|
|
Radical spelling reform or partial modification?
Easterner:
Is it desirable to have one unique set of letters for every language? I think letters with diacritics make a written text of that special languages respectively look very interesting. Now, we have ''modern'' times and devising special writing systems for languages not yet having a writing system makes it more difficult for the people speaking that languages to learn one of the worldwide used languages as English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French, which all use the latin characters. Indeed, you can invent a special letter for a peculiar sound of a language, but then, one time, there will be people trying to omit that special letter because it is special, as is the case with the german ß letter. This letter is a wonderful aestetic letter, and I don't understand why it is hated so much by several people. Indeed, german spelling reform makes german texts more look like english ones.
Written language is a language by its own, not just a code for sounds. Orthography also serves to supply the reader with context, which is clear for the participants of a face-to-face conversation, but not clear to the reader of a text which maybe is several decades or centuries old or lives at the same time but in another place. Orthography can tell you about the origin of words. Orthography can help you in reading and grasping the meaning, it's not just a matter of coding sounds. A similar problem arises with coding of numbers: You can code it by just using 0 and 1, as in computers, or by using ten number symbols. By using binary code, you will get confused by the masses of 0 and 1, but you have to learn only 2 symbols, but, if you increase your learning effort just a little, learning ten symbols, recognizing the numbers built of that ten symbols is much easier. Increasing the number of basic number symbols (german: Ziffern) beyond a certain limit will make the whole thing difficult to learn and to apply as well. So, for languages like Englisch, having about 26 characters is a good choice. The maximum amount of characters is also limited by the biology of humans, because we have just ten fingers with only limited moving capabilities. If the amount of characters would be much higher, we wouldn't be able to build or use a typewriter in the way we do now. So why not use two or there characters in sequence for rendering one sound?
About spelling reforms: We just talked about sounds and how they are rendered by a special spelling, but spelling reforms can have other reasons, which might not always be obvious: There might be political (language planning) or ideolgical reasons, see for exemple the situation of orthography in norway. Also german orthographic reform is due to political and ideolgical reasons: The state wanted to gain control over orthography.
''The problem in the particular case of English is first of all that there is a lack of consensus about the necessity of a spelling reform. Second, I agree that the present spelling is an unifying feature for all pronunciations of English, which are otherwise largely varied.''
Yes, Easterner, these are two important points against English spelling reformes. But it's not only the lack of consensus about the necessity, but also the lack of consensus about the contents of such a reform. For different Englisch speaking people all over the world, not necessary native speakers, there will be different ''optimal'' spellings for english, also depending on the dialect used. The problem to find the ''best'' spelling is just unsolvalble! It wouldn't be the real thing, it wouldn't look natural but artificial, and humans don't like that. Englisch -- and classical german -- orthography are grown over centuries, learnt, used and optimized by millions and millions of people, even under bad circumstances, without technical support like typewriters or computers.
''This is why I think that, despite its apparent inconsistencies, English spelling should be left intact. I also think it is wrong to focus on the inconsistencies and forget that in most areas English spelling is rather consistent.''
I agree! There most likely are inconsistencies in any language, because of language development, laonwords, etc. If you try to get rid of them with a reform, you sooner or later will get new inconcistencies. So you must do another reform, leading to that what I call the ''everlasting reform''.
''Another argument - which can also be cited in connection with the German spelling reform - is that spelling is not just a practical but also a cultural matter, to a very large extent.''
Yes, I agree!
''Once a spelling - whether more or less "successful" - has been widely established, anything more than a slight change is likely to cause resistance, even if this is not conscious (like the fact that pupils get confused about the "new" rules, as somebody mentioned in connection with German).''
Even a very little change can cause massive protests: Two or tree decades ago, they wanted the word ''Kaiser'' to be written with ''ei'' instead of ''ai''. See the protests on changing the chinese character for ''home''.
''I found the discussion on the problems connected with the German spelling reform very valuable in this respect, because it is a good practical example - imagine what would happen if somebody tampered with English spelling, which is a lot less "regular" than that of German.''
Yes, classical german spelling is much more regular then english spelling!
See also the effects of norwegian spelling reforms.
>>You wrote, "So, the easiest solution is not to perform spelling reforms on languages which already have a highly appreciated orthography!". If you really think so, you are just postponing things!
Certainly not! Reread my argumentation thoroughly! The process of writing is not the problem, but the process of reading. Maybe you don't know about such things. To get aquainted to that, try to learn German ''Deutsche Einheitsstenographie'' or Englisch shorthand. Than you start to learn to read an already well known language from the beginning.<<
The difference between the old orthography and the new one is not so extremely huge.
>>I prefer "rau" over "rauh". I would use "Hobbys" instead of "Hobbies".
