Re: Irish spelling

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

> 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.

>

A significant token of a bigger
bounty to come. Conforming is
morally lazy. You read it here
first.

>
> > > >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.

>

No, but it wasn't.

>
> >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.
>

I don't mind the Welsh.

>
> >and the complete lack of concern

for ergonomics/other people's time

> >& patience.
>
> Sorry, but this is just pub talk.
>

Well if you're going to be like
that, define your term.

>

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.
>

Excessive study obscures the
obvious. Adult time consumption is
also an issue.

>

I am sure it is harder to learn to
spell

> English.
>

Keeping down with the Joneses.

>
> >All orthography is

unnatural/artificial, if you go back
far enough.

>
> So?
>

So 'nothing unnatural/artificial
about that' = 'Its old & that's what
turns me on.'

>
> >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".

>

Except that 'f' then has to be 'ff.'

>

John Cowan's

> response to you about filosofy was

well put.

>

& addressed earlier.

>

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.

>

Scraped, at times (& scraping takes
time).

>
> > > 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.)
>

It avoids the 'ch'/'kh' confusion.

>
> >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.

>

Why would I mislead myself on a
matter so close to a Celtic heart?

>
> > >They are threatened by their

giant neigbour-languages, yes,

> >
> >And conservative insiders.
>
> Oooh, yummy. A conspiracy theory.
>

Not hard (if un-'PC') to spot,
actually.

>
> 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.
>

I don't know about that, but when
English spelling became 'set' it was
influenced by the snobbery of the
pre-Enlightenment (= conservative
insiders).

>
> > > 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.

>

By centuries, in fact. Devised in a
time when clocks were common, and
'bh' really did seem a waste of
time.

>
> (Exercise for the student: do some

actual research and find out where

> Manx orthography comes from.)
>

17th cent (you the student).

>

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
>

Were it not for the ergonomical
factor.

>

Richard