cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (06/14/85)
[] James Parker, writing in net.physics, raises this question: >why Why WHY can't we switch to spelling everything phonetically ??? >it's so simple. This seems more appropriate for net.nlang, so I am switching the newsgroup. There are several reasons why we don't, can't, and (maybe) shouldn't switch to spelling English phonetically. (1) The enormous cost of cutting over to a new system. (2) The delayed effect of having old documents become unreadable except by a few specialists. As it is, you can read Shakespeare without learning a new language, and you can read Chaucer with a little help and guesswork. If you had learned only to read a phonetic spelling of English, you could not read Dickens or the Declaration of Independence, in the original. (3) The difficulty of deciding what is "phonetic" in a language which, like English, has many regional varieties. A Londoner, a Canadian, and a Texan would phonetically spell things differently. I live in New Jersey, but if I travel to Texas I can read the street signs without a phrase book. (This has a side effect on the political cohesiveness of the United States.) (4) The loss of the non-phonetic information that our present spellings convey. I am not a linguist, so I shall probably stumble in explaining what I mean. (Sources include the introductory material in the _American_Heritage_Dictionary_.) The word "national" is derived from the word "nation" by adding a suffix a n d changing the first vowel. English speakers are competent to apply this rule (so we all "know" it in a practical sense, even if we have never thought about making a general statement of it), so when we encode speech by marks on paper, we use the same mark for the two vowels, trusting to the decoder to apply the rule. Our gain is that the relation between the two words is preserved in the encoding. Also, the spelling reminds us of the historical connection with words such as "natural" and "native", and this connection elucidates shades of meaning in all these words. It appears that there are often reasons for the way we do things, that are cogent even if we are unaware of them. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (06/27/85)
> From: John H. Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA> > > I know this kind of discussion should be kept off the list, > but I can't resist the opportunity to respond. The best reason that > I can think of not to change English spelling is that it reflects the rich > tradition of the language, which includes those of Celtic, Germanic, French, > Latin, and Greek (among others). A succession of conquerers, first > Anglo-Saxon, then Roman, then Norman all had a profound influence on the > language that developed into modern day English, and added their own words and > spellings to the lexicon. The diversity that results makes English one of the > most expressive languages for any form of literature in which lyrical qualities I couldn't resist as this is one of my pet peeves. Please explain how changing the spelling of words will damage their "expressive" or "lyrical" qualities. Also explain how the written form of a language can have any "lyrical" qualities. Remember that we are talking about changing marks on a piece of paper, not the spoken words those marks represent. Is spelling "phone" as "fone" less expressive? If they are pronounced the same can one be less "lyrical"? I am constantly finding people who take arms against any change of the written language. I have always felt that the written language is primarily a representation of the spoken one. There is an easy test to tell you how you think about it. Just decide which of the following sentences is "correct". Type a "L". (or) Type an "L". I know people who argue strongly for the first form because "L" does not begin with a vowel. Our language is replete with spellings based on archaic pronunciation or the spelling rules of a foreign language. Thus to know which "rule" to use for spelling a word, one has to know what language it originated in, when that was, and how usage has modified all of that. However don't worry to much about planned changes in the language. Even the English don't use the "English" system of measurements any more. If we won't give up the inch (2.54cm) then how could we give up "Wednesday" (wenz'di). Note followup-to. This is not physics. Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/01/85)
>I am constantly finding people who take arms against any change of the >written language. I have always felt that the written language is >primarily a representation of the spoken one. There is an easy test to >tell you how you think about it. Just decide which of the following >sentences is "correct". > > Type a "L". (or) Type an "L". > >I know people who argue strongly for the first form because "L" does >not begin with a vowel. "I have always felt that the written language is primarily a representation of the spoken one." Many respectable authorities would agree, but I think it is a dangerous misconception. Spoken language has primarily evolved in the context of conversation, with frequent opportunities for feedback and error correction, as well as continuous inclusion of out-of-channel signals (e.g. body language). Written language has evolved to handle the storage and transmission of ideas to distant places and times. If one theory of the origin of writing is correct, there was no initial connection with spoken language: writing carried the tallies of goods being transported. The carrier might be able to describe the contents of the wagon by looking at the tokens, but he could equally well do so by looking in the wagon. Would one then say that the wagon contents represented spoken language? Many very long-lived writing systems have only a tenuous connection with the sounds of language. Chinese (~5-6000 yr) and hieroglyphics (~4000 yr) both suggest the sounds of the desired words, sometimes, but they make