There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Going on holidays
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2a. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2b. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: Padraic Brown
2c. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: George Corley
2d. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: James Kane
3a. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
3b. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: MorphemeAddict
3c. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
3d. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Matthew Boutilier
3e. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: MorphemeAddict
3f. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Gary Shannon
3g. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Matthew Boutilier
3h. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Casey Borders
3i. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Alex Fink
3j. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Gary Shannon
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Going on holidays
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 4:48 pm ((PDT))
Hi everyone,
This is just a short mail to warn that I will be on holidays from tomorrow
till the end of June. i will once again enjoy the sun and life on the
beautiful island of Κέρκυρα :) .
I will not be going NOMAIL, and I *will* try and check my e-mail once in a
while, but I don't think I'll be much active on the list during that time.
Too busy getting tanned and drinking frappés :) .
Anyway, see you all again in four weeks!
Cheers,
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 4:52 pm ((PDT))
On 1 June 2013 03:29, James Kane <kane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow I have been very wrong! I did learn most of my French in a classroom
> rather than a native speaking environment... Presumably they did want us to
> speak more formally. I also might be mixing too much of my English with it.
> I'm sorry for trying to correct you though ;-P
>
>
Don't worry! People here know that I've been complaining a long time about
the sad state of French-as-a-foreign-language education :) . Your
experience is just one more piece of evidence to show how unhelpful that
education really is. No wonder so many people who take French at school end
up completely tongue-tied when they are actually in France and try to use
the language. What you learn has only a passing resemblance to what the
average French of the street will speak!
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:07 pm ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 6/1/13, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 June 2013 03:29, James Kane <kane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow I have been very wrong! I did learn most of my French in a
> > classroom rather than a native speaking environment... Presumably
> > they did want us to speak more formally. I also might be mixing too
> > much of my English with it. I'm sorry for trying to correct you though
> > ;-P
>
> Don't worry! People here know that I've been complaining a long time
> about the sad state of French-as-a-foreign-language education :) .
Well, if yóu people would just learn to speak your own bloody language
the way we learn in the books, the world would be a much happier place!
;))))))))
It's funny, I took three years of (book) French in high school and the
only time since that I've ever had occasion to use French was a visit
to Quebec a couple years ago. And it's a good thing the people in the
restaurant we ate at spoke English (I wanted to eat some real poutine
in a real Montreal greasy spoon, and so figure that the whole trip was
worthwhile), cos it crossed my mind that I would have no idea how to
respond if they started up in Québécois, and also your own descriptions of
French being so far removed from anything we'd ever been taught in school
that I knew I'd be horribly lost. Anyway, I did manage to find some
reasonably monolingual French speakers at a little dairy out in the pays,
where I very happily remembered enough bookish French to order a couple
milk shakes.
> Your experience is just one more piece of evidence to show how
> unhelpful that education really is. No wonder so many people who take
> French at school end up completely tongue-tied when they are actually in
> France and try to use the language. What you learn has only a passing
> resemblance to what the average French of the street will speak!
Quite so. Although I think, to a certain degree, this is the case with
just about any language that is taught in a formal academic setting. The
point there is *educating* people, not helping them *learn*. I think it's
just much worse with French, because the written and spoken languages
are in fact so different. Far more different than in Spanish or English.
Padraic
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:32 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 6/1/13, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Your experience is just one more piece of evidence to show how
> > unhelpful that education really is. No wonder so many people who take
> > French at school end up completely tongue-tied when they are actually in
> > France and try to use the language. What you learn has only a passing
> > resemblance to what the average French of the street will speak!
>
> Quite so. Although I think, to a certain degree, this is the case with
> just about any language that is taught in a formal academic setting. The
> point there is *educating* people, not helping them *learn*. I think it's
> just much worse with French, because the written and spoken languages
> are in fact so different. Far more different than in Spanish or English.
>
It depends a little on the language being taught. I've found that the
Mandarin I learned in school, while it isn't always perfectly in line, is
usually fairly colloquial, at least until we really get to reading. And
Mandarin really does have very different written and spoken registers.
