Re: English diglossia (was Re: retroflex consonants)
| From: | Jake X <starvingpoet@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, January 31, 2003, 18:11 |
|---|
> Why couldn't you have two spelling systems? A Maggellic one, and a
> non-maggellic one, with the Magellic one steadily being phased out? It
seems
> natural that the younger generation would prefer the Non-Magellic one, and
> eventually it would be brought into use. My main reason for changing the
> orthogrpahy, though, would be to make it easier to learn for foreigners,
not
> children. Children do well on their own.
What do you do with all the thousand years' literature spelled the old way?
Will it all need to be "translated" by, erm, linguists? What about the
exciting
feeling you get when you open an old book and smell the beautiful scent of
dust from the book not being read for 150 years? They can't translate that
smell
into the new edition. Someone born into the new spelling will have to
either
learn both the regular rules and the old wacky exceptions unless s/he wants
to give up reading any old out-o'-print paperback never transcribed.*
(four thouz hu kan't reed the uhbuhv, the faalouwing haz bin conveenyentlee
tranzlaytid four your reeding plezhir)
Wuht du yu du with aul dhuh thowzund yeerz' litruhchir speld dhuh ould way?
Wil it aul need tu bee "tranzlaytid" bye, uherm, linggwists? Wuht uhbowt
dhuh eksyeting feeling yu get wen yu opuhn uhn ould buuk and smel dhuh
byutifuul sent uhv duhst fruhm dhuh buuk naat beeing red four 150 yeerz?
Dhay kan't tranzlayt dhat smel intu dhuh nu uhdishuhn. Suhmwuhn bourn
intu dhuh nu speling wil hav tu eedhr/yedhr lrn bouth dhuh regyuluhr ruwilz
and dhuh ould wakee eksepshuhnz uhnles s/hee waunts tu giv uhp reeding
enee ould owt-uh-print payperbak nevr tranzkribd.
Jake
Replies