Re: Irish spelling

At 19:25 +0000 2003-01-14, etaonsh <rcom@...> wrote:

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

Not really. In European and North American spelling alike, it is
listed in dictionaries as "informal". Unless one were to write "thot"
for "thought" and "do" (hmm) for "dough" it seems rather lazy and
pointless to write that one word informally.

> > >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.

That doesn't mean that what you were saying about archaism and
eccentricity and "sectarian" rigour and authenticity wasn't rubbish.

>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

Of course they do. Otherwise people wouldn't write them. Mutation is
essential to these languages. Welsh writes ban [ban], fan [van], man
[man]. Irish writes bean, bhean, mbean for the same. Your spouting
theory without any evidence.

>and the complete lack of concern for ergonomics/other people's time
>& patience.

Sorry, but this is just pub talk. No study of handwriting or typing
ergonomics and Gaelic orthographic practice has been referred to, nor
has any evidence of study of additional time taken for Irish-speaking
children to learn to spell. I am sure it is harder to learn to spell
English.

>All orthography is unnatural/artificial, if you go back far enough.

So?

>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.

"V" is in no way more "time-consuming" than "F". John Cowan's
response to you about filosofy was well put. Your arguments

> > Welsh has been continuously written since the 9th century.
>
>An English king made that illegal, hence the subversive use of Coelbren.

Welsh has been continuously written since the 9th century.

> > 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.'

Q.E.D.

And c-hacek is far better than our dreadfully "inefficient" "ch" too,
right? (Wrong.)

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

I don't believe there is any reason to believe you.

> >They are threatened by their giant neigbour-languages, yes,
>
>And conservative insiders.

Oooh, yummy. A conspiracy theory.

Go thou, young Richard, and read Axel Wijk, the best book on English
spelling reform ever written. He's right, and he's got the best plan.
But of course conservative "insiders" who write English will never
accept it, even though it is (actually) demonstrated to be more
efficient and easy to learn.

> > 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.

More modern? Nonsense. Manx orthography is not particularly modern.
(Exercise for the student: do some actual research and find out where
Manx orthography comes from.) As John says, the Irish Gaelic and
Scottish Gaelic orthographies
just plain work better than the Manx does, however imperfect and
eccentric you might think them to be. And the Manx orthography just
makes it more difficult for Manx-speaking Gaels to read texts in the
other languages, just as it makes the other Gaels unable to read
Manx. Some people consider this to be a pity.

> > 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.

No, it is based on facts.

> >>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?

"Thanks".

If you had taken the time to read my article you might have
understood the "war" you refer to.

> > You know, languages are just languages.
>
>Chomsky and I find them to be more than that.

Fortunately Chomsky has retired for linguistics after ruining the
field for decades with a lot of theoretical claptrap about word order
and "deep structure" when linguists could and should have been
recording many of the world's languages.

Geoffrey Samson has said all that needs to be said about Chomskian linguistics.

> > 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.

Speaking Irish has the potential for an enlightenment? I assure you,
speaking Irish is a pleasure, but I still have to practice meditation
for samadhi.

> > 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.

No, it failed because people didn't want to write their language that
way. Funny that. It must mean that your idea about Irish Gaelic
orthography are wrong.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com