>From what I've understood, academic courses in European languages focus
more on literature, particularly at university level -- most of my upper
level Spanish courses were literature classes. Of course, if I were to
learn how to read classics of Chinese literature, I would be learning a
dead language, not something spoken by anyone today.
Granted, there's issues in other places: I've known a few people who have
taken Japanese classes, and they apparently always start with the
grammatical polite forms. I often wonder if their conversations sound too
formal to Japanese speakers in some situations, possibly even off-putting.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "James Kane" kane...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
On 2/06/2013, at 11:52 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 1 June 2013 03:29, James Kane <kane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow I have been very wrong! I did learn most of my French in a classroom
>> rather than a native speaking environment... Presumably they did want us to
>> speak more formally. I also might be mixing too much of my English with it.
>> I'm sorry for trying to correct you though ;-P
> Don't worry! People here know that I've been complaining a long time about
> the sad state of French-as-a-foreign-language education :) . Your
> experience is just one more piece of evidence to show how unhelpful that
> education really is. No wonder so many people who take French at school end
> up completely tongue-tied when they are actually in France and try to use
> the language. What you learn has only a passing resemblance to what the
> average French of the street will speak!
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Well I do remember being a bit shocked when one of our French teachers told us
that the Parisian pronunciation of 'je ne sais pas' was [Se'pA].
James
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 7:20 pm ((PDT))
I'll check out the link. Fascinating topic, though.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of Matthew George
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 11:23 AM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: English Orthography in the Future
Americans managed to drop many of the worst orthography-pronunciation
mismatches, but we still preserve lots of them. It'd be nice to lose the
worst offenders against clarity - particularly 'ugh', which is perfectly
easily understood by itself but takes on a bizarre suite of pronunciations
within words.
I suppose it would be too much to hope for to make a few extra letters in
addition...
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:15 pm ((PDT))
Silent 'e' is important in English spelling, and getting rid of it without
some form of compensatory respelling would introduce more ambiguity to what
we already have. It's often the only way to distinguish between so-called
long and short vowels, e.g., spin/spine. I suggest making it more regular,
so that moon become moone, food become foode, but foot stay the same.
In fact, I may just start spelling such words that way.
stevo
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10093089/Hay-Festival-2013-Irritating-silent-letters-could-become-obsolete.html
>
> Leading linguist David Crystal tells the Telegraph Hay Festival 2013
> that in 50 years' time silent letters will be dropped from many common
> words, thanks to the internet.
>
> The internet will make English misspellings acceptable, according to
> one of the country’s most senior linguists, who predicts that in 50
> years’ time many common words will be spelt without “irritating”
> silent letters.
>
> David Crystal, currently professor of linguists at Bangor University,
> told the Telegraph Hay Festival that it would be “inevitable” that
> people would drop the ‘p’ from receipt, and change the ‘c’ from
> necessary into a ‘s’, as well as “simplifying” other words.
>
> ...
>
> He said it was neither good nor bad that spelling was changing, but it
> was “inevitable” in the same way that judgment without the middle ‘e’
> was now acceptable in many publishers and newspaper style guides.
>
> ...
>
> (More at the link above)
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:21 pm ((PDT))
Not sure if I understand the article, but it sounds like the silent E
vsanishes, without a replacement.
Moon becomes moone? Confused, and what about the words with E's attached.
NNicole would suddenly be spelled without its ending E?
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of MorphemeAddict
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:15 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: English Orthography in the Future
Silent 'e' is important in English spelling, and getting rid of it without
some form of compensatory respelling would introduce more ambiguity to what
we already have. It's often the only way to distinguish between so-called
long and short vowels, e.g., spin/spine. I suggest making it more regular,
so that moon become moone, food become foode, but foot stay the same.
In fact, I may just start spelling such words that way.
stevo
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10093089/Hay-Festival-2013-Irritating-silent-letters-could-become-obsolete.html
>
> Leading linguist David Crystal tells the Telegraph Hay Festival 2013
> that in 50 years' time silent letters will be dropped from many common
> words, thanks to the internet.
>
> The internet will make English misspellings acceptable, according to
> one of the country’s most senior linguists, who predicts that in 50
> years’ time many common words will be spelt without “irritating”
> silent letters.
