🚀 go-pugleaf

Brian Miller (BM) writes:
>>...it is now straightforward to spell/read Russian words.  If you
>>can pronounce a word in Russian, you can spell it.
BM> Any written language that is *not* this regular is a pile of sh`t in my
BM> self-righteous mind.  SHAME on the ineffectual linguists for being to
BM> candy-@ssed to overcome the politics that have prevented such a revamping
BM> as was done in the USSR.

First of all, Russian spelling reform came on the heels of a major political
revolution.  Russian linguists, macho as they were, played a very minor role
in the revolution, which made spelling reform a political possibility.  Even
so, they were unable to get all of their reforms implemented.  The spelling
reform of English, even if it were desirable, is not politically possible.  No
single nation has control over English spelling.  Any attempt to assemble a
conclave of nations to reform spelling would run into a firestorm of
controversy over whose phonemic system should be the basis of the reform.
This would be true to a lesser degree if the reform movement were limited to a
single country.  The likely outcome of an international effort would be a
system that everyone would hate.  I doubt that we Americans would get to
retain syllable-final /r/ in spelling, for example.  So a simple word like
'farm' would have to be spelled something like 'fam,' much to the dismay of
standard American speakers, who scarcely realize that the /r/ is missing in
many British and American dialects.  I can think of no better way to rekindle
an Anglo-American war than to attempt spelling reform.  And nobody is even
talking about the Australians having a say in all this.  Do you really want to
have to confront all those diphthongs, Mayte?  ;-)

BM>    You're more than welcome to be insensitive to the illogic of the English
BM> language.  *I* would jump at the opportunity to reform it.

If you didn't jump, it's very likely that we'd have to toss you overboard. :-)
 
BM>    Regional dialects are rapidly evaporating as mass communication becomes
BM> an integral part of modern society.  I don't give a hoot as to *whose*
BM> pronounciation system we adopt ...so long as its logical and regular.

In that case, let's go for Mark Twain's system.  That was as good a reductio
ad absurdum of spelling reform as I've seen.


[For those interested in Russian spelling only:]

Raymond Shaw (RS) writes:

RS> ...I'm curious; it's been a few years since I studied Russian.
RS> I just can't think of the "etc. etc. etc."  As I remember, it's only "o",
RS> and the rules for pronouncing that vowel are regular:  stressed is one, one
RS> syllable away from stressed is another, and further away from the stressed 
RS> syllable is the third (and only other).  

The word for 'good' is spelled something like 'xorosho' in Russian, with three
'o' vowels.  Stress is on the final /O/ (open /O/ similar to the vowel in
'horse').  It is pronounced [x@rashO], where @ = schwa ('u' in 'luck') and a =
the vowel in 'mom'.  A good way to think of Russian vowel reduction is as
follows:  replace all unstressed /O/ vowels with [@].  Then replace [@] with
[a] if it precedes a stressed syllable or is in absolute initial position.  So
the word for 'cities' is spelled 'goroda' and pronounced [g@rada] with stress
on the final syllable.  The word for 'garden' is spelled 'ogorod' and
pronounced [agarOt] with stress on the final syllable.  Unstressed high vowels
do not reduce in Russian, and reduced vowels after palatalized consonants
undergo fronting.

Russian is not spelled in a totally regular fashion, although it is much more
regular than English.  Besides vowel reduction, there are numerous cases of
'silent' letters--e.g. the word 'hello' is spelled 'zdravstvuyte' but
pronounced variously [zdrastvuyte], [zdrasvuyte], or just [zdraste] (with
palatalization on /t/ not indicated).  The spelling 'Ivanovich' is pronounced
[ivanovich] when used as a last name, but [ivanich] when used as a middle
name.  And so on.  The two vowels /i/ and /y/ (yerih) are really perceived as
the same sound by Russians.  They are allopones in complementary distribution.
True spelling reform would have replaced them with a single symbol, just as
the pre-revolutionary 'jat' was coalesced with the letter 'e'.
  
-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!bcsaic!rwojcik