GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: Porter on May 30, 2007, 06:21:01 PM
-
I'm listening to a lecture series on the history of the English language, and when he got to the great vowel shift, he explained it using Pirate English, where the dipthonged e and o sounds start with a schwa.
And the amazing thing is that I understood it. Is there anything that pirates cannot do?
-
Establish world peace?
So what's the lecture series?
-
It's by The Teaching Company (http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281). I've been really impressed with what I've listened to so far. I loved the lecture series on Science Fiction Literature and on Fantasy Literature, and the one on Science in the 20th Century was fascinating. I got kinda bored with the Civil War one, as I was listening to it while outside working, and it got too confusing without visual aids like maps.
Of course, I doubt I'd be understanding the History of the English as much if it weren't for the many things I've read because of this forum.
-
*warm fuzzies*
-
It's fascinating stuff. If I went back to college, and didn't need to worry about getting a paying job (which would be pretty much the only way I would be able to go back to college -- independent wealth), I'd certainly think about studying such things.
It I can't, so I won't, and I'll just be content with learning new and fascinating things at a different pace.
-
The beauty of learning about historical sound changes in English is that our spelling finally begins to make sense—or at least you see how it used to.
-
I've actually been thinking about spelling recently because of this lecture, and re-evaluating some of my previously held views that it would be the best thing evah to have phonetic spelling.
One issue that you've brought up before is that if we have standardized phonetic spelling, what dialect do we standardize to? I am wondering how they deal with that in modern European languages, many of which have extremely phonetic spelling and also have various regional dialects. How hard is it to learn how to spell when you speak a non-standard (by standard, I mean the spelling standard) dialect? Is it more difficult than modern English, where it makes sense for no one?
(Yeah, it makes sense if you know several other languages and a lot of history. I'm discounting those people.)
I'm also thinking about the value of being able to see etymologies from the word's spelling. It's neat in a gee whiz sort of way, but does it really add much of value, for the average person, to the language, like phonetic spelling would?
-
One issue that you've brought up before is that if we have standardized phonetic spelling, what dialect do we standardize to?
That's a good question. It's probably easier to answer if we forget about all English outside of North America, because I don't know if it's possible to come up with a good compromise if you include British and North American English.
But the problem with North America is that we don't have one dialect that is clearly the most prestigious. The most "standard" dialect is the Midlands (number 11 on this map (http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/dialects.html)), which is also very similar to the rest of the West. So that would be the safest bet.
I am wondering how they deal with that in modern European languages, many of which have extremely phonetic spelling and also have various regional dialects. How hard is it to learn how to spell when you speak a non-standard (by standard, I mean the spelling standard) dialect? Is it more difficult than modern English, where it makes sense for no one?
In some European countries, the dialects are really closer to separate languages. You grow up learning your own language at home, and then you go to school and learn the standard dialect. I don't know if most people ever formally learn how to write in their native dialect. In English, we just have to deal with a crazy spelling system.
I'm also thinking about the value of being able to see etymologies from the word's spelling. It's neat in a gee whiz sort of way, but does it really add much of value, for the average person, to the language, like phonetic spelling would?
With some unfamiliar words with familiar roots, recognizing the etymology helps you understand the meaning. Of course, then you have to know the roots, and last I checked word roots—whether English, Latin, or something else—were not taught much in school. Plus, there are already many words with etymologies that are rather opaque, so preserving old spelling doesn't always help.
-
In some European countries, the dialects are really closer to separate languages. You grow up learning your own language at home, and then you go to school and learn the standard dialect. I don't know if most people ever formally learn how to write in their native dialect. In English, we just have to deal with a crazy spelling system.
I'm more thinking of the Castiliano dilect of Spanish, or the Nordeste dialect of Portuges in Brazil. They're not close to being separate languages, as far as I know, but have some pretty significant pronunciation differences.
-
But the problem with North America is that we don't have one dialect that is clearly the most prestigious. The most "standard" dialect is the Midlands (number 11 on this map (http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/dialects.html)), which is also very similar to the rest of the West. So that would be the safest bet.
Yeah, but I might read a word that meant "ornery" and have no idea what "ahnree" was supposed to mean.
Would "New York" be spelled "Noo Yawk", for instance?
-
Conversely, I remember seeing this word ornery and not knowing that it really meant "ahnree."
And I can't imagine why New York would be spelled "Noo Yawk" in the Midlands dialect.
-
evah
I though it was evau.
Arabic is probably the most awesome language in terms of having a received written system that is spoken by precisely zero (0) of the native speakers. It's very closely tied to the Koran, but even the people who live in Mecca and Medina don't talk like Modern Standard Arabic. Only Newscasters talk like Modern Standard Arabic. Arabic is probably one of the only languages where people look up to foreigners who learn their tongue, because they speak it better than they feel themselves to.
-
Here's an interesting article on spelling reform. (http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html). I haven't had time to go over it thoroughly, so I'm not sure yet how much I agree with everything.
-
I'll check it out when I can.
As I've read about him, I like the spelling reform that Noah Webster did -- he didn't try to reform the whole language, but just some particular spellings. Center vs. centre, color vs. colour, specialize vs. specialise, etc..
My nomination for spelling reform in this manner would be -ough. Thru, enuff, ruff, burrow.
-
In the same blog that linked to that article, there was a comment about a spelling reform by Axel Wijk called Regularized Inglish. It aims not to overhaul the system or to create a 1:1 spelling to sound ratio, but to simply eliminate the irregularities from our current system. I can't find his original proposal because it's apparently only available through libraries and whatnot, but it sounds very interesting.
-
I saw the National Spelling Bee on TV. I've also seen the documentary Spellbound. I am in favor of making English spelling more irregular. It is fun to watch kids sweat.
-
Random off-topic pirate language story:
We talked a bunch of people into playing Curses last night and I got the 'talk like a pirate' curse. It was rather amusing, but not the best group of people to be playing that game. They laughed, but it just wasn't as side-splitting as it should be with a new group of people.
The good one was the guy who had to talk like a wicked witch and sign everything he said with his hands...and the girl on his left had to start immitating everything he did and said. It was rather hilarious.