Print

Print


On 02/06/06, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:15:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>
> > Aw - I disappear for a few days to south Wales and return to find 164
> > emails waiting. I eagerly download them, hoping to read lots of stuff
> > about conlanging & find they're mostly - {stifles big yawn}- about
> > English spelling reform!
>
> This is one of the reasons why I have remained set NOMAIL for long, and
> do not consider changing that.  And while I take a daily look at the

This though unfortunate, is your choice: And your loss.

...

> > Whatever we think here, or however we vote, it ain't going to happen.
>
> Yes.  Spelling reforms are notoriously difficult to pull through, as
> the example of the recent German spelling reform (which concerns only
> minute details and is in no way comparable to the radical changes most
> English spelling reformers propose) demonstrates.  A decade of heated
> debates, various compromises and reforms of the reforms, disagreements
> between state governments about what to teach in schools, etc. p. p.

I think the difference between the spelling reforms proposed on this
list and the German one is that the ones proposed on this list have
Buckley's chaance* of getting through. And we know that.

* i.e. none.

...

> > Of course the subject has spewed the inevitable YAEPT  :=(
>
> > What difference does it actually make to a phonemic spelling reform
> > whether one says [k_hjEt], [k_h&t], [k_h&?], [k_hatT_d] or any of the
> > other varieties of /k&t/. Obviously it ought to be spelled/spelt M-O-G  ;)
> >
> > Sorry - this sounds like a rant. Well, I got tired of trashing so much
> > stuff   :)
>
> I think it is time to speak another Machtwort as in the Great Sundering,
> and explicitly ban all discussions of spelling reforms (of whatever
> language) and English pronunciation from the CONLANG list the same way
> we have banned auxlang advocacy a decade ago.  Spelling reforms are a
> form of prescriptivism, and don't we all agree that prescriptivism is
> the diametral opposite of conlanging?
>
> What do you think?

I have to agree with Mark on this one. I seriously don't understaand
what the problem is with YAEPTs. They tend to be marked as such (becos
those of us who find them interesting realise that not everyone does),
so if you don't find them interesting, there should be no problems
with you just not reading them. If they aren't always, well, there's
plenty of threads on this list that don't interest me, some of them
even recurring. I just ignore them.

Also, I understaand even less how spelling reforms are a form of
prescriptivism. When I come up with spelling reforms, I'm not forcing
anyone to use them; nor am I even promising that I'll use them myself.
For me, I'm just coming up with a braand new orthography, which IMHO
is a very fun part of conlanging. So I'd have to say that spelling
reform is more-or-less an aspect of conlanging, and therefore very
much on-topic for this list!

However, I will agree that, just like oxlang advocacy should be
avoided on this list, but the oxlangs themselves can be discussed as
conlangs, so to should spelling reforms advocacy be avoided, but
spelling reforms as conlangs should remain very much on-topic. (I
should note that most of my spelling reforms involve some lexical,
phonological and grammatical change from the base, generally AusE, so
they are more conlangy then perhaps is normal.)

...

> > Now, I've got that off my chest, I can get back to conlanging   ;)
>
> I concur with you.

I've had fun conlanging while writing this poast.

--
Tristan