No es lo pedido, pero relacionado con el tema de la ortografía inglesa, envío este enlace:
http://www.spellingsociety.org/media/items/cost_of_spelling Saludos, Hlnodovic --- En [email protected], "Danilo Vilicic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > Hola! > Hay bastantes cosas en línea para consultar: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift > > http://facweb.furman.edu/~mmenzer/gvs/lit.htm > > http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elltankw/history/Phon/C.htm > > http://asstudents.unco.edu/faculty/tbredehoft/UNCclasses/ENG419/GVS.ht ml > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David A. Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:25 PM > Subject: [ideoL] Ortografia inglesa > > > Hola a todos. > > Les copio abajo un articulo aparecido en THE ECONOMIST de la semana pasada > sobre la ortografia de la lengua inglesa. Varias cosas me llaman la atencion > y por eso envio este mensaje: > > 1. La ortografia del inglés sufre en muchos casos de los mismos males que la > francesa: una latinizacion forzada por etimologias que muchas existian en la > mente fantasiosa de algunos. El ejemplo de "debt" en el que la "b" no se > pronuncia es similar al caso del francés "sept" en el que la "p" tampoco se > pronuncia. EN ambos casos, la inclusion de esta letras silenciosas en el > deletreo de tales palabras fue un deliberado intento por emparentarlas con > palabras latinas (debitus, septum). El caso de "six" (seis) en francés es > significativo: la "x" se pronuncia como "s" (lo que la acerca mas al > castellano "seis" que al supuesto origen latino "sex"). > > 2. La reticencia de las persona a modificar la ortografia, lo que me hace > pensar que las lenguas escritas (aunque en algun momento puedan dejar de > hablarse) son mucho mas resistentes en el tiempo. > > Tiene alguien mas detalles sobre el "Great Vowel Shift" de los siglos XV y > XVIque menciona el articulo? > > Saludos. > > > English spelling > You write potato, I write ghoughpteighbteau > > Aug 14th 2008 > From The Economist print edition > > The rules need updating, not scrapping > > > > GHOTI and tchoghs may not immediately strike readers as staples of the > British diet; and even those most enamoured of written English´s > idiosyncrasies may wince at this tendentious rendering of "fish and chips". > Yet the spelling, easily derived from other words*, highlights the > shortcomings of English orthography. This has long bamboozled foreigners and > natives alike, and may underlie the national test results released on August > 12th which revealed that almost a third of English 14-year-olds cannot read > properly. > > > One solution, suggested recently by Ken Smith of the Buckinghamshire New > University, is to accept the most common misspellings as variants rather > than correct them. Mr Smith is too tolerant, but he is right that something > needs to change. Due partly to its mixed Germanic and Latin origins, English > spelling is strikingly inconsistent. > > Three things have exacerbated this confusion. The Great Vowel Shift in the > 15th and 16th centuries altered the pronunciation of many words but left > their spelling unchanged; and as Masha Bell, an independent literacy > researcher, notes, the 15th-century advent of printing presses initially > staffed by non-English speakers helped to magnify the muddle. Second, > misguided attempts to align English spelling with (often imagined) Latin > roots (debt and debitum; island and insula) led to the introduction of > superfluous "silent" letters. Third, despite interest in spelling among > figures as diverse as Benjamin Franklin, Prince Philip and the Mormons, > English has never, unlike Spanish, Italian and French, had a central > regulatory authority capable of overseeing standardisation. > > > Yet as various countries have found, identifying a problem and solving it > are different matters: spelling arouses surprising passions. Residents in > Cologne once called the police after a hairdresser put up a sign advertising > Haarflege, rather than the correct Haarpflege (hair care). Measures to > simplify German spelling were rejected by newspapers such as the Frankfurter > Allgemeine, and defeated in a referendum in Schleswig-Holstein (though later > endorsed by its legislature). A similar fate befell the Dutch, when > opponents of the government´s 1996 Green Book on spelling (Groene Boekje) > released a rival Witte Boekje. French reforms in the 1990s didn´t get off > the runway, despite being presented as mere "rectifications", and attempts > this year to bring European and Brazilian Portuguese into line were > denounced in Portugal as capitulation to its powerful ex-colony. > > > There are linguistic reasons too why spelling reform is tricky to undertake. > Written language is more than a phonetic version of its spoken cousin: it > contains etymological and morphological clues to meaning too. So although > spelling English more phonetically might make it easier to read, it might > also make it harder to understand. Moreover, as Mari Jones of Cambridge > University points out, differences in regional pronunciation mean that > introducing a "phonetic" spelling of English would benefit only people from > the region whose pronunciation was chosen as the accepted norm. And, she > adds, it would need continual updating to accommodate any subsequent changes > in pronunciation. > Yes despite these concerns, some changes are worth considering; it takes > more than twice as long to learn to read English as it does to read most > other west European languages, according to a 2003 study led by Philip > Seymour of Dundee University. Standardising rules on doubled consonants-now > more or less bereft of logic-would be a start. Removing erroneous silent > letters would also help. And as George Bernard Shaw observed, suppressing > superfluous letters will in time reduce the waste of resources and trees. In > an era of global warming, that is not to be sniffed at. > > > > *Fish: gh as in tough, o as in women, ti as in nation (courtesy of GB Shaw). > Chips: tch as in match, o as in women, gh as in hiccough. > > > :=== David A. ===: > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IdeoLengua - Lista de Lingistica e Idiomas Artificiales > Suscr base en [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Informacion en http://ideolengua.cjb.net > Desglose temtico > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/files/Administracion/top- ideol.html > > > Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos > ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IdeoLengua - Lista de Lingüistica e Idiomas Artificiales Suscríbase en [EMAIL PROTECTED] Informacion en http://ideolengua.cjb.net Desglose temático http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/files/Administracion/top-ideol.html Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos <*> Para visitar tu grupo en la web, ve a: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/ <*> La configuración de tu correo: Mensajes individuales | Tradicional <*> Para modificar la configuración desde la Web, visita: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/join (ID de Yahoo! obligatoria) <*> Para modificar la configuración mediante el correo: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Para cancelar tu suscripción en este grupo, envía un mensaje en blanco a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> El uso que hagas de Yahoo! Grupos está sujeto a las Condiciones del servicio de Yahoo!: http://e1.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html
