Beiträge: 61
Sprache: English
erinja (Profil anzeigen) 15. Dezember 2008 15:28:53
Nekudot (nikkudot, niqqudot, etc), ceigered. Feminine gender.
Yiddish, unlike Hebrew, is properly written with certain nekudot as copied by mnlg. Not to go deeply into Yiddish language but all Yiddish is phonetically written, except for Hebrew loan words, and the nekudot are used in the phonetic part (never in the loan words) to differentiate between different sounds. אַ,א, and אָ are considered separate letters in Yiddish. Likewise, certain digraphs are considered to be a single letter (like יי).
Regarding a 'standard' English, it would vary by the country, but I think that each anglophone country will have something considered a standard. In the UK it would be RP English (received pronunciation). In the US, it would be "General American English", also called American Broadcast English (what they speak on TV). Canada doesn't have the same amount of variation in dialects that other anglophone countries have (with the exception of Newfoundland), so almost all Canadian anglophones could be considered to speak more or less the standard English.
Australia is considered to have three main Englishes - Broad Australian English, General Australian English, and Cultivated Australian English. I suspect that the "General" form is the Australian version of General American. This would be considered "standard" Australian English.
Yiddish, unlike Hebrew, is properly written with certain nekudot as copied by mnlg. Not to go deeply into Yiddish language but all Yiddish is phonetically written, except for Hebrew loan words, and the nekudot are used in the phonetic part (never in the loan words) to differentiate between different sounds. אַ,א, and אָ are considered separate letters in Yiddish. Likewise, certain digraphs are considered to be a single letter (like יי).
Regarding a 'standard' English, it would vary by the country, but I think that each anglophone country will have something considered a standard. In the UK it would be RP English (received pronunciation). In the US, it would be "General American English", also called American Broadcast English (what they speak on TV). Canada doesn't have the same amount of variation in dialects that other anglophone countries have (with the exception of Newfoundland), so almost all Canadian anglophones could be considered to speak more or less the standard English.
Australia is considered to have three main Englishes - Broad Australian English, General Australian English, and Cultivated Australian English. I suspect that the "General" form is the Australian version of General American. This would be considered "standard" Australian English.
danielcg (Profil anzeigen) 15. Dezember 2008 16:13:34
Wow! I'll have to review my statement that I speak English. Perhaps what I speak is something between British Received Pronunciation and General American English, peppered with a generous dose of Latin American accent.
You don't want to know how much what we speak in Buenos Aires resembles traditional Spanish from Spain.
Regards,
Daniel
You don't want to know how much what we speak in Buenos Aires resembles traditional Spanish from Spain.
Regards,
Daniel
erinja:
Regarding a 'standard' English, it would vary by the country, but I think that each anglophone country will have something considered a standard. In the UK it would be RP English (received pronunciation). In the US, it would be "General American English", also called American Broadcast English (what they speak on TV). Canada doesn't have the same amount of variation in dialects that other anglophone countries have (with the exception of Newfoundland), so almost all Canadian anglophones could be considered to speak more or less the standard English.
Australia is considered to have three main Englishes - Broad Australian English, General Australian English, and Cultivated Australian English. I suspect that the "General" form is the Australian version of General American. This would be considered "standard" Australian English.
Rogir (Profil anzeigen) 15. Dezember 2008 17:32:57
We Dutch-speaking actually have a Taalunie (language union) of the Netherlands, Flanders and Surinam, which decides on standard language issues (and revises the spelling every 10 years).
mnlg (Profil anzeigen) 15. Dezember 2008 17:48:41
We Dutch-speaking actually have a Taalunie (language union) of the Netherlands, Flanders and Surinam, which decides on standard language issues (and revises the spelling every 10 years).Interesting. So do your books get burned and revised every 10 years, or do you get along with that, remembering all past revisions of your spelling rules?
Let me explain
We had a fairly long debate in the past regarding spelling reforms in English, and one of the main arguments against it was that all the previous literature would have had to be either rewritten, or otherwise the readers would have to remember two distinct rulesets, a feat which would be more taxing than remembering just one, as irregular as it may be (it is to be said that there is already more than one system in force due to the natural evolution of the language, but the argument is sound anyway).
However, if you Dutch speakers do not suffer any particular frustration out of your spelling revisions, I would say that it could be a viable choice for English as well. I am still as doubtful as I was that it will ever be approached, but just for the sake of the debate, I would be interested in your opinion.
ceigered (Profil anzeigen) 16. Dezember 2008 10:17:47
Rogir:We Dutch-speaking actually have a Taalunie (language union) of the Netherlands, Flanders and Surinam, which decides on standard language issues (and revises the spelling every 10 years).The Nederlandse Taalunie isn't quite as strict as the Académie Française though, right?
And on what mnlg said, in a foreigners opinion, Dutch is an easier language than say English and is already very phonetical so I doubt the consequences of spelling revision would cause mass book burnings. I'm guessing only certain spellings are changed, e.g. words that have changed massively. And I doubt that spelling revisions are officially enforced by soldiers and secret police so I don't think it would be that bigger deal
However Rogir, considering you are our resident Nederlander, please feel free to correct me
ceigered (Profil anzeigen) 16. Dezember 2008 10:31:12
And thanks Erinja, I was thinking last night 'what's the hebrew feminine plural?' and now I know.
Back to English, I'd say that what you said pretty much summed up our Aussie accents, I myself use features from all three (Broad, General, and Cultivated (e.g. Aussie Received Pronunciation)). But that comes back to the several main English varieties splitting off into different dialects. I wonder if that would be a good thing? It would be fun to say "I speak Aussie, American, English, New Zealander, and Seuth Efrikan*"
(not to mention the other various spoken varieties). But, on the flip side, assuming people tried to standardise their regional spellings, it could confuse the situation. I already find 'Mom' to be very strange, however the American 'o' does sound like an 'aaa' sound.
