Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Re: Credibility Message-ID: <759@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 23:41:03 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.759 Posted: Mon Jul 1 23:41:03 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 07:21:50 EDT References: <271@sri-arpa.ARPA>, <483@oliveb.UUCP> Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept Lines: 59 > > 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> > > > 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