>
> David Crystal, currently professor of linguists at Bangor University,
> told the Telegraph Hay Festival that it would be “inevitable” that
> people would drop the ‘p’ from receipt, and change the ‘c’ from
> necessary into a ‘s’, as well as “simplifying” other words.
>
> ...
>
> He said it was neither good nor bad that spelling was changing, but it
> was “inevitable” in the same way that judgment without the middle ‘e’
> was now acceptable in many publishers and newspaper style guides.
>
> ...
>
> (More at the link above)
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:21 pm ((PDT))
YES. *exactly*.
or, even, <mune> for 'moon' and <fude> for 'food.'
but there be people in the UK (and parts of the US, i suppose) who make a
toon~tune distinction, so they will not appreciate that much.
but i really encourage you to go forward with this.
matt
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:15 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silent 'e' is important in English spelling, and getting rid of it without
> some form of compensatory respelling would introduce more ambiguity to what
> we already have. It's often the only way to distinguish between so-called
> long and short vowels, e.g., spin/spine. I suggest making it more regular,
> so that moon become moone, food become foode, but foot stay the same.
> In fact, I may just start spelling such words that way.
>
> stevo
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10093089/Hay-Festival-2013-Irritating-silent-letters-could-become-obsolete.html
> >
> > Leading linguist David Crystal tells the Telegraph Hay Festival 2013
> > that in 50 years' time silent letters will be dropped from many common
> > words, thanks to the internet.
> >
> > The internet will make English misspellings acceptable, according to
> > one of the country�s most senior linguists, who predicts that in 50
> > years� time many common words will be spelt without �irritating�
> > silent letters.
> >
> > David Crystal, currently professor of linguists at Bangor University,
> > told the Telegraph Hay Festival that it would be �inevitable� that
> > people would drop the �p� from receipt, and change the �c� from
> > necessary into a �s�, as well as �simplifying� other words.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > He said it was neither good nor bad that spelling was changing, but it
> > was �inevitable� in the same way that judgment without the middle �e�
> > was now acceptable in many publishers and newspaper style guides.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > (More at the link above)
> >
> > --gary
> >
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:22 pm ((PDT))
I'd much rather have ð edh than þ thorn for th, mostly because þ is so
similar to p.
I'm also in favor of a spelling reform for Spanish, which could do it much
more straightforwardly.
stevo
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> As am I - but only if it's pointy instead of rounded. It's called 'thorn',
> it should evoke that association. The curvy, bulbous 'thorn' is just a bad
> idea. And it's easier to confuse with either 'b' or 'p'.
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:40 pm ((PDT))
It was my impression from the article that silent 'e' would NOT
disappear. Only letters that are truly silent, i.e. ones that have NO
effect on pronunciation would tend to disappear. The "b" in "doubt",
for example.
Remember, this is NOT a planned project to change English spelling,
but an observation concerning what is already beginning to happen
spontaneously to spelling with tweets, text messages, and instant
messaging. So the author is not proposing anything, he is merely
recording what he has already observed. And he has not observed the
silent "e" going away.
--gary
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:15 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silent 'e' is important in English spelling, and getting rid of it without
> some form of compensatory respelling would introduce more ambiguity to what
> we already have. It's often the only way to distinguish between so-called
> long and short vowels, e.g., spin/spine. I suggest making it more regular,
> so that moon become moone, food become foode, but foot stay the same.
> In fact, I may just start spelling such words that way.
>
> stevo
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10093089/Hay-Festival-2013-Irritating-silent-letters-could-become-obsolete.html
>>
>> Leading linguist David Crystal tells the Telegraph Hay Festival 2013
>> that in 50 years' time silent letters will be dropped from many common
>> words, thanks to the internet.
>>
>> The internet will make English misspellings acceptable, according to
>> one of the country�s most senior linguists, who predicts that in 50
>> years� time many common words will be spelt without �irritating�
>> silent letters.
