken, the /t/ phoneme doubles to close the first syllable and to also open the second one. It needs to double in use, of course, to avoid an empty coda in the first syllable, which would cause that syllable to terminate in a lax vowel (a no-no for English). The orthographic representation of the word, as you see, reflects the double use of the /t/ phoneme. Many more words follow this same pattern.
3) Another issue: One of the benefits of the seemingly inconsistent English spelling is that it preserves etymology. So, for example, let's take the word "logic", which might be reform-spelled as "lajik" /ladʒɪk/. If I learn the word "logic", and what it means, I can figure out the meaning of word endings, such as "-logy" (e.g., "biology", reform-spelled as "biialujee" /bajalədʒi/). In the current system, "y" and "i" are recognised as often representing the same sound depending on the location of the letter (i.e., "y" usually replaces "i" at the end of a word). With this information in place—which comes as a part of the current spelling's learning package—, "-logy" isn't far off from "logic"; and though they are pronounced differently, I can easily discern the meaning of one having learned the other. This is only the case in the current spelling system. Now, if you think that's a stretch, just consider my relief when I can understand the meaning of "logos" without getting my dictionary! In a reformed spelling, these three would be: "lajik", "lujee", and "logos". Phonetically unrelated, the current spelling helps readers recognise the relationship amongst these three words and allows them to figure out the meaning of two of them, if they know one, without every having to look them up! In other words, it increases learning.
4) Finally, how on Earth will you ever implement such a system? My linguistics professor said it best when he said something like: you'll have better luck getting rid of peoples' Social Security than forcing them to change their spelling. People don't like being told what to do! Furthermore, what would people read? Nothing is written in reformed spelling. Some of the greatest works of literature would not be understandable without translating all of them. Children growing up with reformed spelling wouldn't even be able to read the Declaration of Independence! Will all these things have to be translated into reformed spelling? When the pronunciation changes 50 years from now (remember, we're still in the midst of the Great Vowel Shift), will the reformed spelling change too? Will all those works be retranslated? Will we just decide to live without them? Let's hope not!
Sounds like so much ridiculous work, with few, if any, benefits, not to mention problems of implementation, choosing whose dialect to represent, etc.
May I ask how reform proponents would deal with these issues? I have more questions, of course, but I think these will suffice for now.
Enjoy,
Jon
|
