Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
Message-ID: <elnaD2G0LH.2Ly@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <3ergbm$g14@condor.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 10:46:29 GMT
Lines: 39

pjt@condor.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Tanenbaum) writes in a recent posting (reference <3ergbm$g14@condor.cs.jhu.edu>):
>In article <D23yws.FBA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
>(Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>> English has beyond doubt the most
>> lunatic orthography in existence, with French coming a close second.
>     I agree wholeheartedly that it can be very difficult to infer the
>pronunciation of English text from its written form.  Furthermore, I
>concede that this--in vacuo--is a serious drawback of English spelling.
>But now I pray my worthy interlocutors concede for their part that
>pronunciation is not the only linguistic feature worthy of capture by
>a writing system.  Meaning and even origins are worth recording, too.

I am quite willing to concede this. I rather enjoy the quirkiness of
English spelling, for it often helps me retrieve German words:
think-thought
denken-dacht

should-would
sollte-wollte     

(but not could, which is a misguided "correction" of cuthan.

It is also quite helpful in approaching Chaucer, even Beowulf.

>
My axe to grind here concerns English as an appropriate medium in 
international contexts. Its pronunciation is so little reflected in 
its written form that it is difficult for non-native speakers to learn,
which in turn gives native spaekers huge advantages in negotiations.

I do not advocate an overhaul of English writing; I advocate a neutral
planned language for international communication.

Miko Formiko
msloper@aol.com




