# Spelling and Culture



## Residente Calle 13

English has _*philoso*__*ph*__*y*_, French has _*ph*__iloso__*ph*__ie _but in Spanish and Italian it's *filosofía*. As important as it is to mark a work with spelling to reflect its history, in Spanish and Italian, sound and consistency is favored over History as far as spelling is concerned.

However, Spanish still has some spelling oddities like _*boda *_from _*voto*_,_* cirujano *_and_* cirugía *_and like Italian it has silent *h*s. What does spelling say about the people who write those languages (and the people who set the rules) and why is it that some spellings that really don't make that much sense stick in some written languages?


----------



## cuchuflete

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What does spelling say about the people who write those languages (and the people who set the rules) and why is it that some spellings that really don't make that much sense stick in some written languages?



Hola Residente,

You've already given a good idea of some of your thoughts on this in another thread...a curious admixture of social and political theory, with some economics thrown in for good measure.  Some of what you pointed at actually holds true, but not for the reasons given.  It's so easy to confuse coincidence with causality.  

I. _What does spelling say about the people who write those languages?_  Not very much.  People learn, however well or badly, to write the language that surrounds them.  Relatively few learn to write consistently and correctly according to the
rules, habits, and customs of the language in place as of the time of their birth.  Even fewer make a conscious effort to flaunt such conventions.  

E.E. Cummings had some success at using the written alphabet as a literary device.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s many of us who opposed the war in Vietnam used the letter "K" in the spelling of AmeriKa to try to associate the policies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon with Nazis.  It was not very successful as an anti-war effort, but it sure felt good at the time.  

The key fact in the way people spell is inertia.  They are taught certain ways to spell, and generally follow them without much thought, making plenty of mistakes along the way.  Younger generations make attempts at sensible and other simplifications. Witness _*benjois. *_

Some of the forms adopted are logical; some are used purely in response to the demands of small keyboards and small display screens. Some are abbreviations.  Some are jargon, slang usages, and badges of "individualism"--worn by so many rugged individualists that they are more conventional than original and creative.  

Those who strive most--not necessarily best-- to adhere to orthographic conventions may be any of-
-conservatives who appreciate linguistic history and heritage
-unthinking followers of the _status quo_
-connosieurs of fine writing
-students of a language, who have better things to do with their time and energy than promote reform of someone else's conventions
-the majority of 'good students' who don't give any of this a thought.

Thoughts on the rule makers in another post.


----------



## JimPojke

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> ¿Escribir _*bien *_según quién? ¿Quiénes son los que dictan las reglas?
> 
> Las reglas ortográficas causan muchas dificultades. Pero vez un "no me gusta el proseso" y dices "ah! un latinoamericano!" o "ah! ese es andaluz!" o a lo mejor "es un miserable, o peor un vago, que no sabe escribir y se merece la miseria en que vive".
> 
> ¿La *H* muda facilita qué? ¿Escribir _mó*v*il _sirve de qué? Nisiquiera se justifica en lo etimológico. ¿_Ciru*j*ano_? ¿_Ciru*g*ía_? ¿Para el noventa porciento de los que hablan el idioma cómo se justifícan _democra*c*ia _e _idiosincra*s*ia_? Se escribe así porque así lo escriben los que reparten el bacalao.
> 
> En muchos países, el dinero y el color son casi la misma cosa y por eso mencioné eso de la raza. En Santo Domingo un blanco pobre está casi igual de "frito" que un pobre negro pero la verdad es que la plata la tienen los más claritos. No pasa nada. Creo que está claro que en nuestros países quién es quién.
> 
> Pero el hilo más adecuado para esto es este
> 
> ...
> 
> Este hilo se trata de por qué hay tantos idiomas.


 
Está bien, sigámosle por aquí...

Escribir bien según, en el idioma español, la Real Academia Española que es la que regula esos aspectos. Y siempre es mejor definir un estándar, que andar por ahí flotando entre múltiples opciones sin poder decidir.

En el caso de "cirujano/cirugía", la raíz viene (según el diccionario de la RAE) de "chirugia" en latín y ésta del griego "χειρουργíα". Pero "cirujano" debe llevar 'j', para no perder el sonido; de otra forma sería "cirugano" y eso ya no parece tener relación. Claro, podrías escribir "cirugiano", que tarde o temprano deformaría en... "cirujano". Y así, muchas palabras basan su escritura en su origen, ajustes fonéticos, etc.

La 'H' claro que representa problemas, es como el acento circunflejo en francés, que está ahí por causa de otra letra que llevaba esa palabra en el pasado.

Mira, en mi país se sabe perfectamente quién es quién. Pero así como hay "blancos" ricos, también los hay "morenos". En este país la prescencia negra es muy poca, casi nula. Pero igual hay racismo hacia los indígenas, sin embargo nadie se pone a cuestionar si una persona de ascendencia indígena tiene o no dinero. Y si te pones a examinar, muchas veces (aquí en México) la clase alta (los ricos, los blancos) suelen tener menos educación que la gente de clase media (los morenos, los indígenas, mestizos y blancos también).


----------



## cuchuflete

> (and the people who set the rules)


It says the obvious- *Inertia* reigns.

There are two broad cases, and three options for each.

Case #1- 

There is a central, respected authority, such as the Real Academia Española de la Lengua or its equivalent in other countries.

A. Behave as lexicographers, and record past and current usage, and don't try to legislate change. Let it come from the users, over prolonged periods.
B. Behave as activists, sort of, but just a little, and propose modest reforms from time to time. This has been the posture of the Portuguese and Spanish authorities.
C. Propose radical changes: I am not aware of an authority which has adopted this posture. That's no surprise. People get to be members of these outfits by demonstrated skill in literature, philology, and academic pursuits which require mastery of the language as they find it in the past and present. The bomb throwers, even if nominated and invited, would probably decline to join the musty realm of authority.

Case #2

I'll write about what I know...the US.  There is no official authority.  There are a variety of unofficial authorities, including
1- Dictionary publishers.  They are somewhat like the official academies, but they move a bit faster in recording modern usages, and publishing these as either valid or at least, recognized, alternatives.
2-Textbook publishers- They promote the _status quo _except perhaps in Texas, where they are hounded into submission by the self-styled 'religious' "right", that hotbed of progressivism. 
3-Teachers-  A curious mixture of linguistic conservatism and promotion of stupid neologisms...the cant and jargon of their pedantic trade.  Generally they confine their mischief to misusing words with inappropriate meanings (look what they've done to "rubric" lately) and leave spelling as they find it.  On the whole, they are a conservative force.
4-Media stylesheets-Ever less influential, as fewer and fewer people read newspapers.  Broadcast and internet media show scant signs of knowing what a style sheet is.  They are not progressive, but they do nothing to encourage former conventions.  They seem to be staking out the ground between conventional spelling and chatspeak.  How courageous!

The best proponents of evolution and reform are the dictionary folk, who, especially as the internet makes things happen faster, record and accept what the users of the language invent.

I'll confess, I like to paint dictionary developers as the most progressive, but you need to take me with a disclaimer:  I am
working on additions and supplements to the WR dictionaries, and I love to include new usages, alternate spellings...all that rambunctious stuff that makes a language vibrant.  The owner of the dictionaries is gung-ho for including modern, current usages.  I don't want to paint him as a promoter of
funky new spellings...we haven't talked about that.  We should!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

JimPojke said:
			
		

> Está bien, sigámosle por aquí...
> 
> Escribir bien según, en el idioma español, la Real Academia Española que es la que regula esos aspectos.


¿Por qué el noventa porciento de las personas que no viven en una monarquía y que no son españoles tienen que escribir según lo que dice una Real Academia Española? La realidad es que La RAE trabaja en conjunto con las academias de unos veinte países pero otra realidad es que escribimos, en gran parte, según se pronuncian las palabras en el norte y el centro de España. No creo que tenga mucho sentido.



			
				JimPojke said:
			
		

> En el caso de "cirujano/cirugía", la raíz viene (según el diccionario de la RAE) de "chirugia" en latín y ésta del griego "χειρουργíα". Pero "cirujano" debe llevar 'j', para no perder el sonido; de otra forma sería "cirugano" y eso ya no parece tener relación.


¿Por qué no escribir _*cirujía *_y _*cirujano*_? ¿No tendría más sentido? ¿Porque así se escribía en latin? Bueno, en latin se escribía _*amicus *_pero ya que esa /k/ la vocalizamos, ya que la *u* es desde el latín vulgar *o*, ya que esa *s* final es muda, escribimos _*amigo*_. ¡No vamos a escribir _*amicus*_ ni_* amico *_porque así lo escribían los romanos!​ 
¿De qué nos sirve una *g* con dos sonidos? ¿Para qué _*tejer *_y luego _*proteger*_? En vez de reglas para escribir bien me parece que son reglas para que algunos escriban mal.


Es interesante como el noventa por ciento acepta sin cuestioniar mucho la opinion del diez. En cierto sentido es muy democrático. Nadie se puede quejar que esa minoría no está más que bien representada. En en las democracias, las minorías se prote*g*en. Lo dice la Santa RAE bendita y así ha de ser. Qué Dios los bendiga.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Here is a list of the inconsistencies in Spanish spelling for those who think it's phonetic.

*B* – Represents */b/* and the positional  allophone */β/* between vowels (the positional allophone causes  little confusion). Its allographs are *v* and, in a few words, *w*.  Writers hesitate between *b* and *v* and erroneously write  _estu*b*o_ for _estu*v*o_. Chileans, who have a */v/* will mistakenly write *v* for *b* when it matches  their pronunciation (_cam*v*io_ for _cam*b*io_). Causes a  great deal of confusion in all Spanish speakers. Billán and Villán co-exist as  surnames; you'll find *['bateɾ]* spelled with *b*, *v*  and *w*. 

