X-Envelope-to: WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"WORDS-L@UGA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:42:00 EDT
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         BUHITELA%SUNYJCC.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject: Re: nashunl akadamee, 'gin

From:   NAME: Les Buhite
        FUNC: Visual and Performing Arts
        TEL: (716) 665-5220                   <BUHITE, LES AT A1 AT JCCV03>
To:     IN%"WORDS-L@UGA"@MRGATE@JCCW22


<>multiplication tables.   Had the dispersal of dictionaries been held off
<>another generation, perhaps American orthography at least would have become
<>more phonetic, to the relief of millions.
<>
<>L.

<Really. And whose phonetics would we have used?  Yours, mine, Natalie's, my
<in-laws (strong Mass accent), Ed Koch's, Margaret Thatchers, Tushar's?
<
<To put the phonetic theory to rest, try reading something even in your own
<dialect using the IPA or even the English alphabet.  Now, try it in Natalie's
<or mine.
The intent of the statement was that a lot of the silent vowels may have
dropped out if given the opportunity. I'm told (and I presume other members
can confirm or deny this) that Russian, for example, is at least mostly
phonetic.  IPA is tough the first couple times you try it.  So is Russian and
Greek and Arabic and Hebrew and English and so on. Once you learn the alphabet
and start sounding out words and practice a bit, the learning curve eases.
Vocabulary and grammar are another matter.

Everybody on the above list who pronounces
the /gh/ in /thought/ raise your hands.  And then there's /knight/ (beloved
of Monty Python fans). And poor Geof Chaucer managed without charmers
like /tongue/ and /island/, having to settle for nonsensical spellings
such as /tung/ and /iland/... (okay, I'm guessing Geof used them; they were
at least current with the old plagiarist).

Off the subject for a moment, there were also useless letters like
thorn/theta and -ng (an elegant diamond suspended between earth and sky,
rich in meaning for this season) now lost except in IPA. We could also do
well with a /sh/, and lose the /u/ following /Q/. (Reminds me of the argument
about efficiency in language a few days ago, though in regard
to tenses. I never claim to be consistent, only consistently argumentative!)

Dozens, if not hundreds, of newspapers are published
in non-English languages using latin alphabet transliterations.  Many are
written phonetically and the spelling of the word may be different in
each occurance in a single article.  And somehow those kooky natives
muddle through.

<Two of the functions of American English spelling are to makes things easy on
<the reader (any give literate person will read hundreds or even thousands of
<more words than than they will ever write) and to show relationships (which
<again, makes things easy on the reader).
<
<sign        design         designate         signature
<^^^^          ^^^^           ^^^^            ^^^^
<sine        duzine         desugnate         signuchur
<^^^^          ^^^^           ^^^^            ^^^^

<This is just a minor example of the relationships that would be lost if
<spelling was entirely phonetic.
Lost to whom? If the letter isn't heard, it's pretty useless in
conversation. Or are you proposing that written English become a
literary language such as Pali. Strong tendencies toward a social
heirarchy of language, I must say!

Equal to your examples above, there
are dozens of words where the relationship has broken down. I don't
feel particulary impoverished by that loss. (Don't have a dictionary
handy; I'll scare up a few examples if you like.)

<Can you imagine how utterly useless this list
<would be if we all spelled phonetically, each with his or her own spelling
<system decided on by how each spoke.  No thank you.
Can you imagine how utterly useless English could be if we all pronounced
words any old way we pleased? Or if regional dialects were permitted to emerge?
I'm trying to recall a quote by Andrew Jackson to the effect of "I have no
respect for a man who can't spell a word three or four ways."
Despite the generally descriptivist bent of the list, I gather from this
and a few other responses that othographically speaking, you're strongly
*Prescriptivist* =:-O

<Chris

Liasliothe Buchheit
(feeling olde fashioned today)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU