Re: English diglossia (was Re: retroflex consonants)
| From: | Peter Bleackley <peter.bleackley@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, February 3, 2003, 9:52 |
|---|
Staving Jake X:
>(four thouz hu kan't reed the uhbuhv, the faalouwing haz bin conveenyentlee
>tranzlaytid four your reeding plezhir)
>
>Wuht du yu du with aul dhuh thowzund yeerz' litruhchir speld dhuh ould way?
>Wil it aul need tu bee "tranzlaytid" bye, uherm, linggwists? Wuht uhbowt
>dhuh eksyeting feeling yu get wen yu opuhn uhn ould buuk and smel dhuh
>byutifuul sent uhv duhst fruhm dhuh buuk naat beeing red four 150 yeerz?
>Dhay kan't tranzlayt dhat smel intu dhuh nu uhdishuhn. Suhmwuhn bourn
>intu dhuh nu speling wil hav tu eedhr/yedhr lrn bouth dhuh regyuluhr ruwilz
>and dhuh ould wakee eksepshuhnz uhnles s/hee waunts tu giv uhp reeding
>enee ould owt-uh-print payperbak nevr tranzkribd.
>
Reading this aloud, it doesn't sound like English! Unless it's English
spoken by a subliterate moron from some benighted backwoods of the Southern
USA.
Any official attempt to "reform" English would have the unfortunate effect
of creating at least one Official Standards Body- something along the lines
of the Academie Francais...
Pete Bleackley
(PS, I revised the Khangathyagon runic alphabet over the weekend, and
remembered that contrary to previous posts, it's "bukhstav", not
"bukhshtav", and "staving" for "(s)he wrote", not "shtaving".)