Re: Irish spelling

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, John
Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:

> etaonsh <rcom@...> scripsit:
>
> > 'Tho' is accepted in US

spelling; 'Ugh' if you insist.

>
> Not in the U.S. spelling that

either Michael (born in the U.S.) or
I (ditto)

> ever learned, thank you very much.
>

I checked it out in a revised list
of US acceptability, and was
surprised to find it so. Not that
that has any influence or bearing on
my prior & unilateral decision not
to waste readers' time with
superfluous '-ughs.'

>
> > 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.
>
> It's trivial compared to the

spelling/pronunciation discrepancy
in English,

> which affects many hundreds of

millions of people, causing them to
waste

> perhaps 1-2 extra years of

schooling.

>

Yes, that's why we have spelling
reform fora like Saundspel &
Sawndspel 2.

>
> > 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.
>
> English is very concerned with

maintaining the similarity between
"nation"

> and "national", though a more

phonemic-based spelling would give
us "neixn"

> and "naxnl", or something of the

sort.

>

A (misplaced?) concern for an
appearance of regularity, perhaps?

>
> > 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.
>
> What about the abandonment in

English of a = [a], e = [e], i = [i]
common

> to almost every other language

that uses the Latin script?

>

A post-German delight in ergonomical
irregularity?

>
> > > >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.'

>
> Are you distressed by the use of

"ph" in English?

>

Rarer misfortunes are less
distressing, in toto.

>

Do you want to change

> to "fotografy"?
>

Depends on the modl.

>
> > 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.
>
> Ooops. Godwin's Law now applies:
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/

html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html

>
> # As a Usenet discussion grows

longer, the probability of a
comparison

> # involving Nazis or Hitler

approaches one." There is a
tradition in

> # many groups that, once this

occurs, that thread is over, and
whoever

> # mentioned the Nazis has

automatically lost whatever argument
was in

> # progress. Godwin's Law thus

practically guarantees the existence
of an

> # upper bound on thread length in

those groups. However there is also
a

> # widely- recognized codicil that

any intentional triggering of
Godwin's

> # Law in order to invoke its

thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.

>

Comaish's Law also overrules it, on
odd occasions: 'That which is taboo
is likely to be a real, embarrassing
weakness of the taboo-setter.'

>
> > It is probably a veiled attempt

to integrate Manx, a national

> > language, as a 'dialect' of

their own, declining tongues.

>
> You can't have it both ways.

Either the distinct orthographies
are

> "unscientific" or they aren't.

The Gaeilge and Gaidhlig
orthographies

> just plain work better than the

Manx one, despite their defects.

>

Are people counting reading/writing
time when they make these
pontifications?

>
> > Even the
> > terminology ('Gaelic and Irish')

is

> >

muddled/misleading/divisive/imperial
istic.

>
> True, but it's the least

problematic naming convention for
use in English.

>

Not from the Manx perspective.

>
> > 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.
>
> Voting is altogether irrelevant to

orthography. Only usage counts.

> What do people actually *do* when

writing their language?

>

Here I invoke 'Dick's Tendency.'
While participating in spelling
reform forum 'Saundspel' I
self-observed an overpowering
tendency to revert to orthodox
spelling, which I attribute to the
force of habit. I thus set up
'Sawndspel 2,' which actually bans
conventional spelling.

>

Dick Comaish

> *plonk*

?