>>
>> David Crystal, currently professor of linguists at Bangor University,
>> told the Telegraph Hay Festival that it would be �inevitable� that
>> people would drop the �p� from receipt, and change the �c� from
>> necessary into a �s�, as well as �simplifying� other words.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> He said it was neither good nor bad that spelling was changing, but it
>> was �inevitable� in the same way that judgment without the middle �e�
>> was now acceptable in many publishers and newspaper style guides.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> (More at the link above)
>>
>> --gary
>>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 8:50 pm ((PDT))
i no. i'm just seying, it wood be grate if dhare WIRR such a developmint.
hauever, i doo not agree dhet in a meer FIFTEE yeers wee wil see enee
substanchel changiz in RITTIN - viddelisit PRINTID - inglish. if eneething,
i think dhare wil simplee bee a *wider* discrepansee bitween *formel rittin
inglish* and, sey, dha langwidge yuzed in text messidges.
but if yu're telling mee dhet academmic papers and leghel contraxs and wat
not wil al bee rittin in SMS-spelling haff a sencheree frum nau, i think
dhat's ridicyulis.
mat
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was my impression from the article that silent 'e' would NOT
> disappear. Only letters that are truly silent, i.e. ones that have NO
> effect on pronunciation would tend to disappear. The "b" in "doubt",
> for example.
>
> Remember, this is NOT a planned project to change English spelling,
> but an observation concerning what is already beginning to happen
> spontaneously to spelling with tweets, text messages, and instant
> messaging. So the author is not proposing anything, he is merely
> recording what he has already observed. And he has not observed the
> silent "e" going away.
>
> --gary
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:15 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Silent 'e' is important in English spelling, and getting rid of it
> without
> > some form of compensatory respelling would introduce more ambiguity to
> what
> > we already have. It's often the only way to distinguish between so-called
> > long and short vowels, e.g., spin/spine. I suggest making it more
> regular,
> > so that moon become moone, food become foode, but foot stay the same.
> > In fact, I may just start spelling such words that way.
> >
> > stevo
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10093089/Hay-Festival-2013-Irritating-silent-letters-could-become-obsolete.html
> >>
> >> Leading linguist David Crystal tells the Telegraph Hay Festival 2013
> >> that in 50 years' time silent letters will be dropped from many common
> >> words, thanks to the internet.
> >>
> >> The internet will make English misspellings acceptable, according to
> >> one of the country�s most senior linguists, who predicts that in 50
> >> years� time many common words will be spelt without �irritating�
> >> silent letters.
> >>
> >> David Crystal, currently professor of linguists at Bangor University,
> >> told the Telegraph Hay Festival that it would be �inevitable� that
> >> people would drop the �p� from receipt, and change the �c� from
> >> necessary into a �s�, as well as �simplifying� other words.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> He said it was neither good nor bad that spelling was changing, but it
> >> was �inevitable� in the same way that judgment without the middle �e�
> >> was now acceptable in many publishers and newspaper style guides.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> (More at the link above)
> >>
> >> --gary
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3h. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Casey Borders" thebeast...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 9:06 pm ((PDT))
I don't think it's such a stretch to say that there will be significant
changes in the next 50 years. American English is already significantly
different than British English and I think it will just pick up speed with
the amazing ease with which we are able to communicate today.
On Jun 1, 2013 11:50 PM, "Matthew Boutilier" <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i no. i'm just seying, it wood be grate if dhare WIRR such a developmint.
>
> hauever, i doo not agree dhet in a meer FIFTEE yeers wee wil see enee
> substanchel changiz in RITTIN - viddelisit PRINTID - inglish. if eneething,
> i think dhare wil simplee bee a *wider* discrepansee bitween *formel rittin
> inglish* and, sey, dha langwidge yuzed in text messidges.
>
> but if yu're telling mee dhet academmic papers and leghel contraxs and wat
> not wil al bee rittin in SMS-spelling haff a sencheree frum nau, i think
> dhat's ridicyulis.
>
> mat
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was my impression from the article that silent 'e' would NOT
> > disappear. Only letters that are truly silent, i.e. ones that have NO
> > effect on pronunciation would tend to disappear. The "b" in "doubt",
> > for example.
> >
> > Remember, this is NOT a planned project to change English spelling,
> > but an observation concerning what is already beginning to happen
> > spontaneously to spelling with tweets, text messages, and instant
> > messaging. So the author is not proposing anything, he is merely
> > recording what he has already observed. And he has not observed the
> > silent "e" going away.