The h introduces a ''Oberlänge'' into the word, so you can better read it. There's also a little aspiration! ''Hobbys'' maybe introduces a ambiguity in pronounciation, because y sometimes is pronounces ü or almost like ü. In English, y becomes ies if the word is set into the plural. It's a rule. So why not having rules which hold in the orthographies of many (related) languages.<<
You just don't want to see your traditional "rauh" be changed by force. You cannot persuade people who oppose you. However, it is logical to say "y sometimes is pronounces ü or almost like ü". If so, "Hobby" should be spelled like "Hobbie". Furthermore, "Handy" should be "Händie", the meaning of which is different from what "handy" in English means.
>>I bought a new dictionary of German. There are cross-references! But I am not so pessimistic.
I don't know what you mean by cross references. But must likely, you have to buy a new dictionary soon! That's reform!<<
I bought a dictionary with which we can reach "Gräuel" even if you first see "Greuel". In Germany, aren't there any cross-references between old spellings and new ones in dictionarys? If there aren't, that's the problem, because the coming generation cannot easily read texts written in the old orthography.
Personally, I cannot believe "grau" and "Gräuel" are etymologically related. Even if they were related, I would prefer "Greuel". A-Umlaut(ä) is sometimes no good to me.
''The difference between the old orthography and the new one is not so extremely huge.''
You claim that! You, being Japanese and living in Japan, must know that, me, being German native speaker and living in Germany, ...
Do you like your personality to be changed by force? Why should I want to persuade people who oppose me?
You haven't yet get the point: Spelling is not intented to code the sounds of a word. If there's a loanword, why should it's spelling be changed if almost everybody knows about the correct spelling in the source language, which, for the word hobby, is English. Why needlessly making additional and senseless effort? I would prefer the word ''Mobiltelephon'' or just ''Telephon''. If others prefer other words, even if this words does mean something different in the source language, I can't change this.
I never bought a reformed dictionary. I don't need that! I have a ''Schülerduden'' form 1969, that's enough! Why should I want to get confused by cross references? Reformed orthography means being forced to have much more effort for getting lower quality results. That's regressive!
I also don't believe that the two words mentioned are ethymological related. The word you prefer is the correct one according to classical german orthography!
But, besides this, do you believe german orthography should accomodate to that what you think is good to you?
As you pointed out, Easterner, there is a lack of consensus about the necessity of a spelling reform. You wrote that "the present spelling is an unifying feature for all pronunciations of English, which are otherwise largely varied". If so, why not refine the unifying feature for all pronunciations of English?
Soft C and hard C are right. Homophones should be distinguished. Sent/scent/cent. Meat/meet/mete. Steal/steel/stele. As for "bow" and "bough", they should be distinguished. But generally OUGH words should be modifyed. You think "it is wrong to focus on the inconsistencies and forget that in most areas English spelling is rather consistent". I think spelling reform is about reducing inconsistencys, so we have to focus on them. What is consistent should be left intact.
"How would you get hundreds of millions of English speakers to use even the most perfect new orthography?" English spelling reform is clearly different from German one. Nobody wants law enforcement that will create resistance. We cannot and should not FORCE people to use reformed spellings. If a dictator forced people to do something horrible, that should be condemned. But I AM NOT! If we could spell "peeple", "shues", "doagh", "dout", etc., as we can spell "jail" insted of "gaol"! I am a dreamer and I would like to share something with people who have the same dream. Some people like it, and others don't. This is natural.
If loanwords are not assimilated, they retain their original spellings. And borrowed words from modern languages should retain their spellings.
Bardioc, I am not a speaker of German, but you are. So, you are passionate! I am astounded to know that you never bought a reformed dictionary! That means you don't know well about some serious defects of the new orthography! I will show you an example.
There is an adjective "aufsehenerregend". This is traditionally "zusammengeschriebt"(written together as one word). In German, adjectives are also used as adverbs. But according to the new orthography, it is spelled like "Aufsehen erregend". How do we use these two words as an adverb?
"Der Bericht war Aufsehen erregend." I would think whether this "Aufsehen" should be Dativ or Akkusativ. If the word modifys "erregend", it works like an adverb. If I were a new learner, I would think "Aufsehen" is Nominativ and "erregend" is an adverb, which will lead to misinterpretation.
Can we write "der Aufsehen erregende Bericht"? This may need a kind of grammatical analysis more than we actually need. If we write "der aufsehenerregende Bericht", this looks grammatically very simple.
If we try to use "Aufsehen erregend" as an adverb, how do we ...? That's why "aufsehenerregend" is better than "Aufsehen erregend".
This is a learner's point of view.
I wrote, >>Personally, I cannot believe "grau" and "Gräuel" are etymologically related. Even if they were related, I would prefer "Greuel". A-Umlaut(ä) is sometimes no good to me. <<
You wrote, >>I also don't believe that the two words mentioned are ethymological related. The word you prefer is the correct one according to classical german orthography!
