Re: Generalizations about English spelling

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Steve Bett wrote:
> >
> > Please comment on these generalizations.
> > Does everyone agree with them or are there some that you take issue
> with.
> > They were written by Prof. Chris Upward (Aston U., UK). Upward was
> a major
> > contributor to The Oxford Companion to the English Language (Tom
> McArthur, editor).
>
> "Barry" has been nagging me all day to comment on these
> "generalizations" that are beneath notice. "Barry" is apparently unable
> to divine their inadequacies by himself.

Peter is absolutely correct that I don't consider myself among the
divine. If Peter is among the divine, well then I will have learned
something cool today for sure! :)

But as for the comments being beneath notice, that is his opinion, and
it only matters to me because he responded to the original thread. Which
means for a brief period of time before he hit the send button, he
didn't seem to think they were beneath notice at all. If he regrets it
now, then he can just drop the thread at any time.

To the extent I have been "nagging", it is for him to clarify the notice
he sent because, as mere mortal, I could not read between the lines of
his mystical brief original presentation. I thank him in advance for
deigning to clarify, amazingly using the exact writing systems he is so
clearly expert at and master of!

>
> > I have added my initialed comments in this reposting. Feel free to
> do the same.
> >
> > source page: http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/n/n5pt1.php
> >
> > Ten Axioms on English Spelling
> > Edited and expanded by Chris Upward
> >
> > 1. Alphabets provide the simplest way to write most languages.
>
> Define "alphabet" and "simple."

Oh wait. I forgot this is his style. He wants people to define
everything all the time. This is how it goes in every thread. Will we
see if he gets to the point about how Upward wrote nonsense? Can't wait
to see now! ....

>
> > SB: syllabaries are strong contenders when there are less than 5 vowels.
> > ref: www.omniglot.com, www.wikipedia.com keyword: syllabary
> >
> > 2. The alphabet works by the principle that letters represent speech
> sounds.
>
> Define "speech sound."

Ah hah! I am typing this as I read it, so I am going to predict that
there is another request for a definition coming soon. I guess my
nagging may not have been successful in actually getting Peter to
express the thoughts that led to his earlier expressed opinions....

At least I give him credit for trying so far!

>
> > SB: Most writing systems contain more than just sound signs.
> > They also include a few meaning signs (semagrams, word-signs,
> logograms).
> >
> > 3. Literacy is easily acquired if the spelling tells readers the
> pronunciation, and the pronunciation tells writers the spelling.
>
> Evidence? And, is the purpose of an orthography ease in learning?

I think Steve was tossing out an outline as a topic for discussion, not
trying to *prove* anything. Do you have any evidence one way or the
other to support your opinions Peter? Presenting it would be in the
spirit of the discussion Steve wanted. I don't think he cares which way
the discussion goes so don't be shy!

>
> > SB: Literacy is more easily acquired under these conditions. In
> fact illiterates can learn highly phonemic writing systems in 3 months
> or less. Laubach (1960) said that 3 months was the average for 95% of
> the 300 languages his organization developed literacy materials for.
> Swadesh and Pike (1939) claimed to have taught illiterate Indians in
> rural Mexico how to read and write their own language and Spanish in
> two months.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j30/revews.php
> >
> > 4. Pronunciation changes through time, undermining the match between
> spelling and sound.
>
> True.

Phew! I was expecting "Define time " :)

>
> > SB: See Webster quote
> >
> > 5. Spelling systems need modernizing periodically to restore the
> sound-spelling match.
>
> False. The English morphophonemics-spelling match is far more useful
> than a sound-spelling match would be; moreover, English spelling works
> equally well for all dialects of English (since the worldwide diversity
> of English dialects began in earnest shortly _after_ the sound-based
> standardization, so that each major modern variety of English differs
> _in a systematic way_ from each other and from the orthography.

OK, now that is useful and at last we are getting somewhere. A paragraph
full of facts and also opinions masquerading as facts, but still, pretty
good considering what we have seen before. Way to go Peter!