> >
> > --gary
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:15 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Silent 'e' is important in English spelling, and getting rid of it
> > without
> > > some form of compensatory respelling would introduce more ambiguity to
> > what
> > > we already have. It's often the only way to distinguish between
> so-called
> > > long and short vowels, e.g., spin/spine. I suggest making it more
> > regular,
> > > so that moon become moone, food become foode, but foot stay the same.
> > > In fact, I may just start spelling such words that way.
> > >
> > > stevo
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10093089/Hay-Festival-2013-Irritating-silent-letters-could-become-obsolete.html
> > >>
> > >> Leading linguist David Crystal tells the Telegraph Hay Festival 2013
> > >> that in 50 years' time silent letters will be dropped from many common
> > >> words, thanks to the internet.
> > >>
> > >> The internet will make English misspellings acceptable, according to
> > >> one of the country�s most senior linguists, who predicts that in 50
> > >> years� time many common words will be spelt without �irritating�
> > >> silent letters.
> > >>
> > >> David Crystal, currently professor of linguists at Bangor University,
> > >> told the Telegraph Hay Festival that it would be �inevitable� that
> > >> people would drop the �p� from receipt, and change the �c� from
> > >> necessary into a �s�, as well as �simplifying� other words.
> > >>
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> He said it was neither good nor bad that spelling was changing, but it
> > >> was �inevitable� in the same way that judgment without the middle �e�
> > >> was now acceptable in many publishers and newspaper style guides.
> > >>
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> (More at the link above)
> > >>
> > >> --gary
> > >>
> >
>
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3i. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 10:09 pm ((PDT))
Matthew George wrote:
> As am I - but only if it's pointy instead of rounded. It's called 'thorn',
> it should evoke that association. The curvy, bulbous 'thorn' is just a bad
> idea. And it's easier to confuse with either 'b' or 'p'.
No, that'd be a horrid thing to require; a page using it would lack
stylistic consistency and therefore be ugly. The shape of thorn
should be assembled of the same elements as the rest of the letters.
Typography 101, really.
As I learned from Michael Everson (also by the way a thorn fan:
http://evertype.com/blog/thorn/), this is the same mistake -- to
shamelessly take the typographers' side -- made by the European
Commission in introducing the euro symbol, whose aspect ratio and bar
widths and everything else were specified to complete unyielding
precision: meaning that if you wanted to design a typeface of any
other constitution, your choices were to either have the euro symbol
stick out like a sore thumb or be Technically Not Actually the Euro
Symbol.
http://www.fontshop.com/blog/fontmag/002/02_euro/
MorphemeAddict wrote:
> I'd much rather have ð edh than þ thorn for th, mostly because þ is so
> similar to p.
I'm surprised I'm in such an apparent minority in handwriting d
exactly the same way as the main stroke of ð (both from the inside
out).
In fact my personal-use handwriting already uses both eth and thorn,
and admittedly thorn and lowercase p are more confusable than most
other pairs. (The loop has simplified; they both look like a ᛅ of
varying proportions).
Alex, with apologies to those whose threading I broke
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
3j. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jun 1, 2013 10:29 pm ((PDT))
Bear in mind also that it used to be that nearly 100% of our reading
material was "edited". Somebody with a dictionary and style manual
used to comb through everything before it went to the typesetter.
Today virtually nothing on the Internet is edited any more. Or even
spell-checked for that matter. A large portion of what we read today
is informally written and full of the kinds of mistakes that take root
and become the new normal.
As for the rate of change of the language itself, I'm reading a book
written in 1915 and I'm running into all sorts of odd differences in
the language, such as using "did" to mark a subjunctive. E.g.
(Speaking about a tapestry) "...But did you look at the back your
would see the knots and splices...". Today we'd probably say "If you
were to look at the back..."
That's not orthography, but it is one example of a relatively major
change in 98 years.
--gary
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Casey Borders <thebeast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's such a stretch to say that there will be significant
> changes in the next 50 years. American English is already significantly
> different than British English and I think it will just pick up speed with
> the amazing ease with which we are able to communicate today.
> On Jun 1, 2013 11:50 PM, "Matthew Boutilier" <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Messages in this topic (15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