no provision for computing the sounds of unknown words. One can read aloud texts written in either, but this does not mean that such reading is the primary function of the writing. Quasi-phonetic writing is a relatively new (~2-3000 yr) entry into the field of writing. It is not a "perfection" of writing methods that we can now, in some languages, deduce the sound of an unknown word from its written form. It is a convenience to do so, since we can communicate with someone at a distance and then later talk to them about the same novel topic. The structure of written language differs from that of spoken language in ways that are quite dramatic if you look/listen closely. Listen not to academics, but to everyday conversation (or even televised press conferences). How often do you hear clearly constructed sentences? How often do you hear isolated phrases, or incomplete structures that run into one another for a minute or two without pause? Could you read such stuff? Probably, with difficulty, but in conversation there is no problem because of the out-of-channel information and because of the various opportunities for feedback. Others have commented on the value of spelling homophones differently when the etymology is thereby clarified. As with phonetic spelling it is a convenience, not a necessity. There are doubtless many ways English spelling could be improved, by which I mean made to convey more rapidly and easily the writer's intentions, or to be easy to learn. Phonetization is technically impossible because of horrendous dialect variations, but internal consistency could be improved. I'd hate to try to do it, and I would be very concerned about the problems of reading out-dated materials if many spellings changed. But in the long run it will happen, I suppose, and it will probably be for the good. But don't make the mistake of thinking writing is just a transcription of what might otherwise be speech. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/02/85)
> > From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) > Subject: Re: Re: Credibility > Message-ID: <483@oliveb.UUCP> > Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 19:24:30 CDT > > > From: John H. Heimann <jheimann@BBNCCY.ARPA> > > > > I know this kind of discussion should be kept off the list, > > but I can't resist the opportunity to respond. The best reason that > > I can think of not to change English spelling is that it reflects the rich > > tradition of the language, which includes those of Celtic, Germanic, French, > > Latin, and Greek (among others). A succession of conquerers, first > > Anglo-Saxon, then Roman, then Norman all had a profound influence on the > > language that developed into modern day English, and added their own words and > > spellings to the lexicon. ... > > I couldn't resist as this is one of my pet peeves. > > Please explain how changing the spelling of words will damage their > "expressive" or "lyrical" qualities. Also explain how the written form > of a language can have any "lyrical" qualities. Remember that we are > talking about changing marks on a piece of paper, not the spoken words > those marks represent. Is spelling "phone" as "fone" less expressive? > If they are pronounced the same can one be less "lyrical"? > > I am constantly finding people who take arms against any change of the > written language. I have always felt that the written language is > primarily a representation of the spoken one. ... Then you should agree with the following point. Let's set aside (for now) questions about "Lyrical qualities" and also the _historical_ side of etymology. Look just at the synchronic side of etymology, the expression of what words we take to be related. Clearly it's important to the way we use the language that we take certain words to be related despite differences in form caused by inflection and derivation. One argument against most phonetic/phonemic spelling schemes is that they obscure the relatedness. This argument says nothing against the suggestion that 'photo' should be 'foto'. But notice that a sound-spelling of 'photographic' might be 'fot@graefIk' , wher I'm using @ for reduced vowels like the schwa there, and ae for what would be a single symbol. Shouldn't the second vowel be written the same in these two words, even though pronounced differently, in order to maintain their relationship? Similarly (I'm focussing on the end of the word, and not trying for a good transcription at the beginning) would it really make sense to spell 'elektrIk' but 'elektrIsitiy' [asking about the s ~ k ]? It's not just a weird peculiarity, or stumbling block for spellers, that English writing has the letter 'c' with two different sounds -- it developed exactly because we have so many sets of related words where k sound alternates with s; letter 'c' gives a uniform way of spelling these that alerts us to possible alternation. The same consideration applies to the sound alternation recorded with letter g. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (07/02/85)
I'm not sure whether this directly answers the questions about
"expressive" and "lyrical" qualities of the English language. However,
the current, inconsistent spelling rules DO provide information to a
reader running into a new word. I can tell by looking at the word
"phoneme" that it probably has something to do with sound, as it
contains the root "phon", which is a common Greek root relating to sound
or hearing. If it were spelled "fone" I would not guess this relation,
since Greek-derived words use "ph" for the "f" sound.
True, in spoken English this information is lost. This also is the case
for "to", "two", and "too", but we manage due to the addition of
inflection and body language. In addition, in many cases of spoken
language, the listener can ask the speaker what is meant, which is not
possible in written language. In general, written and spoken languages
are necessarily different, and decisions about one should not be based
on the other.