*C* – Represents */k/* before  *a*, *o* and *u* and all consonants except for in *ch* where  it's */tʃ/*. Before *e* and *i* in Latin American and  Southern Spanish (Latin American and Southern Spanish) it represents */s/* and in North and  Central Spanish (NCS) it transcribes */θ/*. Its allographs are  *s* and *z* in LASS and *z* in NCS. LASS writers hesitate between  *s* and *c* and *z* before the front vowels and will erroneously  write _*s*ielo_ for _*c*ielo_ and _ti*s*a_ for  _ti*z*a_. NCS writers hesitate between *c* and *z*.  _Cebra_ and _zebra_ are both valid spellings. But _ceta_, once correct, is now considered wrong. _Zepeda_ and  _Cepeda_ co-exist as surnames. Where to spell *z* as opposed to  *c* causes a great deal of confusion even in NCS. 

*D* –  Represents */d/* and its positional allophone */ð/* between vowels. Causes very little confusion in LASS. In  Castille, some speakers will pronounce final *d*s as */θ/*;  they pronounce _edad_ as *[e'ðaθ]* and so you will find  mispellings such as _prosperida*z*_ and _solidarida*z*_.  

*G* – Transcribes */g/* and its positional allophone  */ɣ/* (between vowels) when followed by *a*, *o*, and  *u* (which causes very little confusion). Also represents */h/* in LASS, */x/* in NCS, and in Chile, *g*  can become */ç/* or */çj/* before the front vowels  (*e* and *i*). Before the front vowels, it's an allograph for *j*  which causes a great deal of confusion. You will read _cojer_ and  _dirijir_; _Giménez_, _Jiménez_, and _Ximénez_ co-exist as  alternate spellings of the same surname. See *x*. 

*H* –  Arguably the most confusing grapheme in the Spanish spelling system. When  preceded by *c* becomes */tʃ/* (and in a few loan words when  preceeded by *s* like _show_ which becomes *[tʃo]*) but  it is silent in most words of most Spanish dialects otherwise. Writers hesitate  between leaving it out or not. _Te hecho de menos_ for _Te echo de  menos_ is very common. It is, however, pronounced as */h/* in  some words in a small number of dialects in Spain and the Americas. 

*I* – The vowel */i/* appears as  *i* at the beginning of words when followed by a consonant or in the middle  of words when it carries the the stress) and in all other cases */i/* is written *y*. The rule is violated in older Spanish  texts (_mui_ and _syntaxis_) and found in a few names, such as  _Ysidro_ and _Ynés_. Causes little confusion. 

*J* –  Represents */h/* in LASS and */x/* in NCS along  with its allograph *g* (before *e* and *i*) which causes a great  deal of confusion. See *g*. 

*K* – Represents */k/* along with its allographs *c* (before *a*, *o*  and *u*) and *qu* which causes a great deal of confusion. You will  read _képis_ for _quépis_. 

*LL* – Causes a great deal of  confusion with the semi-vowel *y* for which it is an allophone in most  varieties of Spanish. _Hallaca_ and _hayaca_ are both valid spellings.  You will read: _no creo que halla ido_ for _no creo que haya ido_.  

*M* – Sometimes the nasal */n/* in final position or  before plosives which causes some confusion. Hence the spelling of  _también_ as _tan bien_ and the "misspellings" of _canpo_ as well  as the plural _álbunes_. _Sampedro_ (from San Pedro) is a Spanish last  name. 

*N* – Before plosives becomes */ŋ/* which  causes very little confusion. It sounds the same as the double consonant  *nn* used in a few words such as _cannabis_ and _connotación_.  

*P* – Silent in the grapheme *ps* (_psiquiatría_) adopted  from the Greek phi (*ψ*) and although it is the recomended grapheme,  writing *s* for *ps* is no longer considered an error in written  Spanish according to the prescriptivists. However, curiously enough, the RAE's  _Diccionario panhispánico de dudas_ says that in formal language  _pseudoprofeta_ is preferred. _Pseudónimo_ on the other hand, is  incorrect. 

*Q* – Exists only in *qu* and represents */k/* along with the allographs *c* and *k*. Causes a  great deal of confusion. See *k*.You will read _qualquier_ especially  since it was once the accepted spelling before 1815 when the Royal Spanish  Academy (RAE) changed _quando_, _qual_, _quatro_, and  _qualquiera_ to _cuando_, _cual_, _cuatro_, and  _cualquiera_. 

*R* – Represents both */ɾ/*  (*r*) and */r/* (usually *rr*) but appears as a single  *r* in the beginning and end of words as well as when it's followed by  *l*, *n* or *s*. Causes some confusion especially in compound  words. You can find _quemaropa_ for _quemarropa_ and  _antireglamentario_ for _antirreglamentario_. 

*S* –  Becomes */z/* before the nasals */m/* and */n/* which causes very little trouble. Has *c* and *z*  (before *e* and *i*) as allophones in LASS and *x* in some  regions where *taxi* is *[tasi]* and this causes many  misspellings. Causes a great deal of confusion. _Vázquez_ and  _Vásquez_ are both spellings of the same last name. See *c*.  

*U* – With the dieresis, becomes */w/* in *güe*  and *güi*. See *g*. 

*V* – See *b*. 

*W*  – Sometimes */w/* and sometimes */b/* in a few  loanwords. See *b*. Causes a little confusion. 

*X* – Sometimes  */h/* or */x/* (_Xavier_, _Xerez_), */ks/* (_exito_, _exilio_), */tʃ/*  (_Xabi_) or */s/* (_taxi_). Causes some confusion.  

*Y* – See *i* and *ll*. 

*Z* – See *c*.


----------



## cuchuflete

residente calle demokrasia said:
			
		

> Es interesante como el noventa por ciento acepta sin cuestioniar mucho la opinion del diez. En cierto sentido es muy democrático. Nadie se puede quejar que esa minoría no está más que bien representada. En en las democracias, las minorías se prote*g*en. Lo dice la Santa RAE bendita y así ha de ser. Qué Dios los bendiga.



With all your abundant and well-aimed sarcasm, you neglected to mention that those who choose to follow la muy Santa RAE might just see a benefit in doing so.  There is, of course, an alternative.  It is in keeping with your passionate defense of Spanglish, and its unregulated, organic formation:

Each and every Spanish speaking country would declare its own spelling conventions.  Then, pushing the democratic model to a logical extreme, every provincial government would do the same, and then townships and finally barrios.
Just think of the beauty of it.  Before long, machine translators would be required to convert all public edicts into some commonly understood form.  

Esperanto, anybody?

The preservationist tendencies of the RAE may strike you as
somewhat akin to preserving 18th century spelling in a block of clear epoxy, but I'd rather follow the slow changes of the lexicographers than the pure, miraculously logical pronouncements of some pointy-headed academic.  You were, if memory serves, the one who adjusted speech to avoid seeming like an 'egghead intellectual', so I'm sure you agree that intellectual academics who would have us ditch centuries of orthographic development overnight are not the answer we need.

Remember your mention of Beowulf....thoroughly unlike modern English?   If your transliteration of Cien Años is anything like what you think we should change to, you will have successfully created a similar gulf.  You consistently use Latin as a basis for your arguments about what is wrong with Spanish.  Why not just go back to vulgar Latin?


----------



## JimPojke

Es extraño. ¿No? Generalmente la proporción es 20 - 80, no 10 - 90. Pero, en fin. Creo que habría que escribir como ellos dicen, puesto que fue a ellos a los que se les ocurrió establecer dicha academia. Y lo que ésta trata de hacer es mantener una unidad (dentro de lo posible) de la lengua.

Que si se usa de base el habla del centro de España, que si muchas letras son obsoletas... Es cierto, pero cuando la crearon era España el centro del poder, no América. Ningún acento es más válido que otro, pero si ya utilizaron ése y ya es aceptado y conocido por todos. ¿Qué se le va a hacer, cambiarlo? Recordemos lo que pasó en Alemania.

Ahora, nuestro sistema de escritura es bastante fonético. A pesar de lo que digas, no tenemos tantos problemas como un angloparlante. Sí, se pueden confundir un par de letras y los errores que mencionas no surgen tan frecuentemente como el texto anterior quisiera decirnos. Como dije antes, si quieres un idioma que se escriba tal cual se pronuncia, eres libre de ir a Serbia y hablar su idioma, pues ellos tienen una regla que dice que todo se escribe tal cuál se escucha, así tengan que escribir. O de plano, aprender esperanto y comunicarte así con quienes también lo hablan, siendo un idioma artificial, no tiene irregularidades en gramática, fonética ni ortografía.

A pesar de que tenga sus detalles, yo aprecio mucho mi idioma y en vez de perder el tiempo tratando inútilmente de cambiar sus reglas, las utilizo y no me presentan ningún problema. Si tengo alguna duda, ahí está el diccionario. Creo que si la gente quisiera, no le sería tan difícil escribir de forma correcta; el interés es la clave de todo, y ya que es tu lengua materna, pienso que debería existir el interés de expresarse correctamente en ella (escrita u oralmente). 

