polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (11/13/84)
The discussion about reforming the spelling of English has,
in true Net fashion, consisted of assumptions being propounded
as truths. These assumptions include:
An alphabetic writing system is best if it is phonetic.
There is such a thing as a phonetic writing system.
English spelling must be phonetic.
Modern English has always been spelled the same way,
and any spelling reform will make English classics
inaccessible.
Our current writing system presents insuperable difficulties.
ANY spelling reform will be radical/arbirary/unaesthetic/bad.
Our current writing system presents no difficulties.
Any difficulties presented by our writing system are
inconsequential/worth the effort/a worthy challenge to
one's intellect.
I propose that we stop taking these assumptions for granted and examine
them in at least a near-scientific manner, supporting each point by
apropriate references.
IF there are any linguists on the Net, please don your asbestos
overalls and speak up.
--
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard
N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions
of me, my employer, or any AI project.benson@dcdwest.UUCP (Peter Benson) (11/15/84)
I am/was/have been a linguist and I no longer fight the
good fight over regularizing English spelling. In my opinion,
a significant portion of English words can be pronounced with
reference to a set of spelling-to-sound correspondences and
the others must be memorized. My memory lapses occasionally
and I misspell a word or two. I would be particularly careful
about such mistakes on papers to be published, resumes, and
other documents that tend to reflect on how complusive I am.
One of the problems I see with regard to phonetically correct
spelling is that it presumes that there is a correct
pronunciation. The dialect differences that exist among us
means that some one dialect would have to be selected and
elevated to the status of the received pronunciation.
I find intstitutions that do the selection, such as the French
Academy, stuffy beyond belief. Language changes. People
change. Spelling will probably change too, albeit somewhat
more slowly.
But if you can regularize the spelling, maybe afterwards you
can turn your attention to regularizing word usage. People
are always saying "imply" when they mean "infer" and vice
versa. Straighten them out, won't you. And then try to get
them to write clearer, y'know, less turgid prose, better
structure, cleaner form. If you can get engineers to spell
correctly, then these other tasks will be a piece of cake.
_
Peter Benson | ITT Defense Communications Division
(619)578-3080 | 10060 Carroll Canyon Road
decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson | San Diego, CA 92131
ucbvax!sdcsvax!dcdwest!benson |
--
_
Peter Benson | ITT Defense Communications Division
(619)578-3080 | 10060 Carroll Canyon Road
decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson | San Diego, CA 92131
ucbvax!sdcsvax!dcdwest!benson | grass@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/26/84)
<chomp> I am an ex-linguist (of the Slavic sub-species). The study of spelling and writing systems played only an infinitesimal portion of my studies. Linguists are, in general, much more interested in spoken language than in written language. Since a good deal of the study concentrates on phonology and morphology, probably IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) is a better medium for linguists than any real orthography. Even syntax study, if you go to "underlying representations", isn't very well served by conventional spellings. I don't know what branch of linguistics gets into orthography. In 8 years of study, I think we might have talked about this for only a few hours. Sociolinguists like talking about spelling reforms, etc. They certainly are a point where sociology (and politics) intersect with language. (That's why we can all flame about this stuff. Just try proposing reforms of the English verb tense formations, or advocating the return of the subjunctive). -- Judy