Another way in which retaining the old spellings helps is in learning
foreign languages. For instance, it is more obvious that the German
word "nicht" is the translation of "night" than it would be if the
latter were spelled "nite". Unfortunately, this only really works when
the word comes from that language; for instance, the latter spelling
looks closer to the French work "nuit".
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/02/85)
>Jerry Aguirre: >Please explain how changing the spelling of words will damage their Pliyz 0kspleyn haw cheynj1ng th0 spel1ng 0v w0rdz wil daem0j dher >"expressive" or "lyrical" qualities. Also explain how the written form "0kspres0v" or "lir0k0l" kwal0t1z. Olso 0kspleyn how th0 rit0n form >of a language can have any "lyrical" qualities. Remember that we are ov 0 laengw0j kon haev en1 lir0k0l kwol0t1z. R0memb0r dhaet wi ar >talking about changing marks on a piece of paper, not the spoken words taok1ng 0bawt cheynj1ng marks aon 0 piys ov peyp0r, nat dh0 spowk0n wordz >those marks represent. Is spelling "phone" as "fone" less expressive? dhowz marks repr0zent. Iz spel1ng "fown" aez "fown" les 0kspres0v? >If they are pronounced the same can one be less "lyrical"? If dhe ar pr0nawnst dh0 seym k1n w0n bi les "lir0k0l"? When orthography degrades to the level of English's, it starts to resemble pictographic schemes. Note how much meaningful information is lost in the phonetic representations below: degrade:degradation => d0greyd:degr0deysh0n discrete:discretion => d0skriyt:d0skresh0n phonic:phoneme:euphony => fan0k:fowniym:yuwf0n1 induce:induction => 1nduws:1nd0ksh0n decide:decision => d0sayd:d0sizh0n Such respellings destroy the link between such words and their classical roots and, perhaps more importantly, with similar stems in the modern international word stock as well, a feature that dramatically increases one's reading vocabulary. Our bad spelling, no doubt the worst obstacle to newcomers to English, would appear to aid the acquistion of written vocabulary, at the cost of knowledge about its pronunciation, at least for anyone who is already literate in some european language. And there is a complementary payoff for school children, who must spend at least 6-12 years in order to gain literate proficiency [almost as difficult as Chinese], provided their areas of interest have connections with international professional communities. Consequently, our spelling would seem to work in the interest of maintaining international artistic, political, economic, scientific, &c. jargon. Assuming that our messy orthography can be helpful, who loses? Naturally, anyone who is illiterate (including professional illiterati), or of limited linguistic worldviews, or with purely non-european vocabulary. and especially the uneducated and the poor. -michael
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/04/85)
[][][]
Michael Ellis and I have now both independently posted argument
number 3 against a one-sound-one-symbol scheme for reforming English
spelling (independent postings that crossed. I agree with michael so
often here, why do I think he's so wrong in net.philosop? I'm
counting as follows:
1. 'Lyrical qualities'.
2. Preserve historical heritage.
3. Loss of indications of synchronic relatedness.
Rather than `phonetic' I'm calling the proposals `one sound one symbol' to
be neutral about whether the proposal would be narrow phonetic, broad
phonetic, phonemic, or something else. The objections apply to all of
those variations; and they don't apply to more modest, piecemeal reform
schemes.
Now I'd like to add argument #4:
What regional / social dialect would you take as the standard
on which spelling would be based? Then what about children from other
dialects? Are they going to miss out on all the supposed benefits of
of the reform scheme? I suppose they'll just have to learn to spell
according to someone else's pronunciation. Or better yet, get them
to talk according to the new standard dialect that's been enshrined in
the spelling. After all, everything would be so much neater and
cleaner if we all spoke the same way.
Possible attempted response: The symbols would have different
values for different dialects. Consider people who say `pen' with a
rather high vowel, like 'pin'. For them, the symbol chosen to represent
the "epsilon vowel" would just mean a higher vowel than for the, um,
majority dialect. But everybody would still have a self-consistent system,
with one-sound-one-symbol.