Que si la educación, que si las clases, que si las razas. En mi opinión todas esas razones son sólo tonterías; excusas para no esforzarse un poquito y aprender bien algo básico. (Todo lo que en esta vida vale la pena, cuesta; y no estoy refiriéndome al dinero, para que ni lo tomen por ese lado.)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

JimPojke said:
			
		

> Es extraño. ¿No? Generalmente la proporción es 20 - 80, no 10 - 90. Pero, en fin. Creo que habría que escribir como ellos dicen, puesto que fue a ellos a los que se les ocurrió establecer dicha academia. Y lo que ésta trata de hacer es mantener una unidad (dentro de lo posible) de la lengua.
> 
> Que si se usa de base el habla del centro de España, que si muchas letras son obsoletas... Es cierto, pero cuando la crearon era España el centro del poder, no América. Ningún acento es más válido que otro, pero si ya utilizaron ése y ya es aceptado y conocido por todos. ¿Qué se le va a hacer, cambiarlo? Recordemos lo que pasó en Alemania.
> 
> Ahora, nuestro sistema de escritura es bastante fonético. A pesar de lo que digas, no tenemos tantos problemas como un angloparlante. Sí, se pueden confundir un par de letras y los errores que mencionas no surgen tan frecuentemente como el texto anterior quisiera decirnos.


¿Qué te puedo decir? Aunque te diga que no la tienes o que no debería ser así pues así es y tienes toda la razón.



			
				JimPojke said:
			
		

> Como dije antes, si quieres un idioma que se escriba tal cual se pronuncia, eres libre de ir a Serbia y hablar su idioma, pues ellos tienen una regla que dice que todo se escribe tal cuál se escucha, así tengan que escribir. O de plano, aprender esperanto y comunicarte así con quienes también lo hablan, siendo un idioma artificial, no tiene irregularidades en gramática, fonética ni ortografía.


Yo vivo en Estados Unidos y estoy "obligado" solo a escribir en inglés. La ortografía es pésima pero no la dictan los ingleses. Escribrimos "color" y "aluminum" porque tiene más sentido para nosotros. No tengo la nacionalidad Serba ni la deseo, con todo respeto a mis amigos serbos, pues me siento bastante bien donde estoy. No deseo cambiar la ortografía de los españoles y no tengo ninguna necesidad de hacerlo. No soy español.



			
				JimPojke said:
			
		

> A pesar de que tenga sus detalles, yo aprecio mucho mi idioma y en vez de perder el tiempo tratando inútilmente de cambiar sus reglas, las utilizo y no me presentan ningún problema. Si tengo alguna duda, ahí está el diccionario. Creo que si la gente quisiera, no le sería tan difícil escribir de forma correcta; el interés es la clave de todo, y ya que es tu lengua materna, pienso que debería existir el interés de expresarse correctamente en ella (escrita u oralmente).
> 
> Que si la educación, que si las clases, que si las razas. En mi opinión todas esas razones son sólo tonterías; excusas para no esforzarse un poquito y aprender bien algo básico. (Todo lo que en esta vida vale la pena, cuesta; y no estoy refiriéndome al dinero, para que ni lo tomen por ese lado.)



Yo aprecio mucho el idioma de mis padres pero la ortografía deja mucho que desear. *El idioma es una cosa y la manera bien peninsular en la que se escribe es otra.* Y no es bueno confundir, como dicen los españoles, _el tocino con la velocidad_. Eso de _*coger* _y *que coja* no tiene sentido por muy panhispáno que me sienta. 

¡A los pobres que se jodan! ¿Quién se atreve a no escribir como lo hacen en la madre partria? El sistema español (de España) es el mejor porque todo lo europeo es claramente superior a lo que se pueda crear en América. Así está Latinoamérica 500 despues de la Conquista y con casi 200 años de independencia. Está escrito en blanco y negro. Escribiendo con un ojo enfocado en la página y el otro hacia Madrid capital.

My first conclusion:

Odd spellings  are kept in Spanish because that's the way the write in Spain and makes sense in Northern and Central Spain (since they wrote the language first). *They *keep some oddities because that's the way those words were written in the languages they got the words from except for some words I shall put in the next post.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> With all your abundant and well-aimed sarcasm, you neglected to mention that those who choose to follow la muy Santa RAE might just see a benefit in doing so.


The benefit is not looking like a fool. The US and Britain don't spell the same and yet they manage to communicate well enough to get into quite a bit of trouble together. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Each and every Spanish speaking country would declare its own spelling conventions. Then, pushing the democratic model to a logical extreme, every provincial government would do the same, and then townships and finally barrios.
> Just think of the beauty of it. Before long, machine translators would be required to convert all public edicts into some commonly understood form.
> 
> Esperanto, anybody?



Why? Could there not be a single Latin American spelling that reduces spelling errors due exclusively to the American accents? And again you are confusing spelling with language. Just because the British spell "tyre" differently doesn't mean they speak a language that Americans can't understand. I guess the difference there is that independence in the US was eventually taken a bit more seriously.




			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The preservationist tendencies of the RAE may strike you as
> somewhat akin to preserving 18th century spelling in a block of clear epoxy, but I'd rather follow the slow changes of the lexicographers than the pure, miraculously logical pronouncements of some pointy-headed academic.  You were, if memory serves, the one who adjusted speech to avoid seeming like an 'egghead intellectual', so I'm sure you agree that intellectual academics who would have us ditch centuries of orthographic development overnight are not the answer we need.



We? I don't *need *to reform Spanish spelling. I have no need for it whatsoever. And I don't have any hopes of it ever happening.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Remember your mention of Beowulf....thoroughly unlike modern English?   If your transliteration of Cien Años is anything like what you think we should change to, you will have successfully created a similar gulf.  You consistently use Latin as a basis for your arguments about what is wrong with Spanish.  Why not just go back to vulgar Latin?



My quote of _Cien Años de Soledad_ is in Modern Spanish. You are confusing spelling with language. What makes _Beowulf_ illegible today is not that it's spelled differently.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Word History doesn't alway justify some of the oddities in Spanish spelling. Here's a list of words and the words they come from:

_abuelo_ < _aviolus_ 
_abogado_ < _advocatus_ 
_barbecho_ < _vervactum_ 
_barniz_ < _veronix_ 
_barrer_ < _verrere_ 
_basura_ < _versura_ 
_bizco_ < _versicus_ 
_bermejo_ < _vermiculus_ 
_bochorno_ < _vultumus_ 
_boga_ < _vogue_ 
_bóveda_ < _volvita_ 
_buitre_ < _vultur_ 
_bulto_ < _vultus_ 
_chubasco_ < _chuva_ 
_corbata_ < _corvatta_ 
_embaír_ < _invadere_ 
_esbelto_ < _svelto_ 
_grabar_ < _graver_ 
_maravilla_ < _mirabilia_ 
_móvil_ < _mobilis_ 
_pabellón_ < _paveillon_ 
_vellón_ < _billion_
_agiotaje_ < _agiotage_ 
_amerizaje_ < _amerissage_ 
_atelaje_ < _attelage_ 
_aterrizaje_ < _aterrissage_ 
_balotaje_ < _ballottage_ 
_bovaje_ < _bovatge_ 
_bricolaje_ < _bricolage_ 
_chantaje_ < _chantage_ 
_conserje_ < _concierge_ 
_coraje_ < _corages_ 
_estiaje_ < _étiage_ 
_extranjero_ < _estrangier_ 
_follaje_ < _follatge_ 
_forjar_ < _forger_ 
_formaje_ < _formage_ 
_gaje_ < _gage_ 
_garaje_ < _garage_ 
_homenaje_ < _homenagte_ 
_jerigonzas_ < _gergons_ 
_jirón_ < _giron_ 
_lenguaje_ < _lenguatge_ 
_linaje_ < _linhatge_ or _llinyatge_ 
_masaje_ < _massage_ 
_mensaje_ < _messagte_ 
_monje_ < _monge_ 
_paje_ < _page_ 
_peaje_ < _peage_ or _peatge_ 
_salvaje_ < _salvatge_ 
_selvaje_ < _selvatge_ 
_tarjeta_ < _targette_ 
_trucaje_ < _trucage_ 
_viaje < __viatge
ivierno/invierno < tempus invernus
__henchir < impelere_
_hinchar < inflare
__oboe < hautebois
_
---

Spanish is not the only language that does this. "I*s*land" in English and "nenu*ph*ar" in French are also anti-etymological. In any case, I really fail to see why you should write something a certain way because it was done so in the past.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

*Clarification:*

This thread is about *Spelling*. If you would like to suggest that I learn Serbian, that we all speak Vulgar Latin, or Esperanto, you are going off-topic. This thread is *not *about learning languages but about why some people choose to adhere to spelling standards that make very little sense to them from a phonetic or etymological point of view.

This applies to _*through*_ over _*thru*_ in English, _*pharmarcie *_over _*farmacie*_, in French, _*psicología *_over _*sicologia *_in Spanish and _*ha vinto la partita*_ over _*a vinto la partita*_ in Italian. It also applies to the terms _*island *_(English), _*nenuphar *_(French) and _*hinchar *_(Spanish) as I mentionned in previous post.

It's *not *about Spanglish, changing spelling, or about changing the language.


----------



## cuchuflete

Residente said:
			
		

> In any case, I really fail to see why you should write something a certain way because it was done so in the past.




Do you really fail to see why, or are you just being polemical for the sake of proving the obvious, that many modern languages use spelling that is not purely phonetic?

English spelling is a mess.  To write and read, an English speaker has to learn the spelling of words nearly one word at a time.  Yet, hundreds of millions of English users manage to survive this illogical mess.

Spanish spelling is pretty close to what spoken words sound like.  With a little effort, hundreds of millions of users of the Spanish language manage to read and write.

Are these spelling systems ideal?  Obviously not.  They range from difficult to merely inconvenient.  You may call long lists of words "odd", whatever that may mean to you.  So what?
Ok, they are odd. They evolved, changed over time.  What's the big deal.  Languages change as spoken and written.  
They are organic.  Grammar changes, pronunciation changes, and spelling changes, and some of these changes are not always logical and neat.  