You'd also have problems like 'can't' being said differently per person. Some people say 'kæ:nt', others 'ka:nt' - how do you have a one sound one letter system like that?
*(Sorry, but I love the South African accent, it's so cool!)
Back to English, I'd say that what you said pretty much summed up our Aussie accents, I myself use features from all three (Broad, General, and Cultivated (e.g. Aussie Received Pronunciation)). But that comes back to the several main English varieties splitting off into different dialects. I wonder if that would be a good thing? It would be fun to say "I speak Aussie, American, English, New Zealander, and Seuth Efrikan*"
(not to mention the other various spoken varieties). But, on the flip side, assuming people tried to standardise their regional spellings, it could confuse the situation. I already find 'Mom' to be very strange, however the American 'o' does sound like an 'aaa' sound.You'd also have problems like 'can't' being said differently per person. Some people say 'kæ:nt', others 'ka:nt' - how do you have a one sound one letter system like that?
*(Sorry, but I love the South African accent, it's so cool!)
Rogir (Profil anzeigen) 16. Dezember 2008 15:24:22
Have a good seat and lean back, because here's the story of the Dutch orthography wars: the only wars that start on schedule!
When I was only a small child, in 1995, massive changes shook Dutch society. Suddenly n's were introduced in every compound, but with a lot of exceptions. And many c's became k's or otherwise. It went mostly over my young head, but even years after that I still heard rumours of schools where they had books with 'old spelling'.
Ten years later, in 2005, another spelling revision occurred. Although the changes were minor, some of them were unacceptable to the general public. Soon afterwards an alternative, lesser, spelling change was published in 'the little white book', as opposed to the one in 'the little green book'. So now there was a green and a white spelling.
And big newspaper accepted the white spelling and still use it to this day. A big organisation of language lovers lost its subsidy for supporting the white spelling. Meanwhile government and education use the green spelling. The conflict has not been settled, only the media attention has waned.
Maybe in 2015 the conflict will be solved, maybe it will get worse.
The main problems in Dutch spelling are with compounds. Some use an -, some are glued together, some use capitalization, some don't. And accents or not in foreign words is a big issue.
When I was only a small child, in 1995, massive changes shook Dutch society. Suddenly n's were introduced in every compound, but with a lot of exceptions. And many c's became k's or otherwise. It went mostly over my young head, but even years after that I still heard rumours of schools where they had books with 'old spelling'.
Ten years later, in 2005, another spelling revision occurred. Although the changes were minor, some of them were unacceptable to the general public. Soon afterwards an alternative, lesser, spelling change was published in 'the little white book', as opposed to the one in 'the little green book'. So now there was a green and a white spelling.
And big newspaper accepted the white spelling and still use it to this day. A big organisation of language lovers lost its subsidy for supporting the white spelling. Meanwhile government and education use the green spelling. The conflict has not been settled, only the media attention has waned.
Maybe in 2015 the conflict will be solved, maybe it will get worse.
The main problems in Dutch spelling are with compounds. Some use an -, some are glued together, some use capitalization, some don't. And accents or not in foreign words is a big issue.
andogigi (Profil anzeigen) 16. Dezember 2008 22:57:59
mnlg:Maybe some professional linguists can correct me, but my understanding is exactly what your proverb teaches. Consider, if you were to place a Croatian and a Serb in the same room together, they would understand each other with only minor difficulties. The only MAJOR differences between them is that one uses the the roman alphabet and the other uses the cyrillic. Tell them, however, that they speak the same language and they will fight you in ways you cannot imagine. (I've had this experience. It wasn't pretty.)
אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט
(A shprakh iz a dyalekt mit an armey un flot)
"A language is a dialect with an army and navy".
Now, try placing a Mandarin and a Cantonese speaker in the same room together. Neither one will understand the other. The only way they have to communicate is by writing things down because the two share a common script. However, try telling them both that they speak a different language. They will insist that they both speak Chinese.
My understanding from most linguists is that something is a language when the people who speak it come to a concensus and decide that it is a language. How else can you tell?
I would really appreciate someone with a better understanding to clarify any mistatements I might have made. I'm certainly not an expert...
andogigi (Profil anzeigen) 16. Dezember 2008 23:00:47
Rogir:Have a good seat and lean back, because here's the story of the Dutch orthography wars: the only wars that start on schedule!Is there a central authority (at a government office or university) which is making these decisions? Spelling reform in English has failed miserably in the past for this exact reason. There was no central authority that everyone respected to make these decisions.
Senlando (Profil anzeigen) 17. Dezember 2008 00:10:59
andogigi: Now, try placing a Mandarin and a Cantonese speaker in the same room together. Neither one will understand the other. The only way they have to communicate is by writing things down because the two share a common script. However, try telling them both that they speak a different language. They will insist that they both speak Chinese.That's interesting, but true. They both are speaking Chinese, or to be more correct, a Chinese language. Just like French, Spanish, and Italian people speak a Romance language. I "personally" classify a Chinese language, as a language that uses the Chinese written language (which in truth could be classified as its own language, as sign language is.)
It seems the Chinese use the word dialect instead of language, in order to try to give the impression of unity, cause truthfully China is made up of many different peoples with their own languages, who used the Chinese written scripted as a sort of "international language of diplomacy and Trade". Many people would disagree with me of course, but that's just my personal opinion on the Chinese language Tree.