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!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: German spelling reform
Message-ID: <D2ypr2.HC9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950122171758.2828A-100000-100000-100000-100000@suntan> <D2x5A9.Auv@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:06:36 GMT
Lines: 53

In article <D2x5A9.Auv@festival.ed.ac.uk> kthier@festival.ed.ac.uk (K Thier) writes:
>: :    Photo -> Foto, Asphalt -> Asfalt, Katastrophe -> Katastrofe.
>
>: What is the advantage to losing the connection to the greek 'ph'?
>
>Not much. it has just been going on for a while and is regularized now.

The obvious advantage is that there is no such thing as a Greek _ph_.
The Greek phi is a single letter, not a pi with an aspiration mark,
so there is no reason not to represent it by means of the German
letter _f_.

>Greek th and rh are made redundant, too.

See above about _th_.  _rh_ makes a little more sense, but since the
connexion to the Greek original is lost in the pronunciation, what's
the point of keeping it in the spelling?

>Zucker was spelt with ck anyway, just when split at the end ot a line
>(as in the example) was the k substituted for the c, for whatever
>silly reason.

The reason was, I think, that _c_ in German had to be followed
immediately by either _h_ or _k_.

>: We could even go so far as:
>: ch        x
>: x         ks
>: chs       ks/xs (depending on circumstances)
>
>ch to x is absolute nonsense,

The hell it is.  What is really stupid is the current situation,
in which the single letter _x_ is used for a consonant cluster which
might as well be written _ks_, while the single (and rather frequent)
consonant /x/ is written as a digraph.

>if you do that you can as well introduce IPA as compulsory letters.

IPA needn't be compulsory, but it is rather well designed, so, other
things being equal, it makes sense to keep as close to it as possible.

>chs could be sensibly substituted by x,
>but i see no need to get rid of x=ks.

What's the point of having a single letter for /ks/, particularly
if that letter could be used more reasonably for something else?

-- 
`Don't know whit ye're bletherin aboot', said Peter.    (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