The howling at the moon approach--Oh, this is illogical, odd, difficult!--doesn't accomplish much.  
*
Do you have a specific proposal*?  It might be worth discussing the costs and benefits of a distinct spelling system, rather than tossing heaps of pebbles at what some might considerer quaint oddities.  

You appear to embrace Latin roots as a standard.  What's so good about it?  Why, specifically, is it better than modern 'odd' spelling?

Do you want Spanish to be spelled the way it sounds?  If so, how will you address the wide variety of pronunciations used by speakers in different parts of the world, and different parts of countries?  Should Caribbean spelling drop the final letters of some words, as in speech some words are truncated?
How about some Cono Sur speakers who aspirate an "s" such that buscar sounds close to bucar?  What spelling would you advocate?

Quite seriously, you have belabored the obvious: current spelling systems are flawed.  Agreed.  Now what?  Do you have something less flawed to propose?


----------



## cuchuflete

residente said:
			
		

> why some people choose to adhere to spelling standards that make very little sense to them from a phonetic or etymological point of view.



Bull twaddle! Most people adhere to spelling standards, or attempt to approximate those standards, with no understanding or concern whatsoever of phonetic or etymological points of view.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> [...] Italian it has silent *h*s.


If I'm not mistaken, a silent _h_ is always part of one of the digraphs _ch_, _gh_, in Italian. Perhaps there are one or two exceptions to this. 
On the other hand, Italian still writes _qua, que, qui_ where Spanish just uses _cua, cue, cui_.


----------



## cuchuflete

You asked, in the first post, "What does spelling say about the people who write those languages (and the people who set the rules) and why is it that some spellings that really don't make that much sense stick in some written languages?"

You have proposed the notion that such spellings stick because the "powers that be" like to maintain difficult spelling as a means to identify poor people and those of racial groups.

I have replied that it's really much more a function of cultural inertia.  Most  people learn to write at an age at which they don't know of the existence of etymology or phonetics.  By the time they may  become aware of such things, inertia and lack of a better alternative spelling system impedes change.  Nothing at all about that is 'od'.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, a silent _h_ is always part of one of the digraphs _ch_, _gh_, in Italian. Perhaps there are one or two exceptions to this.
> On the other hand, Italian still writes _qua, que, qui_ where Spanish just uses _cua, cue, cui_.



Italian has the silent *H* in the verb avere : *ho*, _*hai*_, _*ha*_...


----------



## Outsider

Yes... one or two exceptions, as I thought. Anyway, the point of the _h_ in those verb forms is not so much etymological, as it is to tell them apart from homophones such as the preposition _a_. It's a diacritical _h_, if you will.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> why some people choose to adhere to spelling standards that make very little sense to them from a phonetic or etymological point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull twaddle! Most people adhere to spelling standards, or attempt to approximate those standards, with no understanding or concern whatsoever of phonetic or etymological points of view.
Click to expand...


If you asked a random Dublin-born abuser of the English language what concerns they paid to phonetics or etymological points of view in their spelling and speech they'd look blankly at you and probably mumble something about mobile phones. Some, who watched quiz shows would think you were daft to be connecting insects with speech/spelling.  
Cuchu is right… they attempt to spell correctly, but they don't know why it is correct. They look at what they write and they _may_ think it 'looks wrong'.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> You asked, in the first post, "What does spelling say about the people who write those languages (and the people who set the rules) and why is it that some spellings that really don't make that much sense stick in some written languages?"
> 
> You have proposed the notion that such spellings stick because the "powers that be" like to maintain difficult spelling as a means to identify poor people and those of racial groups.
> 
> I have replied that it's really much more a function of cultural inertia.  Most  people learn to write at an age at which they don't know of the existence of etymology or phonetics.  By the time they may  become aware of such things, inertia and lack of a better alternative spelling system impedes change.  Nothing at all about that is 'od'.


I hear you loud and clear. That's your opinion and that's what I wanted to hear. I would also like to hear other people's opinions. Inertia is certainly part of it. An object at rest tends to stay at rest but my question is "who put that object there?"

Here's my opinion:

http://www.geocities.com/spgthesis/#26


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes... one or two exceptions, as I thought. Anyway, the point of the _h_ in those verb forms is not so much etymological, as it is to tell them apart from homophones such as the preposition _a_. It's a diacritical _h_, if you will.



There are some spellings that confuse some Italians but it's by far the most phonetic language I am familiar with.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> There are some spellings that confuse some Italians but it's by far the most phonetic language I am familiar with.


Many Slavic languages written with the Latin alphabet also have very phonetic spellings. And I imagine that Romanian and Turkish have pretty phonetic spellings, too.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If you asked a random Dublin-born abuser of the English language what concerns they paid to phonetics or etymological points of view in their spelling and speech they'd look blankly at you and probably mumble something about mobile phones. Some, who watched quiz shows would think you were daft to be connecting insects with speech/spelling.
> Cuchu is right… they attempt to spell correctly, but they don't know why it is correct. They look at what they write and they _may_ think it 'looks wrong'.



Ask a New York monolingual English-speaker and you get the same blank stare. But in Spanish and French, children get told in school that some words are spelled because they sound that way and others because of the Romans, the Ancient Greeks, and God knows who else.

I think few people in NYC know that "know" is spelled that way because that *k* was not always silent. But in Spanish, where sound is the basis of how most words are spelled, an *h* nobody says is quite a headache.

My nephew spends a great deal of time, here in NYC, copying lists of English words so that he remembers how to spell them. When I lived in the Dominican Republic, I was his age then, we didn't do that at all. We spent our times on weirds verbs instead of weird spellings. Oh well! I guess there is always something odd about a written language that kids have to tackle.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Many Slavic languages written with the Latin alphabet also have very phonetic spellings. And I imagine that Romanian and Turkish have pretty phonetic spellings, too.



I think you're right. I think that the current Turkish writing system has the big advantage of being less than a hundred years old.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> C. Propose radical changes: I am not aware of an authority which has adopted this posture.


You will find many interesting examples of radical spelling reforms here.

Even the standard spellings of Spanish, French and Portuguese _started out_ as radical reforms.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think you're right. I think that the current Turkish writing system has the big advantage of being less than a hundred years old.


Yes, that's an excellent point. It's easy for a language to have a phonetic spelling when it's only been written for a short period of time.
Given enough centuries, the spoken language has a tendency to drift away from the spelling. Case in point, English.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes, that's an excellent point. It's easy for a language to have a phonetic spelling when it's only been written for a short period of time.
> Given enough centuries, the spoken language has a tendency to drift away from the spelling. Case in point, English.



And I think that at the time the people who were deciding on the spelling of Turkish actually *wanted *to spread literacy. It certainly was not the aim of the French Academy when it "fixed" the spelling of words in that language. They actually made many words much harder to spell.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There are two broad cases, and three options for each.
> 
> *Case #1-
> *
> There is a central, respected authority, such as the Real Academia Española de la Lengua or its equivalent in other countries.
> 
> [...]
> 
> *Case #2*
> 
> I'll write about what I know...the US.  There is no official authority.  There are a variety of unofficial authorities, including
> 1- Dictionary publishers.  They are somewhat like the official academies, but they move a bit faster in recording modern usages, and publishing these as either valid or at least, recognized, alternatives.
> 2-Textbook publishers- They promote the _status quo _except perhaps in Texas, where they are hounded into submission by the self-styled 'religious' "right", that hotbed of progressivism.
> 3-Teachers-  A curious mixture of linguistic conservatism and promotion of stupid neologisms...the cant and jargon of their pedantic trade.  Generally they confine their mischief to misusing words with inappropriate meanings (look what they've done to "rubric" lately) and leave spelling as they find it.  On the whole, they are a conservative force.
> 4-Media stylesheets-Ever less influential, as fewer and fewer people read newspapers.  Broadcast and internet media show scant signs of knowing what a style sheet is.  They are not progressive, but they do nothing to encourage former conventions.  They seem to be staking out the ground between conventional spelling and chatspeak.  How courageous!


This reminds me of the "official language" controversy. On the surface, English and the other languages you mentioned are in very different situations, but in practice it all amounts to the same.

Spanish, French, Portuguese: there are official institutions which decrete standard spelling(s).
English: there are no official institutions to decrete standard spellings, _but plenty of unofficial authorities which promote a status quo more or less in unisson_.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> It certainly was not the aim of the French Academy when it "fixed" the spelling of words in that language. They actually made many words much harder to spell.


They had different goals from the Turkish reformers. French spelling was set at a time when intellectuals were still not over their Renaissance enfatuation with Latin. So, as-close-to-Latin-as-possible was their aim.
Another factor which may have had an impact in French spelling is that there are many homophones in that language. For example, maybe you've noticed that French speakers often don't add -s for the plural when they speak English ('one car', 'two car'). I think this is because in their own language most words are identical in the singular and the plural, _when spoken_. However, written French does add -s for the plural; but it's often a silent -s with only etymological and/or semantic value.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

And yet the Spanish-speaking world has some of those same kind of extra-official authorities.

You are allowed to write _*solo *_(with no accent) for _*solamente *_if there is no confusion, for example, yet many people don't take that option out of habit or just because it looks wrong to them even if the RAE says it's perfectly okay. On the other hand, many newspapers and publishers refuse to put accents on capital letters even though the RAE says it's a mistake.

Some rules of the RAE are largely ignored because, I think, in the end, they are not the ones making the final decisions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is an illogical snippet of the source Residente cites:
"And since you have to be explicitly trained in order to write a certain way, written Spanish serves as a social marker and the more effected the rules of writing are, the easier it is for those who can afford formal education to recognize a writer's1 background and discriminate accordingly. It's a form of class and, to the extent that class is related to ethnicity, racial profiling." http://www.geocities.com/spgthesis/#26

This reads like something straight out of Paranoia 101.

