Irish, on an Gaelic learning list, and so far, I have broken
several rules, but not attacked for that, but cause I made
errors in things like..
It is Irish no Erse.
It is not sayed like Gaylick or Gahlick
And other like things, as well as they attack my English
grammer, but nicely so far not my spelling..
Makes me wonder. Anyone else had like experiances?
Mike
Alaska
Address changing to Abrigon@gci.net or Abrigon@gmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poetry-L2/ My Poetry List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adulthumor-l My Humor List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-l2 My Friends List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargruntsooc Grunts
Past/Present/Future
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-world Magic or Super
High Tech
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-history-l Where are going
as a species
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Caves" <scaves@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: CHAT behove etc (was: Natlag: Middle English
impersonal verbs)
> Hey, Ray... it was a joke! More below of compendious,
non-jocular matter.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R A Brown" <ray@...>
>
> > Sally Caves wrote:
>
> >> Whaddya mean, Ray? You Brits have dropped it? :) Thanks,
luv. But
> >> that's totally informal.
> >
> > I do *NOT* mean the graffiti of those who spray walls with
things like
> > "Kev luvs Shaz"!!!
>
> Ouch, you're yelling at me! :) And I asked you politely not
to. :) (You
> left out that final request of mine, Ray.) No reason to act
as though I've
> offended you. What you say below is exactly what I was after.
>From now on,
> I will not kid you, ever ever ever ever, the way I kid Adam or
Mark.
>
> On a side note, I think that slang spellings, which abound on
brick walls
> and are all over the Internet (U R writting a speach I cant
understand) are
> part of the whole experience of using English. Not "standard"
English,
> obviously, but something to muse about. Urban Black dialect
being a
> fascinating study of spelling and grammar.
>
> > I mean people like Charles E. Sprague who in the in 1888 in
his "Handbook
> > of Volapük" (published in London & Chicago) wrote:
> > {quote}
> > Upon the recommendation of the American Philological
Association and the
> > London Philological Society, I have dropped the final e.
misleading and
> > unhistorical, from words such as "infinitiv", "feminin" etc.
> > {/quote}
> >
> > You will find in the Handbook the sensible spellings
"nominativ",
> > "accusativ", "genitiv", "dativ", "passiv".
>
> And look how successful that reform was. No, really, it's
worth asking why
> these reforms were rejected. Noah Webster seems to have been
more
> successful with his dictionary of American English than
Sprague. Probably
> *because* he wrote a dictionary. Hence "color" instead of
"colour." And
> many Americans have adopted the I think British spelling
"catalog" and
> dumped "catalogue." Analog, too. Partly because it is
visible in the
> media. And because we are so international now, and read
emails from our
> British friends and articles written in the UK, so many of my
students are
> writing "amongst" instead of "among." It just has more force.
And
> "theatre" instead of "theater." I always joke about it, with
little pinky
> raised in the air: "You are geawing to the THEE-uh-TREH, ah
you?" They are
> also writing "glamour" instead of "glamor." It looks... more
"glamorous."
> It's the one word I don't correct them for. Because I agree.
Mysterious
> word, beautiful etymology, shades of magic, Chaucer spells it
that way
> often.
>
> Now here's my point:
>
> Individuals who write pamphlets don't usually get the results
they want. It
> has to be set up by influential committees, like the 18th
century
> prescriptive grammarians and lexicographers, or those who
publish widely
> disseminated textbooks to little scholastical panions on "How
to Write
> English Good." Or it has to be broadly used in the media, and
adopted--this
> is crucial-- from actual usage. Actual usage by prominent
groups is what
> best determines acceptable language. The media, now, are
writing "He laid
> on the bed." This isn't a prescription; it's a collapsing of
lie/lay that
> will eventually be accepted, and used widely by just about
everyone except
> me, who corrects it furiously. I'll say that within the next
decade it
> will be in the dictionaries. And it's an archaism, too, that
the
> Grammarians inveighed against, and is coming back in full
force in America.
> Is it in England?
>
> > His writing was clearly _not_ totally informal. And IIRC
Charles Sprague
> > was not alone in making that reform.
>
> It's the highly visible informal stuff that lasts. Not
prescriptions
> published in a pamphlet a few people read.
>
> >> No serious Mercan spelling reform could do much better than
we have.
> >
> > Well, one of your fellow countrymen, at least, in the late
19th century
> > not merely advocating the reform but actually put it into
practice. I am
> > just a little surprised that such a sensible reform did not
catch on -
> > that's all.
>
> And that's an interesting question. I've already opined why
it didn't catch
> on.
>
> > FWIW I have on more than one occasion - the last being quite
recent - gone
> > on record as saying that I think the American leveling out
of -or & -our
> > to just plain -or, and the writing of -re & -er uniformly
as -er are
> > sensible reforms. Indeed, the change of -our --> -or was
also underway
> > here, until the Merkans adopted it wholesale and
conservation reaction,
> > alas, then set in here.
>
> Exactly. Also, what came first? jail or gaol?
>
> > Apart from 'thru', I consider the other Merkans reforms to
be sensible.
> > Though why the same sensible principle has not been applied
to leveling
> > out the completely arbitrary -cede ~ -ceed spellings of all
those words
> > derived from Latin -cedere verbs still puzzles me.
>
> > I am not criticizing American spellings -
>
> I never said you were. I said, in so many words, "hold on!
We can't keep
> up with youse guys!" It was meant to be funny. All kidding
aside, it's a
> misnomer to think that American spelling and speech is not
subject to huge
> amounts of criticism within America by the "elite" who insist
on a Received
> Standard. It's an American received standard. Almost
everyone of any
> education I've talked to about this is incensed by lie/lay
mistakes, use of
> British spellings (considered affected), and the abbreviations
(catalog,
> lite). They would absolutely writhe at the thought of
"primitiv." There
> are some exceptions, but in my opinion these broad-minded
people are in the
> minority.
>
> > that would be quite contrary to the line I have consistently
taken both on
> > this list and on other lists.
>
> I so wish, Ray, that you would drop this line of aggrieved (or
perhaps just
> emphatic) defensiveness. We all understand and appreciate
your egalitarian
> and generous heart--for causes, not necessarily for
individuals such as
> minxy little yours-truly, who jests sometimes somewhat
sharply, but never, I
> think, unkindly.
>
> I was merely expressing surprise that American reform had not
> > encompassed one or two other similar modest reforms which
were proposed
> > (and, in the case I mentioned, put into practice) as long
ago as the 19th
> > century.
>
> Yes yes. And I hope I've shown you why these modest reforms
have fallen on
> deaf ears over here. Being an American educator, I am attuned
to the voice
> of America and its middle class resistance to changes in
language.
>
> Respectfully,
> Sally