Answer to possible response: Nice try, but phonological variation
isn't that regular. The way a sound varies from one dialect to another
depends a great deal on its phonological environment within the word. In
other words, you cannot simultaneously attain the following two goals:
a) uniform orthography for all English speakers (or even all
American English speakers)
b) each speaker or each dialect community has a self-consistent
system of mapping the uniform symbols one-to-one into local
sounds.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarwcs@ho95e.UUCP (x0705) (07/08/85)
> Our bad spelling, no doubt the worst obstacle to newcomers to English, > would appear to aid the acquistion of written vocabulary, at the cost of > knowledge about its pronunciation, at least for anyone who is already > literate in some european language. > > And there is a complementary payoff for school children, who must spend > at least 6-12 years in order to gain literate proficiency [almost as > difficult as Chinese], provided their areas of interest have connections >...... > -michael I suppose this is worth throwing my 2c in. First of all, while it would be nice if English spelling were more phonetic, it is much more critical that it be relatively uniform. Our pronunciation certainly isn't, and any one group that claims to speak "the true pronunciation" and therefore replaces current spelling with "the true phonetic spelling" is going to render illiterate either me or most of Australia (not to mention Louisiana, Maryland's Eastern Shore, the Geordies on England....) Foreigners already have to deal with pronunciation problems; "rationalizing" our spelling system would help only a bit. (Actually, it would make it a lot worse, if American pronunications were used - very few of our vowel sounds are pure sounds; most of them are at least diphthongs, and vary considerably between regional accents.) As for school children, I was fortunate to learn reading during one of the pro-phonics cycles, from reasonable teachers - most of my classmates by the end of second grade could spell 95% of the words we spoke. Bill Stewart -- Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/09/85)
--
The debate over reform of English orthography has popped up in this
newsgroup many times. Although I favor leaving egregious enough
alone (and simply because it *IS* egregious, thereforo hard to learn,
and I disapprove of making things easy, especially delightfully
perverted customs like spelling), I suppose the logical compromise
is to have two alphabets. The Japanese have been getting along
quite nicely this way for quite some time.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 09 Jul 85 [21 Messidor An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7753 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/18/85)
In article <759@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes: > This argument says nothing against the suggestion that 'photo' should >be 'foto'. But notice that a sound-spelling of 'photographic' might be >'fot@graefIk' , wher I'm using @ for reduced vowels like the schwa there, I have long been a bit annoyed at the insistence of linguists (phonologists?) that vowels which are "reduced" are all pronounced the same. I don't think this is actually true, at least not all the time. In the example above, the second "o" in "photographic" may be pronounced as a schwa, a long o, or anywhere in between. So why not spell it as a long o, recognizing that speakers will reduce it to varying extents, including all the way to a schwa? Let me suggest an experiment. Write down the word "photographic", and ask a number of people how it is pronounced. I suspect many if not most will clearly pronounce the second o as a long o. Granted that those same people reduce it to a schwa in ordinary conversation. But is pronunciation in ordinary conversation the only appropriate standard?
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/21/85)
Frank Adams observes, correctly, that the second vowel in 'photographic'can be pronounced in a variety of ways. So he objects to my calling it
a "reduced vowel". Okay, sometimes some people give it full value as a tense
vowel of some sort (but not an [o] like the first vowel). I'm not sure, then,
what he's upset about, or what this has to do with the original point that this
example was raised for. It was meant to illustrate one of the arguments againsta one-sound-one-symbol system of spelling. The argument is that there are
changes in the pronunciation of sounds in corresponding positions of words
related by inflection or derivation; therefore, a one-sound-one-symbol
system will obscure these relationships. {I call it a o-s-o-s system
rather than "phonetic spelling" because most of the arguments on either
side apply equally well or poorly regardless of how the sounds would be
individuated: narrow phonetic, broad phonetic, phonemic. Choosing among
those would be a secondary question, of interest only to those who are convincedthat an o-s-o-s system of some sort is desirable.}
The argument can be made with lots of other examples; and it doesn't
have to use reduced vowels, if that's what's bothering F.A. Look at
ethni[k] and ethni[s]ity, or the many similar -i[k]~i[s]ity pairs. Do you
really want to see them spelled with different letters to reflect that
alternation, or do you see some value to a letter which (in the right
contexts) *means* "a sound chosen (predictably) from the k~s alternation"?
A lot depends on saying "the right contexts", and I'm not opposed to some
measure of spelling reform which might include changing 'c' to 'k' or
's' in words where it's constant. My objections have been raised only
against proposals for spelling reform based on strict application of
o-s-o-s.