Poor people dress differently from rich people.  Poor people have different social customs.  Poor people speak differently from rich people.  Poor people eat different foods.

The author of the quoted statement seems to think that some cabal was afraid that poor people could not be easily identified, and thus might not receive their due dosage of discrimmination, and thus they invented odd spelling, with the 
intent of using it as a marker.  Don't let those ill-dressed, emaciated, badly-spoken folks "pass" for middle class!  No,
make sure that they spell badly so they may be identified by the discriminators.  

two plus two equals seven.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> You are allowed to write _*solo *_(with no accent) for _*solamente *_if there is no confusion, for example, yet many people don't take that option out of habit or just because it looks wrong to them even if the RAE says it's perfectly okay


Many language users seem to have the idea that there is one-and-only-one-right-way to write a word. I see this attitude in English speakers, as well.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, many newspapers and publishers refuse to put accents on capital letters even though the RAE says it's a mistake.


I would guess that's a styllistic choice. All-cap inscriptions look more monumental without diacritics (perhaps because they remind people of Latin inscriptions, or simply because omitting diacritics allows the use of a larger font size).



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Some rules of the RAE are largely ignored because, I think, in the end, they are not the ones making the final decisions.


Are you so sure that the RAE is 'largely ignored'? I wouldn't say that at all. Language users may _not always_ listen to the RAE, but they often do, and they do turn to the RAE when they have doubts about language.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> They had different goals from the Turkish reformers. French spelling was set at a time when intellectuals were still not over their Renaissance enfatuation with Latin. So, as-close-to-Latin-as-possible was their aim.
> Another factor which may have had an impact in French spelling is that there are many homophones in that language. For example, maybe you've noticed that French speakers often don't add -s for the plural when they speak English ('one car', 'two car'). I think this is because in their own language most words are identical in the singular and the plural, _when spoken_. However, written French does add -s for the plural; but it's often a silent -s with only etymological and/or semantic value.


That's a great point. And yeah, in French, like in Caribbean Spanish, the plural marker is often carried out by the article.

French: le [lə] garçon > les [le] garçons

Caribbean Spanish : el nene > lo nene


I'm not sure about the homophone thing. In spoken language, from what I read, the language weeds out pernicious homophones. So if there is little  confusion in spoken Spanish between "nada" (nothing) and "nada" (from nadar)  then there is probably no reason to mark one with an accent or two *d*s to avoid confusion. And there are plenty of homophones in Spanish:

_Una noche entera_ is 'an entire night' but in _si tu marido se  entera_, _entera_ is the third person present indicative of  _enterar_. _Partir_ can be either to 'part' or to 'break something  up.' _¿Qué hace un pez? —Nada._ and _No traje traje_ are two, common,  trite but harmless, play on words in Spanish. _¡Para el camión!_ means  'Stop the truck!' if you are in a moving truck, for example, and 'For the  truck!' if the question before it is _¿Para qué son esos neumáticos?_ _¡Conoce a España!_ is also vague, even with the exclamation marks, out of  context but clear in context. _¡Ven y conoce a España!_ is clear and so is  _¡Pues claro que conoce a España!_ Some verbs become nouns (and vice-versa)  and the phrases: _te regalo una rosa_; _me dio un lindo regalo_ and  _no sé por qué no pregunta_; _no sé por qué me haces esa pregunta_. 

_Fue_ can mean six different things ('He went.', 'She went',  'It went', 'He was.', 'She was.' or 'It was.'); _fui_ can mean two ('I was'  or 'I went'); _ve_ and _ven_ can be forms of _ver_ or _ir_;  _ha_ and _he_ can be interjections or auxiliaries; _sal_ can mean  'salt' or 'get out'; _sed_ can be either 'thirst' or (especially in Spain)  the imperative second person singular of 'to be'; _don_ can be a 'talent'  or a 'title'; and _son_ can be 'they are' or a musical genre. There are  many definitions for _haz_ other than the verbal form; _can_ has seven  entries in the DRAE; _par_ has nine and _por_ has twenty-seven.


----------



## Outsider

Residente, I don't question that homophones can usually be easily distinguished in the spoken language, given the context. However, the written language often aspires to being _more_ precise than the spoken language.
Spanish distinguishes between _como_ and _cómo_, _por que_ and _por qué_ in writing, too, for instance.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Are you so sure that the RAE is 'largely ignored'? I wouldn't say that at all. Language users may _not always_ listen to the RAE, but they often do, and they do turn to the RAE when they have doubts about language.



I'm not sure the RAE is mostly ignored--what I meant was that some of their rules were--but Butt and Benjamin seem to think so:

This raises the problem, acute for books like this one, that it is often impossible to say definitely what constitutes 'correct' or 'normal' Spanish, especially now that the edicts of the Spanish Academy are not taken seriously. For example, the spelling reforms solemnly decreed in the Academy's _Nuevas normas de ortografía y prosodia_ of 1959 are still deliberately ignored by many prestigious publishers and even by some grammarians.
_
-John Butt and Carmen Benjamin, A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish._


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Residente, I don't question that homophones can usually be easily distinguished in the spoken language, given the context. However, the written language often aspires to being _more_ precise than the spoken language.
> Spanish distinguishes between _como_ and _cómo_, _por que_ and _por qué_ in writing, too, for instance.



Yes it does but I think it's over kill. If I wrote :
_*
Porque necesitamos las tildes?*_

or

_*Como asi en ingles no parecen hacer falta?*_

You would understand with no problem. In fact, I think that's how most people write each other in informal situations in Spanish with little meaning, if ever, lost. These phrases could be read another way without the accents but that's no different than:

*Se fue a su casa, en su carro, se acostó con su mujer, se fumo uno sus puros, y se tomo su botella de whiskey.
*


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about the homophone thing. In spoken language, from what I read, the language weeds out pernicious homophones. So if there is little  confusion in spoken Spanish between "nada" (nothing) and "nada" (from nadar)  then there is probably no reason to mark one with an accent or two *d*s to avoid confusion. And there are plenty of homophones in Spanish:


In any case, here are some examples from French, to keep you thinking: 

_c'est_ (it is) / _ses_ (his/her/its) / _sais_ (I/you know) / _sait_ (he/she knows)
_cent_ (a hundred) / _sans_ (without) / _sent_ (he/she feels) / _s'en_ (himself/herself of it; difficult to translate decently without more context)

Regarding the broader question of whether spelling can tell us anything about a people, I think it can, but in a different way. Spelling differences are often tied to political conflicts or to the construction of national identities. The article I linked to above contains many examples of what I mean by this.

And here's an older discussion with many ideas on the likely advantages and disadvantages of further simplifying Spanish spelling.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> In any case, here are some examples from French, to keep you thinking:
> 
> _c'est_ (it is) / _ses_ (his/her/its) / _sais_ (I/you know) / _sait_ (he/she knows)
> _cent_ (a hundred) / _sans_ (without) / _sent_ (he/she feels) / _s'en_ (himself/herself of it; difficult to translate decently without more context)




To me, _*c'est*_ and *ses *don't sound like _*sais*_ and _*sait*_. But the others are indeed homophones, I think, from what I remember of the French I took.

I really don't object to spelling those words differently. In fact, I take French spelling as it is, just like I take Spanish and English spelling. But some things in French don't make all that much sense. _*Temps *_and _*doigt*_, for example, for which the Académie decided to insert letters the Roman had in those words in their language (because they made sense in Latin). 

I don't care, really. I do find it odd, pedantic, and a headache for children learning how to spell French (of which thankfully I am not one).


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> To me, _*c'est*_ and *ses *don't sound like _*sais*_ and _*sait*_. But the others are indeed homophones, I think, from what I remember of the French I took.


It varies with dialect. Some speakers pronounce _c'est_ as _sè_, but others pronounce it as _sé_. See here.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Here is an illogical snippet of the source Residente cites:



I suggest that those who want to know what I think read more than a snippet taken out of context.

Then you can make your own amateur psychological evaluation based on your own conclusions.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Here's my opinion:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/spgthesis/#26


I read section 26.

You seem to assume that a less phonetic spelling will bring significantly more difficulties to learners than a more phonetic spelling. (This idea was mentioned in the discussion I linked to above, too.) 
Is there any evidence for this proposition, or is it just a 'self-evident' preconception?



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Yo aprecio mucho el idioma de mis padres pero la ortografía deja mucho que desear.


I don't agree with this. You mentioned Italian earlier, as an example of a language with mostly phonetic spelling. But even the spelling of Italian is not completely phonetic. Read this and this.

As far as I can tell, the orthographies of Italian and Spanish are more or less equally close to the spoken word, on average.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> My first conclusion:
> 
> Odd spellings  are kept in Spanish because that's the way the write in Spain and makes sense in Northern and Central Spain (since they wrote the language first). *They *keep some oddities because that's the way those words were written in the languages they got the words from except for some words I shall put in the next post.


There are other possible explanations. For example, the distinctions between s and c/z, and between b and v, which you deride, may be a way of keeping Spanish spelling from drifting too far away from the spelling of other European languages close to it (including the very important English language).



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Could there not be a single Latin American spelling that reduces spelling errors due exclusively to the American accents?


A single Latin American spelling of Spanish might reduce spelling errors -- but not in the same amount for everyone. Some Latin American varieties of Spanish would still be 'more equal' than others.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> I read section 26.
> 
> You seem to assume that a less phonetic spelling will bring significantly more difficulties to learners than a more phonetic spelling. (This idea was mentioned in the discussion I linked to above, too.)
> Is there any evidence for this proposition, or is it just a 'self-evident' preconception?