But, as an admitted mere mortal, I am having a hard time seeing how we
are going to reach the original conclusion " Mr. Upward is a spelling
reform fanatic and does not listen to reason." based on these responses
so far. But I don't know yet what lies ahead, it might pull together at
the end....

>
> > SB: One of the arguments that Samuel Johnson gave for not matching
> spelling to speech was that speech changed to quickly. Had Johnson
> provided a dictionary pronunciation key it would be easy to see how
> much English has changed since 1755.
> >
> > 6. By not systematically modernizing over nearly 1,000 years,
> English spelling has lost touch with the alphabetic principle of
> spelling matching sound.
>
> 1000 years?? 1755 is 300 years (and American spelling settled down a
> couple of generations after that).

OK good question! Personally, I think the "1000 years" was referring to
the rough period of written English, not the time since Johnson's
dictionary. Would Peter change his response if the antecedent was
clearer to him?

>
> > 7. Neglect of the alphabetic principle makes English spelling
> exceptionally difficult.
>
> The writer of this generalization has little or no experience with most
> written languages.

Are there generally accepted rankings of the difficulty of spelling in
most languages?

I would consider the statement true if English were in the top 10% say,
especially if it is factored out over the number of people using written
English at any given time in history. But I am just a mortal dilettante
who is asking for the data to show or not show if the way a statistical
concept was expressed in written English is something we call can accept
or not. What is the data Peter or Steve?

Anyway, how many people on earth have "experience with most written
languages"? I would say very few, butt hat doesn't mean others can't
figure out patterns and characterizations themselves, even if this one
may or may not be justifiable. IOW, let's not use that a a platform by
which a small group of people, of which Peter would probably include
himself, are elevated as the only ones qualified to speak on a matter.

>
> > 8. The difficulty of English spelling wastes time and produces
> unacceptably low levels of literacy in English-speaking countries.
>
> Metric?

Yeah, good question, just like the one I just asked above.

>
> > 9. To improve literacy, English needs to modernise its spelling, as
> other languages do.
>
> False.

Yeah I gotta think that whatever gap in literacy we have, at least here
in the US can be addressed in larger part by better education (in some
sense) of those who are not yet literate then retraining those who are
already so. That would probably be true in other lands too.

>
> > 10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the idea
> of "managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than
> letting it continue on its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.
>
> False.

I agree with Peter on this. Of what benefit is retraining a large
portion of the world's population and obsoleting all written and digital
English data just so some more people can possibly join the English
literacy club?

We could probably make Chinese or Japanese or (insert your favorite
difficult language to "spell" in here) easier to "spell" too, but would
it really benefit anyone?

>
> > stbett@...
>
> I wonder how much of the above "Barry" will understand.

I understand fine the part that you actually elaborated on. As for the
part where you ask for definitions in order to clarify what seem to me
pretty plain English sentences (which you have done in the past too) I
wonder about *your* comprehension. Actually, I know you comprehend fine,
it is again a weak rhetorical strategy you employ, maybe by habit.
Perhaps one deep dark night in private by yourself you can consider if
that is true or not. If it is, then maybe a personal reform is in order,
which you can put in effect without even notifying us!

Anyway, one thing I think we can say for sure is that my "nagging" for
you to explain the reasoning behind your initial claim that " Mr. Upward
is a spelling reform fanatic and does not listen to reason." has fallen
on deaf ears. There was no move to justify this claim in this past
message from Peter, and so we are still left wondering *why Peter holds
that opinion*.

>
> Note that "Barry" didn't himself bother to comment on the
> "generalizations."

Nor has anyone else. Other then you, and you seemed pretty reluctant
after your initial foray also.

But you intrigued me with your divine intuition about Upward and I am
still awaiting more gospel on how you came to that conclusion. I am
trying to learn from you and encourage you to share your knowledge,
since you seem to have some previously thought out opinions and
experience in the matter (Upward never contacted me, or if he did it was
deleted as spam and I didn't see it).

Even if you have an interesting anecdote about the man, that would be
fun for you to share with the list. Might make you seem a little like a
nice person instead of an omniscient divine presence, y'know? I do
better with nice people compared to divine ones :)

Best,

Barry