Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: German spelling reform
Message-ID: <1995Jan25.053754.5577@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950122171758.2828A-100000-100000-100000-100000@suntan>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 05:37:54 GMT
Lines: 142

	Is it just me or do other posters also think one should know
something about how a script developed before they propose a "reform" 
for it?

Case in point:
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950122171758.2828A-100000-100000-100000-100000@suntan> "Timothy Miller (EE)" <tmiller@eng.usf.edu> writes:

>What is the advantage to losing the connection to the greek 'ph'?

What's the advantage to purging any anomalous spelling?  This way,
one can be assured that if one hears [f] one should write 'f' 
(unless of course the [f] is word-final _and_ the word is taken
from Latin; a pretty small exception and one that makes sense
morphophonemically).
>
>:    (\"Uberschwang) \"uberschwenglich -> \"uberschw\"anglich.
>
>Oh, swell... another umlaut.  :)

You lament losing an etymological spelling in borrowed words but you
resist adding one for a native word?

>:    irgend etwas -> irgendetwas.
>:    radfahren -> Rad fahren.
>
>More compounds?

Pay attention:  one collocation was made a compound, one compound
was made a collocation.  The balance remains equal. ^_^
>
>And how about some verbs that have particles that behave like seperable 
>prefixes but don't attach them to the verb in writing an infinitive?

Zum Bleistift?

>Why are they getting rid of the es-zet?

1) Certain parts of the German-speaking world have already gotten
rid of it (e.g. Switzerland)
2) It's the only Fraktur letter surviving in German
3) 'ss' is an acceptable variant spelling anyway, used particularly 
when one hasn't the capability to produce the eszet.
4) Not only scanners, but also speakers of other languages stumble
over the eszet.  Just go to Heidelberg and listen to people taking
the "Fubweg" to the "Schlob".

>:    numerieren -> nummerieren.
>
>What is the point in doubling the m?  

To show the connexion with 'Nummer' and to show that the 'u' is 
not long.

>For that matter, why have ANY 
>double letters in places where the pronounciation isn't changed?

'Changed' from what?

>Here's an example:
>
>leeren
>lehren
>
>No difference in pronounciation, so why difference in spelling?

To distinguish homophones, a perfectly respectable chore for an
orthography.

>:    Schiff-fahrt (Schiffahrt) -> Schiff-fahrt (Schifffahrt).
>
>Why does Schiff have a double f anyway?

Because it's [SIf], not [Si:f].  Haven't you ever noticed that 
vowel length in German is often indicated by the following conso-
nants?  True, there's some redundancy ([Si:f] is 'schief', not 
*'schif') and some exceptions ('ch' and 'w' cannot be doubled, 
for instance), but in general, it's a solid principle and if 
you don't uunderstand it, I don't see how you can feel comfor-
table proposing any sort of orthographic reform for German.

>If I'd been involved in the original German spelling reform, I'd have 
>made a few differences:
>
>now       my way
>ss/s      s

You would not distinguish between lass [las] and las [la:s]?
Between Muss [mUs] and Mus [mu:s]?  You don't mention compensatory
doubling of vowels.  In fact, you don't deal with vowel quality
at all.

>sch       sh    (where did they come up with sch anyway?  3 letters for 
>                 one sound???)

From earlier 'sc'.  Do your homework before you start tinkering.
So, how does your new system distinguish [S] from [sh]?  That is,
how do you keep people from saying [bW:Saft], [bW:SaIt], [haUSalt],
etc.? 

>schw      sv
>schm      sm    (etc... like /St/ is spelled <st>)
>sm        ssm   (to compensate)

How is this any improvement?  You've now created several clunky
exceptions to your spellings.

>/st/      sst
>/St/      st  (stay the same as it is now)

'isst'?  'Misst'? 'lisstich'?
(How will your system handle alterations like 'Tag' [ta(:)k],
'Tage' [ta(:)g@] and 'lustig' [lUstIC], 'lustiger' [lUstIg@R]
anyway?)

>We could even go so far as:
>ch        x
>x         ks
>chs       ks/xs (depending on circumstances)
>
>Ix moexte etvas cu esen.  Ich svime gern.

[e:s@n]?  Was heisst [e:s@n]?  Or is that [@s@n] or
[EsEn] or...

If this were the current spelling, I'd know that word
would be pronounced either [e:z@n] or, in an exceptional 
case, [eze:n].

Gratuliere.  You've managed to destroy most links with earlier 
forms of the language and most of the similarity with other 
Germanic languages while markedly increasing ambiguity; the 
bonus is that Czechs will have an easier time spelling German
than the Germans.

You might want to spend more than 3 or 4 minutes coming up
with your next orthographic reform.  You haven't tried 
Spanish, yet.

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