Neither. My nephew spends a great deal of time learning how to spell here in NYC. He, however, lives in a very rich country were schools are relatively good and resource-rich. In other words, he can afford to spend that much time learning how to read. Most kids in Latin America his age spend half the time he does in school, both daily and in their lifetimes. Many kids his age in Santo Domingo work after school to help support his family. So yes, it takes time to learn harder spellings and yes it takes time from other school activities and time from work for the ten year-olds who work (in Latin America this is not odd). He also has a computer and spellcheck. And he's not a rich kid. He lives in a rich country.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, the orthographies of Italian and Spanish are more or less equally close to the spoken word, on average.


I speak both Italian and Spanish and they are not equally phonetic. Italian has basically one verb with silent *h*s. Look in any Spanish dictionary and you will find butt-loads. Italian does not have a *b/v* problem, no *g/j* problem, and no *c/s/z *problem. It's a very different situation.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> There are other possible explanations. For example, the distinctions between s and c/z, and between b and v, which you deride, may be a way of keeping Spanish spelling from drifting too far away from the spelling of other European languages close to it (including the very important English language).


I don't think so. I don't think the RAE really cares about writing things like the French do. Many of the words that Spanish borrowed from French they say should be spelled very unlike French. The same goes for many words it borrowed from English. 



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> A single Latin American spelling of Spanish might reduce spelling errors -- but not in the same amount for everyone. Some Latin American varieties of Spanish would still be 'more equal' than others.


Which ones?


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> My nephew spends a great deal of time learning how to spell here in NYC. He, however, lives in a very rich country were schools are relatively good and resource-rich. In other words, he can afford to spend that much time learning how to read. Most kids in his age spend half the time he does in school, both daily and in their lifetimes. Many kids his age in Santo Domingo work after school to help support his family.


And maybe _that_'s what explains their difficulties in learning to write (assuming they _do_ have more difficulty learning to write than American children).



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I speak both Italian and Spanish and they are not equally phonetic. Italian has basically one verb with silent *h*s. Look in any Spanish dictionary and you will find butt-loads. Italian does not have a *b/v* problem, no *g/j* problem, and no *c/s/z *problem. It's a very different situation.


O.K., I grant you that Italian spelling is a bit more phonetic than Spanish spelling. 
But only a bit -- is that bit significant?...



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I don't think so. I don't think the RAE really cares about writing things like the French do. Many of the words that Spanish borrowed from French they say should be spelled very unlike French. The same goes for many words it borrowed from English.


Let me reword what I wrote:

_For example, the distinctions between s and c/z, and between b and v, which you deride, may be *regarded* as a way of keeping Spanish spelling from drifting too far away from the spelling of other European languages close to it (including the very important English language)._

It doesn't matter whether the RAE consciously strove for this advantage or not. The advantage is still there.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Which ones?


For example, it was mentioned in this thread that some Hispanomerican Spanish speakers aspirate the final -s, but not all of them do. 
A new orthography which distinguished the aspirate from the sibilant would presumably benefit speakers from the Cono Sur, but hinder other Latin American Spanish speakers. 
And if you picked a spelling which did not distinguish the aspirate from the sibilant s, you might confuse the many Hispanoamericans for whom j is pronounced as .


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> And maybe _that_'s what explains their difficulties in learning to write (assuming they _do_ have more difficulty learning to write than American children).


I don't know. But what I reckon' is : "Why make it harder than it has to be?"



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> O.K., I grant you that Italian spelling is a bit more phonetic than Spanish spelling.
> But only a bit -- is that bit significant?...


I spell better in Italian than I do in English, French or Spanish and it's the language I read in the least and studied the least. In Italian, except for some accented words, the verb avere, and some zz words, I just have to write how the words sound. Very rarely do you have two graphemes representing the same phoneme or two phonemes which are expressed with the same graphem. In Italian, it's *vero *because it sounds like *vero *and only *vero*, *protegere *because it sounds like *protegere *and only *protegere*, *cielo *because it sounds like *cielo *and only *cielo  *and *oggi *because it sounds like *oggi *and only *oggi*. 

In Spanish some have to guess between the equally logical *verdad *and *berdad*, *proteger *and *protejer*, *cielo *and *sielo*, *hoy *and *oy*.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> _For example, the distinctions between s and c/z, and between b and v, which you deride, may be *regarded* as a way of keeping Spanish spelling from drifting too far away from the spelling of other European languages close to it (including the very important English language)._
> 
> It doesn't matter whether the RAE consciously strove for this advantage or not. The advantage is still there.


Oh yeah! I have no trouble with democracia and idiosyncrasia because I can spell them in English. I don't think everybody has that advantage. And to be perfectly honest if there is a reform that benefits millions of children across Latin America and Spain and _*ruins it *_for me, so be it. I don't need to write Spanish anyway.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> For example, it was mentioned in this thread that some Hispanomerican Spanish speakers aspirate the final -s, but not all of them do.
> A new orthography which distinguished the aspirate from the sibilant would presumably benefit speakers from the Cono Sur, but hinder other Latin American Spanish speakers.
> And if you picked a spelling which did not distinguish the aspirate from the sibilant s, you might confuse the many Hispanoamericans for whom j is pronounced as .


 

This part isn't really clear to me. I don't see what "j" as /h/ has to do with anything. It's /h/ in LASS and /x/ in NC Spain but that's not the source of the confusion. The source is that both in Spain and in American "cojer" makes sense and yet is still wrong.

I aspire the final -s and so does everybody in the Caribbean. Many people in other countries do too. But most spelling errors are not due to that. In fact, we know how to put that final -s in most cases; and we do in formal speech.

I don't see how getting rid of the letter "v" (which I think serves no purpose in Spanish) and the letter "h" (the laziest letter ever) would make things worse for kids in Santo Domingo or even in Chile. If you assign "g" for the velar sound exclusively, everyone benefits. 
*
How do some countries benefit less from that?*


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I don't know. But what I reckon' is : "Why make it harder than it has to be?"


Your unwritten assumption is that conformance with sound is the only criterium by which an orthography should be chosen. But there are many historical examples where people took another route.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I spell better in Italian than I do in English, French or Spanish and it's the language I read in the least and studied the least. In Italian, except for some accented words, the verb avere, and some zz words, I just have to write how the words sound. Very rarely do you have two graphemes representing the same phoneme or two phonemes which are expressed with the same graphem. In Italian, it's *vero *because it sounds like *vero *and only *vero*, *protegere *because it sounds like *protegere *and only *protegere*, *cielo *because it sounds like *cielo *and only *cielo  *and *oggi *because it sounds like *oggi *and only *oggi*.


Yet you still get by in English, in spite of its challenging orthography...  



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Oh yeah! I have no trouble with democracia and idiosyncrasia because I can spell them in English. I don't think everybody has that advantage. And to be perfectly honest if there is a reform that benefits millions of children across Latin America and Spain and _*ruins it *_for me, so be it. I don't need to write Spanish anyway.


Spaniards, however, would not have that luxury.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> This part isn't really clear to me. I don't see what "j" as /h/ has to do with anything. It's /h/ in LASS and /x/ in NC Spain but that's not the source of the confusion.


With a different orthography, there would be different sources of confusion. That's one of the bases of your thesis.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I don't see how getting rid of the letter "v" (which I think serves no purpose in Spanish) and the letter "h" (the laziest letter ever) would make things worse for kids in Santo Domingo or even in Chile. If you assign "g" for the velar sound exclusively, everyone benefits.
> 
> *How do some countries benefit less from that?*


Looking at a spelling reform merely as a comparison between countries can be misleading. What about Spanish speakers who had been taught a spelling where _g_ always stands for the same sound, but then wanted to learn English? They'd still have to learn that _ge_ and _gi_ are often pronounced differently in English, in the end, and it would be a less familiar convention for them than it is now.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Your unwritten assumption is that conformance with sound is the only criterium by which an orthography should be chosen. But there are many historical examples where people took another route.


No. There is nothing unwritten. What I write is what I mean. That link I provided says what I think. There is no hidden messages. I think what I am writing already is contraversial. I see no point in holding punches now.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Yet you still get by in English, in spite of its challenging orthography...


I suck at spelling in English. I think anybody who has read more than three of my messages can find plenty of mistakes. I'm just as bad in Spanish and my French isn't that great. But overall, it's fair to say that for French kids, not making spelling errors, is harder because their spelling system is less rational. Therefore, I think, making Spanish more rational, or French for that matter, would eliminate many spelling "errors". That's what I think. It's not inspired by a personal need. I don't care how Spanish is spelled. I care less how French is spelled. But I think some of it doesn't make sense and it won't make sense no matter how you spin it.

If somebody tells me I stink, and I stink, and I answer that their shirt is dirty, even if it is, *I still stink*. That's why I don't understand why people answer my points with "Oh well, English is worse." Yes. English is worse. That doesn't mean that silent H in Spanish is not a pain in the ass. Or that written French words don't sometimes have to many damn letters for it's own good.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Spaniards, however, would not have that luxury.


What luxury? [/quote]



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> With a different orthography, there would be different sources of confusion. That's one of the bases of your thesis.
> 
> Looking at a spelling reform merely as a comparison between countries can be misleading. What about Spanish speakers who had been taught a spelling where _g_ always stands for the same sound, but then wanted to learn English? They'd still have to learn that _ge_ and _gi_ are often pronounced differently in English, in the end, and it would be a less familiar convention for them than it is now.


I think Spanish speakers need to read and write first and foremost in Spanish. English comes after if ever. I don't think the goal of a Spanish spelling system should be primarily to offer a smoother transition into English.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> No. There is nothing unwritten. What I write is what I mean. That link I provided says what I think. There is no hidden messages.