But, besides this, do you believe german orthography should accomodate to that what you think is good to you? <<
That's very difficult. Do you believe your good old German orthography will come back to common people? Do you believe in "democracy"?
>>Do you like your personality to be changed by force? Why should I want to persuade people who oppose me? <<
Your German language was made to change by force. Then, if some publishers still continue to use the old one, will they be ordered to suspend business? If that happens, there is no democracy in Germany any more! Are you pessimistic about the future?
On another note, <ui> for /U/ in my orthographic scheme for North American English has been replaced with <uo>, just to be more consistent with the use of <oa> for /O/, as <uo> implies a vowel that is lower than <uu>/<u>, which marks /u/, and /U/ is lower than /u/, in addition to being lax rather than tense. Of course, this results in some changes such as the word "gooey" being <gui> rather than <guï> and the word "duo" being <duö> rather than <duo>.
''As you pointed out, Easterner, there is a lack of consensus about the necessity
of a spelling reform. You wrote that "the present spelling is an unifying
feature for all pronunciations of English, which are otherwise largely varied".
If so, why not refine the unifying feature for all pronunciations of English?''
Eito, do you never learn? The way you argue makes me think that you don't know
what you are taking about.
''You think "it is wrong to focus on the inconsistencies and forget that in most
areas English spelling is rather consistent". ... I think spelling reform is
about reducing inconsistencys, so we have to focus on them. What is consistent
should be left intact.''
So inconsistent spelling is intact, too! Spelling reforms can't reduce
inconsistancies, but introduce new ones, add variants etc.
''"How would you get hundreds of millions of English speakers to use even the
most perfect new orthography?" English spelling reform is clearly different
from German one. Nobody wants law enforcement that will create resistance.''
There is no English spelling reform, fortunably! Do you think that only law
enforcement will create resistance? Is there an orthographic law in germany?
A law is made by parliament, but the German orthographic reform was not made
after performing a parliamentary law giving process, but by order of the
ministers of education. There was no parlamentary order for the ministers of
education to elaborate a spelling reform, as fas as is known! And if there was
one, but was not said in the public, than, see my opinion on democracy in
germany. But I don't believe that there was a secret order!
''We cannot and should not FORCE people to use reformed spellings. If a dictator
forced people to do something horrible, that should be condemned. But I AM NOT!
... I am a dreamer and I would like to share something with people who have the
same dream. Some people like it, and others don't. This is natural.''
You know about the possibility of nightmares?
Once again, do you know what you are talking about? If there are reformed
spellings, you force the people to read that reformed spelling. Once you have
learnt to read, you are going to read automatically, if you see something
written. So performing a spelling reform in every case means forcing people to
read odd spellings. Maybe most of them don't write them, but all people are
forced to read them! Reading is also using orthography!
Dreaming of orthographic reformes is like dreaming of becoming an orthographic
dictator, because the people will be forced to read reformed spellings! There
are always other people sharing this dream of power over others, that's quite
natural!
''If loanwords are not assimilated, they retain their original spellings.
And borrowed words from modern languages should retain their spellings.''
This would be wise, indeed!''
''Bardioc, I am not a speaker of German, but you are. So, you are passionate!
I am astounded to know that you never bought a reformed dictionary! That means
you don't know well about some serious defects of the new orthography! I will
show you an example.
I know about the serious defects of the so called ''new orthography'', which
isn't really new, but tries to reintroduce spellings the natural developement
of the language has passed over for a long time. So you admit that there are
serious defects on that reform! Maybe you learnt something, however! There are
many websites discussion the defects of the reform, see the links I provided!
''There is an adjective "aufsehenerregend". This is traditionally
"zusammengeschriebt"(written together as one word).''
You say (and write) ''zusammengeschrieben''!
Das Wort ''aufsehenerregend'' wird traditionell zusammengeschrieben.
''In German, adjectives are also used as adverbs. But according to the new
orthography, it is spelled like "Aufsehen erregend". How do we use these two
words as an adverb?''
How can I know, you're the one who constantly recomment spelling reforms!
''"Der Bericht war Aufsehen erregend." I would think whether this "Aufsehen"
should be Dativ or Akkusativ. If the word modifys "erregend", it works like
an adverb. If I were a new learner, I would think "Aufsehen" is Nominativ
and "erregend" is an adverb, which will lead to misinterpretation.''
Never wasted my time on thinking on problems I don't have with
classical german orthography. Yes, as I already told you, reforms will lead to
misinterpretations!
''Can we write "der Aufsehen erregende Bericht"? This may need a kind of
grammatical analysis more than we actually need. If we write
"der aufsehenerregende Bericht", this looks grammatically very simple.''
You can always write such things. You'd better asked about if this makes sense!
