--- 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