Unwritten does not equal hidden. It is an assumption which I think you may never have never stopped to examine.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think what I am writing already is contraversial. I see no point in holding punches now.


I don't think what you're writing is controversial, unless you mean the part about the point of non-phonetic spellings being to keep the populace in ignorance. On the contrary, it's an idea that pops up every now and then in languages such as Spanish and English. I think you yourself mentioned a Latin American writer who proposed a more phonetic spelling for Spanish, earlier in this thread.



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I suck at spelling in English. I think anybody who has read more than three of my messages can find plenty of mistakes. I'm just as bad in Spanish and my French isn't that great. But overall, it's fair to say that for French kids, not making spelling errors, is harder because their spelling system is less rational. Therefore, I think, making Spanish more rational, or French for that matter, would eliminate many spelling "errors". That's what I think. It's not inspired by a personal need. I don't care how Spanish is spelled. I care less how French is spelled. But I think some of it doesn't make sense and it won't make sense no matter how you spin it.
> 
> If somebody tells me I stink, and I stink, and I answer that their shirt is dirty, even if it is, *I still stink*. That's why I don't understand why people answer my points with "Oh well, English is worse." Yes. English is worse. That doesn't mean that silent H in Spanish is not a pain in the ass. Or that written French words don't sometimes have to many damn letters for it's own good.


Residente, that's all suggestive, but it's also anecdotal. Personal experience does not count as evidence in science. Or at least it shouldn't. When you write things like:



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think Spanish speakers need to read and write first and foremost in Spanish. English comes after if ever. I don't think the goal of a Spanish spelling system should be primarily to offer a smoother transition into English.


...it's clear that you're making the implicit assumption that _a less phonetic spelling is a serious hindrance to children who are learning to write_. Maybe there is evidence of that, but have you ever seen it?



			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> What luxury?


The luxury of _not needing to write Spanish anyway_.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I don't think it takes a leap of logic to guess that Italian children have an easier time at spelling than American kids. Italian spelling is easier. I don't know which other way I can put that. You can say that I am making a leap of logic there but I sincerely do not think so. 

If you bring the three point line in closer to the basket I'm gonna make more threes. If you push the line out further, I'm not going to hit as many. You can come out and play ball with me one day and you will see that the closer I am to the basket the more shots I make.

I think I am contraversial because I am saying some aspects of Spanish spelling don't make sense and that makes people who think Spanish and Spanish Spelling is the same thing uncomfortable. They think I don't like the language or the people who speak it. (Or that I should move to Serbia). 

Some Spaniards think that I don't like them because I somehow hold them responsible. I do like Spaniards and I don't hold them responsible for this. Latin Americans can spell however they want and if they choose to follow Madrid it's not Spain's fault. It's not like most people in Spain don't have better things to think about.

The RAE does its job which is to tell people affluent enough to need to write in Spain what to do. The more I read their stuff, the more I like them. Even their descriptive stuff is getting better. I learn alot from them and am glad they are around.

It's not my business whether or not Spaniards have the luxury to forego written Spanish. I'm not a Spaniard. They have their academy and their institutions. Que se ocupen ellos. No es asunto mío.


----------



## cuchuflete

This is a language forum, with thousands of active members.
We are in the CD forum, which seems to attract those who love a lively argument.

Does the number of participants in this thread suggest how important a cultural role spelling has in the minds of people who give lots of attention to language?

Sorry to digress back towards the thread topic, but I don't think most people care much about spelling.  It's just convention.  Yes, here comes the obvious: conventions are conventional!  They change over time, but usually slowly, unless there is a pressing cultural need or stimulus for more rapid change.


----------



## JimPojke

Well, Residente Calle 13. I don't think I'm going off topic if I tell you that Serbian spell is very phonetic and I just suggest that you go and use that language, given the interest you've got in easy spellings.

Anyway, you've said that you don't use nor need to use spanish. You live in USA and write in english most of the time. So... let me tell you that from my point of view (and it's the same of many other spanish speakers, who use their language on a daily basis), spanish hasn't got an impossible, not even hard, spelling.

I've told you, 'h' could cause trouble, yes. But when you go to school and get some education (or even if you don't, but read a little), you get to write it just the way it is. G/J cause the most of trouble in spanish, they do, but with a little effort you achieve to write them correctly. I've also told you that nothing in life comes easy. And teachers don't really tell us stories about greeks, romanians and so when they teach us how to read, they do tell us stories to easily understand the function of each "hard letter" in our language, but normally they just involve letters and why they always sound like that (ge is always /xe/, h is always mute, ce is always /se/ in hispanic america and /8e/ in Spain [except, of course Andalucia]).

Also, I don't think that most of the kids would really work ten hours after school. There are kids that work, of course (as usual in a poor country) but it's not that what makes them spell bad. I think you are exaggerating a little. I had classmates that worked all afternoon and still could get better grades than me and spell better.

And, as they've told above, if you're poor and someone is going to judge you because of that, they aren't to do it just because of your spell. There is a different way of speaking, of dressing, and so on. The same happens with race, I don't think someone would know you're black, white, indian, chinese or japanese because of your spelling, but because of your looks.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Here is Spanish's closest relative. It's written, today, with a very phonetic spelling system (more than Spanish) and no accents. I bet most people who can read Spanish can read it and understand it, except for some words which were borrowed from Hebrew, French, and other languages, with very little trouble.

Here's a sample:

Sigun el Prof. Haim Vidal Sephiha i otros investigadores tambien de la kultura djudeo-espanyola, “ladino” es el nombre de la lengua-kalko uzada para trezladar la Biblia del ebreo al espanyol, ainda antes de la ekspulsion de los djudios de Espanya. Segun eyos, esta es una lengua uzada unikamente para butos relijiozos i didaktikos, mientres ke la lengua vernakular, de kada dia, devria ser yamada djudezmo, djudio, djudeo-espanyol, spanyol, spanyolit etc.; ma en muestros dias, la mayoria de la djente prefera uzar el termino “ladino” para la lengua avlada i eskrita de los sefaradis, desendientes de los djudios ekspulsados de Espanya en 1492.

http://forum.wordreference.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=857659


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Residente. You are correct. It's easy to read and understand. A few words seem like very old Spanish, and a few are like Catalan and Portuguese, but it's 95% identifiable Spanish.
So here's a question for which I don't have an answer:
If I didn't already know how to read conventionally written Spanish, and if I didn't already know 'ainda' from other readings, would I have had a little, a lot, or no trouble reading this passage? 

What's your best guess?


----------



## gato2

Pero el problema de convertir un idioma en 100% fonetico es que tendriamos que cambiar la forma de escribir cada vez que cambiara no solo de pais de lengua hispana sino de provincia dentro del mismo pais.

 O incluso si vamos mas alla tambien se pronuncia diferente en segun que clases sociales ¿tendriamos entonces que escribir segun pronunciamos nosotros las palabras o segun el estandar de nuestra region?

Al final, creo que intentando simplificar algo lo hariamos mas complicado


----------



## Residente Calle 13

gato2 said:
			
		

> Pero el problema de convertir un idioma en 100% fonetico es que tendriamos que cambiar la forma de escribir cada vez que cambiara no solo de pais de lengua hispana sino de provincia dentro del mismo pais.
> 
> O incluso si vamos mas alla tambien se pronuncia diferente en segun que clases sociales ¿tendriamos entonces que escribir segun pronunciamos nosotros las palabras o segun el estandar de nuestra region?
> 
> Al final, creo que intentando simplificar algo lo hariamos mas complicado


¿Pero no sería una buena meta tener una escritura un poco más fonética aunque no sea 100% fonética? No porque no se pueda hacer todo es mejor no hacer nada. Los trés problemas más graves: 1)*g/j*, 2)las *h*s que sobran 3)las *v*s que sobran. ¿Por qué no resolver ni uno por que resolver los tres sería demasiado dificil?

Y en cierto sentido, la RAE ya permite que uno escribe según uno habla y por eso estás formas están admitidas:

_aeróbic_ & _aerobic_ 
_afrodisíaco_ & _afrodisiaco_ 
_áloe_ & _aloe_ 
_amoníaco_ & _amoniaco_ 
_austriaco_ & _austríaco_ 
_beréber_ & _bereber_ 
_bosniaco_ & _bosníaco_ 
_cardiaco_ & _cardíaco_ 
_cartel_ & _cártel_ 
_chófer_ & _chofer_ 
_cóctel_ & _coctel_ 
_dinamo_ & _dínamo_ 
_elite_ & _élite_ 
_fríjol_ & _frijol_ 
_fútbol_ & _futbol_ 
_guion_ & _guión_ 
_icono_ & _ícono_ 
_isotopo_ & _isótopo_ 
_kárate_ & _karate_ 
_meteoro_ & _metéoro_ 
_misil_ & _mísil_ 
_océano_ & _oceano_ 
_¡ole!_ & _¡olé!_ 
_olimpiada_ & _olimpíada_ 
_orgía_ & _orgia_ 
_pelícano_ & _pelicano_ 
_período_ & _periodo_ 
_policíaco_ & _policiaco_ 
_reptil_ & _réptil_ 
_utopía_ & _utopia_ 
_vídeo_ & _video_ 
_zodiaco_ & _zodíaco_

También hay formas verbales que también admiten variantes: _rio _y _rió_, _fie _y _fié_, etc. En GB se escribe _aluminium _y en EE UU _aluminum_. No pasa nada. Si no hablamos exactamente igual no veo por qué tenemos que escribir exactamente igual.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

The following words were spelled correctly in Spanish in the following manner: 

_su*bj*ecto_, _su*bs*tenta_, _su*bt*il_,  _e*cc*lesiástico_, _*ch*ristiano_, _conje*ct*ura_,  _de*ff*ender_, _au*gm*ento_, _ma*gn*ifiesto_,  _i*ll*ustrísima_, _su*mm*o_, _pro*ph*eta_, _presu*npc*ión_, _pro*mpt*o_,  _sa*nct*as_, _*ps*lamista_, _escri*pt*o_,  _*sp*ecies_, and _*th*esoro_

They are not anymore because it no longer or never made sense. Changing spelling in Spanish so that it makes more sense is not new.


