Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Credibility Message-ID: <380@spar.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 07:25:54 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.380 Posted: Tue Jul 2 07:25:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 04:58:40 EDT References: <271@sri-arpa.ARPA> <483@oliveb.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 48 >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