Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: German spelling reform
Message-ID: <D32yvw.DF6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <D2ypr2.HC9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D32pG7.Bux@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 20:14:18 GMT
Lines: 73

In article <D32pG7.Bux@festival.ed.ac.uk> kthier@festival.ed.ac.uk (K Thier) writes:
>Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <D2x5A9.Auv@festival.ed.ac.uk> kthier@festival.ed.ac.uk (K Thier) writes:
>: >: 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_.
[...]
>well, there is such a thing as a Greek ph, since this since aniquity has
>been the way of representing it in the Latin alphabet in Greek loan words.

So it has.  So what is being lost is the connexion to the *traditional
representation* of the Greek phi in *some* Roman-based orthographies,
including the Latin one.  The connexion to the Greek letter is not
thereby being lost; rather, it becomes more direct, since it does not
go through Latin any longer.  In other words, _f_ represents phi, while
_ph_ represents the Latin transliteration thereof.

>: >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.
>
>In the Latin alphabet, the letter x represents /ks/ i do not see why
>we should change that.

Because having a single letter for a consonant cluster doesn't make
much sense in an alphabet, in any case not unless the language itself
justifies that in some way, as may have been the case for Greek /ks/
and /ps/.  Note that psi is adequately represented as _p_ plus _s_,
even in Latin.

>Equally does ch represent /x/ or allophones.

My point is that there is no reason to follow the Latin orthography
in all detail.  It is not necessarily advisable to do everything as
the Romans did.  They're dead, after all.  :-)

Seriously, there are many points in which the current German spelling
deviates from Latin.  In Latin /k/, /j/ and /v/ are usually written as
_c_, _i_ and _v_ (or _u_); German uses _k_, _j_ and _w_.  Is that
absolute nonsense also?

>The development of ch to the French and English value is secondary!!

So what?  If we want to eschew secondary developments, we might as well
go all the way back to the Phoenician alphabet, if not beyond that.

>: 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.
>
>IPA is a scholarly way of representing sounds, not lnguage,

IPA is a way of representing the sounds *of human language*, as opposed
to all other kinds of sounds found in nature.

>the latter hving a cultural context including an alphabet, or other
>writing system, or even no writing system at all !

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.  I'm saying that using _x_
for /x/ makes phonetic sense.  If you find it unacceptable for cultural,
historical or whatever other extralinguistic reasons, that's an entirely
different story.  Such reasons may prevent it from becoming standard,
but that doesn't mean that it is absolute nonsense.

-- 
`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