You want to do grammatical analysis (I'm not a linguist, so don't ask me on
grammatical analysis!) on subjects which are made to lack sense and grammatical
correctness.
''If we try to use "Aufsehen erregend" as an adverb, how do we ...? That's
why "aufsehenerregend" is better than "Aufsehen erregend".''
''This is a learner's point of view.''
So draw the conclusion that german orthographic reform should be terminated and
classical german orthography should be restored!
In classical german orthography, there's a word called ''krebserregend'' meaning
carcinogen, carcinogenic or cancer-causing. If you write it in two words, the
meaning is changed somewhat!
''I wrote, >>Personally, I cannot believe "grau" and "Gräuel" are
etymologically related. Even if they were related, I would prefer "Greuel".
A-Umlaut(ä) is sometimes no good to me. <<''
As English and German are two related languages, it might be helpful
to compare: German ''grau'' is british englisch ''grey'' and american english
''gray''. German noun ''Greuel'' better ''Greueltat'' is english ''atrocity''
(found that in LEO online dictionary) or ''cruelty'' (this would be to my mind)
an acceptable translation for ''Greuel''. American English tends to pronounce
''a'' like german ''ä'', so that might be the reason of AE gray!
Reformed orthography mixes up spellings so you can't see possible etymologic
relations anymore.
''You wrote, >>I also don't believe that the two words mentioned are
ethymological related. The word you prefer is the correct one according
to classical german orthography! But, besides this, do you believe
german orthography should accomodate to that what you think is good to you? <<
That's very difficult. Do you believe your good old German orthography will
come back to common people? Do you believe in "democracy"?''
It would be interesting to see if there is an etymological relation!
I hope that classical german orthography will be restored. Classical german
orthography is not gone, as your posting might imply. It's still used by
the majority of the people and in the most popular newspapers. You can't
exchange orthography in a society like you exchange a disk on your computer!
Is democracy something you should believe in? No, I don't believe in democracy!
''>>Do you like your personality to be changed by force? Why should I want to persuade people who oppose me? <<
Your German language was made to change by force.''
Our classical orthography was changed by force! They tried and maybe still try
to change the language by talking some other languange than ''Hochdeutsch'' in
many TV broadcasts. I don't know what is now because I stopped watching TV in
2000. I also stopped listening to german radio broadcasts. That's not just
because of the language used, but mostly because of the silly contents.
''Then, if some publishers still continue to use the old one, will they be
ordered to suspend business? If that happens, there is no democracy in Germany
any more!''
Most likely not. According to the judgement of the federal court
(''Verfassungsgericht'') after leaving school and outside of a department
office, everybody is free to write as he or she likes. To my mind,
in Germany was never democracy, is no democracy and will never be democracy!
''Are you pessimistic about the future?''
Yes!
''You just don't want to see your traditional "rauh" be changed by force. You cannot persuade people who oppose you. However, it is logical to say "y sometimes is pronounces ü or almost like ü". If so, "Hobby" should be spelled like "Hobbie". Furthermore, "Handy" should be "Händie", the meaning of which is different from what "handy" in English means.''
Eito: Human beings are not logical, don't behave logical ..., so how can you expect that their languages will be logical? And which kind of logic? See Aymara language for a language with inherent three-value logic! What might seem logical to you might not seem logical to a native speaker. You try to enforce your logic on other languages and their spelling system. Thinking that way, you never will really learn a foreign language.
To Bardioc
>>Eito, do you never learn? The way you argue makes me think that you don't know what you are taking about. <<
Same with you!
>>There is no English spelling reform, fortunably! Do you think that only law enforcement will create resistance? Is there an orthographic law in germany? A law is made by parliament, but the German orthographic reform was not made after performing a parliamentary law giving process, but by order of the ministers of education. There was no parlamentary order for the ministers of education to elaborate a spelling reform, as fas as is known! And if there was one, but was not said in the public, than, see my opinion on democracy in germany. But I don't believe that there was a secret order!<<
Very sorry for my misunderstanding. Very happy there is no orthographic law in Germany.
>>Once again, do you know what you are talking about? If there are reformed spellings, you force the people to read that reformed spelling. Once you have learnt to read, you are going to read automatically, if you see something written. So performing a spelling reform in every case means forcing people to read odd spellings. Maybe most of them don't write them, but all people are forced to read them! Reading is also using orthography! <<
Oh, you wrote, "forcing people to read odd spellings"! According to your logic, you can also say, "If there are misspellings, that means you force people to read odd spellings." You must be a sheer purist!
>>Dreaming of orthographic reformes is like dreaming of becoming an orthographic dictator, because the people will be forced to read reformed spellings! There are always other people sharing this dream of power over others, that's quite natural!<<
If I were a "orthographic dictator", I would not have this discussion.
|