This argument, and the one about dialects, are the ones I take
most seriously, since they show the negative impact of pRoposed strict
reforms upon those groups which the proposals are meant to help --
learners, both native speakers and s.o.l.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmarludemann@ubc-cs.UUCP (Peter Ludemann) (07/21/85)
In article <495@ihu1m.UUCP> gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >... I suppose the logical compromise >is to have two alphabets. The Japanese have been getting along >quite nicely this way for quite some time. You've got to be kidding. First of all, the 'two alphabets' in Japanese - hiragana and katakana have the same sound values. I'm not going to get into their history, but modern usage is mainly to use hiragana for Japanese words and katakana for foreign words (somewhat like our italics). Of course, you could be meaning the usage of the dreaded 'kanji' (that's Chinese characters). The high rate of Japanese literacy is in spite of these, not because of them. Korea has officially stopped using them in order to promote literacy (and the Korean writing system is simpler than the Japanese one, even with Chinese characters). Just a few examples. When the characters for the cities Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe get combined, they become Kei-Han-Shin. The two characters in 'Kyoto' can also both be pronounced 'miyako' (they also both have the same meaning: capital city or metropolis). I was once confused by a note a neighbour left me which contained the characters 'one' and 'inch'. I later found out it was not pronounced 'issun' as it "should be", but 'chotto' and means 'just a little'. I (and anyone else who's tried to learn Japanese) could go on and on. Japanese orthography is one of the main stumbling blocks in my study of the language.
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/24/85)
All this talk about spelling reform prompts me to repost
this article:
In a letter to 'The Economist' in Readers Digest (ages ago),
M.J.Shields, of Jarrow, England, points out that George Bernard
Shaw, among others, urged spelling reform, suggesting that one
letter be altered or deleted each year, thus giving the populace
time to absorb the change...
* * * *
"For example, in Year 1 that useless letter 'c' would be
dropped to be replased either by 'k' or 's', and likewise 'x' would
no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which 'c' would
be retained would be the 'ch' formation, which will be dealt with
later. Year 2 might reform 'w' spelling, so that 'which' and 'one'
would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish 'y'
replasing it with 'i' and Iear 4 might fiks the 'g-j' anomali wonse
and for all.
"Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears
6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist
konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik
ius ov thi ridandant letez 'c', 'y' and 'x' - bai now jast a memori
in the maindz ov ould doderez - tu riplais 'ch', 'sh', and 'th'
rispektivli.
"Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking
werld...
Iorz feixfuli,
M.J. Yilz"
--
scc!steiny
Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software
109 Torrey Pine Terrace
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/25/85)
My comments on photo vs. photography were indeed primarily a digression. Ethnic vs. ethnicity is a better example of the kind of conguence which would be lost in a one-sound-one-spelling (o-s-o-s) system. I agree that losing that conguence would be a real loss. But I think the gains would far outweigh such losses. We are talking about literally hundreds of millions of people who cannot spell many common words. Making certain connections between related words a bit more obscure seems like a small price to pay to alleviate that. I submit that the mental effort required to learn and memorize such cases (as ethnic/ethnicity) is far smaller than the effort required to learn how to spell. Russian has similar consonant shifts, which are reflected by changing the consonant. I found no great problem dealing with them. Does anyone know how much of a problem this is in general? The fact that different dialects pronounce various words differently seems to me to be a more potent objection to o-s-o-s. I still think it is insufficient. I would take the following approach: first, identify the major dialects (perhaps American, British, and Australian. I know each of these has many variations, but a believe each has a more or less standard version -- if only that used on national television.) Now, try to come up with a set of letters which represent the vast majority of words, with the pronunciation in each major dialect determined from the spelling. Finally, compromise the cases which don't fit. This would not be a perfect o-s-o-s system. But I think, once the transition was complete, it would be infinitely preferable to the current chaos.
jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) (07/26/85)
[Just who was that masked line eater, anyway?] In <516@scc.UUCP>, Don Steiny writes: > All this talk about spelling reform prompts me to repost > this article: > > [Insert example of spelling reform proposal] And the truly strange thing about this is that one can actually *read* the referenced article! (If one starts at the beginning, that is.) I find that absolutely astounding! (Was GBS on to something?) (What, if anything, does this say about the "phonetic" [if that's the right word, I am not a linguist] basis of the English language?) -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd) The above statements are only my personal opinion, which I will flatly deny if questioned.
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (07/29/85)
[] People interested in spelling reform might want to take a look at the Preface to the 12th ed. of the Dewey Decimal Classification. Melvil (who preferred to spell his last name Dui), was enthusiastic about spelling reform and introduced more spelling revisions into each edition. The publishers reverted to conventional spelling with the 13th or 14th ed. -- Melinda Shore ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor University of Chicago Computation Center Staff.Melinda%chip@UChicago.Bitnet