Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: more English orthography

From:DOUGLAS KOLLER <laokou@...>
Date:Thursday, May 18, 2000, 5:32
From: "AcadonBot

> > DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote: > > Well, I was born just outside the standard Newyorkese isogloss bundle > > (/oi/ -> /@/, e.g.) but I have [mejri], [m&ri], and [mEri] quite > > clearly. > > All three are the same for me
It was John Cowan who has the three-way distinction. I have a two-way distinction. You make no distinction. Most of the literature I've read on the subject notes these three types of dialectal variety. What does any of this mean in terms of orthographic reform? My two cents: I don't consider myself that old, but I guess I'm a curmudgeonly old traditionalist. Words like "thru", "lite", and "nite" are so intimately attached to (gimmicky) advertising in my mind ("drive-thru", "Seven Seas Lite Dressing", and perhaps on a cinema marquee [where space is limited] "Half price tonite")(where I readily accept them), that aside from experimental poetry, I'd have a hard time dealing with such spellings in a serious piece of prose. Should they ever become the standard spelling, I would rather see it occur as it does now, slowly and naturally over time (as, say, "draft" for "draught" or "plow" for "plough"), than through some sweeping spelling reform. To be sure, other languages have had their spelling reforms, but my recent experience with Germans over the latest German spelling reform is that they're confused about some of the new rules, don't agree with some of the others, and reluctantly think some are those whose time has come. I would suspect that there will be, therefore, a generation, maybe two, of spelling mush. And how much better is that than just letting orthographic nature run its course? Asbestos donned, Kou