--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> At 12:50 +0000 2003-01-13, etaonsh <rcom@...> wrote:
>
> >Celtic (especially Gaelic) spelling sticks to eccentric and

archaic

> >spelling with a sectarian(?) rigour, as tho
>
> "though"

'Tho' is accepted in US spelling; 'Ugh' if you insist.

> >archaism was somehow confused with lifeblood and authenticity,

such

> >that this very statement faces possible vitriol & denial.
>
> Only because what you are saying is rubbish.

No it isn't. This whole topic started because an outsider saw the
spelling/pronunciation discrepancy in Irish straight away, and was
kind enough to be politely concerned about it, like a worried bedside
relative.

Why do you consider

> Gaelic orthography to be eccentric?

Why do most people? Wake up and smell the (Gaelic) coffee!

It marks the palatal and

> non-palatal consonant series rather well, and indicates consonant
> mutation rather conveniently, preserving the basic spelling of the
> root while also showing the mutation. Is this unusual? Perhaps. Is

it

> unnatural or inauthentic? No.

What's unusual is people concerning themselves with matters
like 'preserving the basic spelling of the root,' and 'showing the
mutation,' as tho these things somehow mattered to users of the
language, and the complete lack of concern for ergonomics/other
people's time & patience. All orthography is unnatural/artificial, if
you go back far enough.

> >Those whose cultures have been suppressed and abandoned cling
> >conservatively and self-destructively to counter-productive
> >orthographies, but to criticise
> >it is a bit like criticising the consequences of poverty - an
> >uncertain but, at times, necessary occupation.
>
> Irish and Welsh orthographies developed at a time when hardly any

of

> the other languages of Europe were written at all. Welsh

orthography

> in particular is remarkably well-suited to its phonology, with

little

> ambiguity. It isn't "archaic" at all.

What about the non-conformist abandonment of 'v' in favour of more
time-consuming 'f,' & 'ff' for f? Another little worry for the polite
stranger.

> >Welsh and Manx have been saved some of the extremes of this
> >tendency, perhaps due, ironically, to suppression of writing/long
> >periods without a written
> >form,
>
> Welsh has been continuously written since the 9th century.

An English king made that illegal, hence the subversive use of
Coelbren.

> >thus, for example, making Manx the most phonetic of the three

Gaelic scripts,

>
> It isn't at all phonetic; indeed it is rather difficult to relate
> Manx orthography to Manx phonology. It appears that you don't know
> what you are talking about.

Enough to know that 'v' vrooms better than 'bh.'

> >despite being a recently 'revived' language (but thereby the only
> >one not in decline),
>
> Manx may well be on the upswing but it isn't accurate to say that

all

> the other Celtic languages are "in decline".

I was referring to the other Gaelics, but I believe statistics are
showing Welsh decline also.

They are threatened by

> their giant neigbour-languages, yes,

And conservative insiders.

and they are definitely minority

> languages, yes, but schools, publishing and media using them are
> constantly on the increase.
>
> >but it regularly receives (partially inaccurate) accusations of
> >'anglicisation'/foreign influence from inefficient, traditionalist
> >authoritarian
> >orthographers from among its Gaelic neighbours.
>
> What the bejesus are "authoritarian orthographers"?

Irish & Scots contributors to Manx forums who uphold a Nazi-like
conservatism in spelling and lecture Gaels who are fewer, more
vulnerable, but more modern.

In English we

Here we go.

> have a standard orthography, with some slight differences between
> Europe and North America. I guess the writers of the Oxford and
> Websters dictionaries are "authoritarian orthographers" for us.
> Criticism of Manx orthography from readers of Gaelic and Irish is
> generally positive.

It is probably a veiled attempt to integrate Manx, a national
language, as a 'dialect' of their own, declining tongues. Even the
terminology ('Gaelic and Irish') is
muddled/misleading/divisive/imperialistic.

We recognize that Manx is related to our

> languages, but think that it is a pity that Manx orthography

provides

> a barrier to reading Manx which would not be the case had Manx a
> spelling system based on "traditional" Gaelic spelling.

That is based on home affiliations, not science.

> >The political parallels seem oddly lost on otherwise expert and
> >radical Gaelic speakers (rather like the current fashion in
> >contemporary local nature management for 'native species at all
> >costs,' a virtually, if unintentionally, Nazi approach to the
> >environment, when you think about it).
>
> A naïve view of politics at best.

'Outing' latent Nazism naive?

> >The Cornish language enthusiasts, more progressive, in contrast,

but

> >similarly lacking the urbanity of cosmopolitan 'cool,' war over
> >different spelling systems like splitting dog-house political
> >parties.
>
> Anyone would like information about the actual facts of the
> orthography dispute should read my forward to Nicholas William's
> English-Cornish Dictionary. I have placed it online at
> http://www.evertype.com/gram/gerlyver-2000-preface-me.pdf

Thanx, but that is not exactly refuting my analysis, is it?

> >As with other ethnic and aboriginal minorities, it takes a deep
> >understanding of the consequences of long-term oppression for Celts
>
> Get over it. Today is today. Inniu an lá atá ann.

Don't mean we have to make cheap, offensive in-jibes or hold easy-PC
conformist opinions ardently. Fashion changes, but truth survives the
centuries.

> >to avoid the twin pit-falls of a) embarrassment and shame,
>
> Useless emotions easily dispensed with.

Not to a realist. Even Vulcans show (hidden, deep, logical) emotions.

> >and b) acceptance of inferior inherited habits, both with

ourselves

> >and our linguistic heritage. If and where this is achieved, it
> >opens a door to an ancient, seminal culture of an oft hidden,

global

> >influence, fired with aboriginal authority and wisdom.
>
> You know, languages are just languages.

Chomsky and I find them to be more than that.

Speaking Irish doesn't cause

> a magic mist to come out of one's mouth, despite what John

Boorman's

> Excalibur might suggest.

It has the potential for an enlightenment which obviously escapes
some Irish speakers.

All orthographies are "inherited" unless

> they are replaced, as happened in the former Soviet Union (Arabic

to

> Latin to another Latin to Cyrillic to another Cyrillic, in the case
> of some of them). Shán Ó Cuív and others tried to "abandon"
> traditional "bh" and "mh" with "v" and so on in the 1920s. The
> benighted users preferred their traditional orthography.

Don't tell me the traditionalists allowed them anything as modern as
a vote on the matter - I'd find that as hard to believe as the idea
that Guinness won the stout battle democratically, much as
the 'flavour of the month' monetarists would have us believe such
things.

Richard Comaish