----------



## cuchuflete

Perhaps you would care to change the thread title, as you haven't been talking about the thread topic for quite a while.

If you wish to promote spelling simplification in Spanish, there is an existing thread on that topic.  You are more than welcome to add your thoughts to it.  If that particular thread doesn't accommodate your interests, you can open another thread.


----------



## lazarus1907

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> ¿Pero no sería una buena meta tener una escritura un poco más fonética aunque no sea 100% fonética? No porque no se pueda hacer todo es mejor no hacer nada. Los trés problemas más graves: 1)*g/j*, 2)las *h*s que sobran 3)las *v*s que sobran. ¿Por qué no resolver ni uno por que resolver los tres sería demasiado dificil?


 Pareces tenerle a la ortografía española la misma tirria que le tengo yo a la inglesa (con perdón), que es mucho peor y contra la cual nunca te he oído decir una palabra.

Tener reglas, por malas que sean, sirve para mantener nuestro idioma unificado y evitar que se desintegre. Incluso Bello, que tenía sus propias ideas en cuanto a la gramática y abogaba por la independencia, siempre estuvo a favor de la unidad idiomática. El hecho de que todos los países de habla hispana hayamos compartido una misma ortografía (y gramática) durante más de 150 años, e independientemente de que sea o no censurable, ha servido para que, pese a estar separados por un océano inmenso, sigamos escribiendo igual y no tengamos problemas para entendernos, pues a diferencia del ingés, que se expande y coloniza pacificamente con su poder económico y comercial, nuestro idioma se hubiera fragmentado hace ya décadas de no haber tenido la odiosa y retrógrada Real Academia.

Y pese a tus críticas, el español aún plantea menos problemas para deletrear que la mayoría de los idiomas.

Para mí lo importante es mantener la lengua unificada y no aferrarme dogmáticamente a las normas sin otra razón que la de que así lo quieren los señores de la Academia. Yo personalmente defiendo la simplificación de la escritura: La "h" debería dejarse para sonidos aspirados que no se dan en español, pero sí en palabras extranjeras y en onomatopeyas, y quitarla cuando no suene. Aunque los sonidos "ll" y "y" no sean iguales para unos cuantos que poseen una buena dicción, la eliminación de la elle sólo causaría unos cuantos problemas (p.ej. rallar y rayar). La "v" por mí se podría ir a la porra, o dejarla para sonidos extranjeros (siempre se me olvida pronunciar la "v" en ingés ). La "g" se podría dejar para representar el sonido suave, y dejar la "j" para el fuerte. Y ya puestos podríamos hacer lo mismo con la "c", la "z" (y quitar la "q", por ejemplo) para terminar de simplificar todo. Entonces ya nadie escribiría mal ninguna palabra (o casi ninguna). Estoy en contra, sin embargo, de abandonar las tildes... hasta que alguien sugiera un sistema más efectivo. Y sigo viendo importante las tildes diacríticas, que a fin de cuentas son muy pocas reglas.

Así quedaría un texto con la "nueva ortografía":

_Lo más importante para ce este nuebo sistema mereziera la pena es ce todos los países de abla ispana lo azeptaran al mismo tiempo, porce si no, no sólo ayudaría a la desintegrazión del idioma, sino ce lo único ce se consegiría es ce futuras jeneraziones encontraran más difízil poder leer todo nuestro patrimonio literario. Semejante apuesta supondría una inbersión muy costosa para todos los países. Imajinad cuántos libros, carteles, subtítulos, rebistas... abría ce cambiar._

¿Merecería la pena?

Por cierto, y para finalizar: La Academia ya no es española, como sigues diciendo, sino una asociación de academias de muchos países, que están luchando por mantenernos unidos, no imponer a Hispanoamérica el habla de Madrid, donde cada uno habla como le da la gana. Lázaro Carreter, ex presidente de la Real Academia solía decir que en América se hablaba mejor español que en España porque allí se considera una forma de patriotismo, tiene algo de sentimiento nacional, y en España no. Aquí se habla tan mal como en cualquier parte del mundo. Las Academias son, como el idioma, algo nuestro.

Vale


----------



## Residente Calle 13

lazarus1907 said:
			
		

> Pareces tenerle a la ortografía española la misma tirria que le tengo yo a la inglesa (con perdón), que es mucho peor y contra la cual nunca te he oído decir una palabra.


Si supieras los pocos problemas que me causa y lo mucho que me gusta. Yo vivo, como lo he dicho ya una docena de veces, en EE UU y no necesito por nigún motivo escribir en español. Me gusta mucho la ortografía del español porque es casi perfecta. Pero como es tan perfecta, creo que causan más líos sus pocas imperfecciones y sobre todo a los que sí están obligados a escribir en castellano.



			
				lazarus1907 said:
			
		

> Tener reglas, por malas que sean, sirve para mantener nuestro idioma unificado y evitar que se desintegre.


Yo *no* estoy hablando de cambiar para nada el idioma. Lo que sería bueno, creo yo, sería *seguir *reformando su ortografía. La ortografía es UNA COSA y el idioma es otra.

El ladino escrito con el alphabeto hebreo es una ortografía que se parece mucho al hebreo. Un israelí que sepa *leer *hebreo y no comprenda ni una palabra de español ni de ladino lo pudiera *leer *sin *comprender *una sola palabra. En cambio, yo pudiera entender lo que dice ese israelí si lo lee a voz alta pues el idioma es casi español.

*¿Comprendes ahora cómo la ortografía es una cosa y el idioma otra cosa?

¿Comprendes que de lo que estoy hablando es de ortografía y no de idiomas?
*
El español me gusta mucho. Su ortografía es muy buena pero pudiera mejorar* SU ORTOGRAFÍA* sin causar los cambios que todo el mundo dice que pudiera causar una reforma de ortografía.

¿Qué cambió cuando se dejó de escribir _*philosophía *_en castellano? Cambió que la manera de escribir se hizo un poco más rational y más facil de aprender. Y eso, creo yo, no tiene nada de malo. Al contrario.


Esto dijo Andrés Bellos ya que lo mencionas:

_ El mayor grado de perfección de que la escritura es susceptible, y el punto a  que por consiguiente deben conspirar todas las reformas, se cifra en una cabal  correspondencia entre los sonidos elementales de la lengua y los signos o letras  que han de representarlos, por manera que a cada sonido elemental corresponda  invariablemente una letra, y a cada letra corresponda con la misma  invariabilidad un sonido. 

—Andrés Bello, "Indicaciones"_


----------



## Residente Calle 13

lazarus1907 said:
			
		

> Lázaro Carreter, ex presidente de la Real Academia solía decir que en América se hablaba mejor español que en España porque allí se considera una forma de patriotismo, tiene algo de sentimiento nacional, y en España no. Aquí se habla tan mal como en cualquier parte del mundo. Las Academias son, como el idioma, algo nuestro.



Yo creo que estaba equivocado. En ningún lado se habla "mejor" el español. La Real Academia es de España. ¿Cuántas veces en este foro se cita la Academia guatemalteca cuando se define una palabra o se corrige una falta gramatical? Aquí sabemos todos quién es que reparte el bacalao. 

http://www.academia.org.mx/

Fíjate en el sello. Es tan conservador en España han tenido el buen gusto de guardarlo en el armario. Y a ver si los academicos mexicanos citan la academia panameña en sus dictámenes. jajajaja.


----------



## cuchuflete

Someone has proposed the idea, without substantiating evidence, that 'difficult' spelling has as one of its motives, "marking" the less educated, the poor, and members of racial groups. This is, to my way of thinking, a groundless absurdity.

Poor people are usually not very good at advanced economics either, but economic theory and technique were not developed with the intent of using them to highlight the identity of any group. The same can be said of nuclear physics, or ballroom dancing, or chess.

But let's assume for a moment that a spelling system has such a motive. Bring on some logical reform! Simplify what is superfluous or confusing. Make written speech reflect as accurately and simply as possible the sounds of speakers.
Leave aside special cases such as written language that does not intend to reflect speech...such as some arcane legal documents, and stick to the majority case: writing as a symbolic system that reflects spoken language, with the best approximation possible. 

Now, that done, all people, including poor ones "marked" by difficulties with current orthography, will have the opportunity and often the necessity to learn the new ways. This should be
modestly less stressful for beginners than the old ways. It will place an additional obligation on all those who have already learned to read and write--with whatever level of mastery of the current, flawed system. 

Will this juxtaposition of old and new systems place added obstacles in the path of all people, including the poor, in reading existing texts? Logically, it will require that readers, though not writers, learn to decipher two systems. That's not terribly difficult, as all of us who read Shakespeare or Cervantes or Milton or Góngora already know. But it is additional work. 

Push literature out of the discussion, and stick to the practical.
Will a student, wealthy or poor, have to learn two spelling conventions to read nearly all science texts? For quite some time, the answer has to be yes. 

Conclusion? There is no easy one, but the sought after savings in effort will, for some prolonged period of time, come at the cost of additional effort. If reform is more gradual, and only the 'worst offenders' are replaced with simplified written forms, the burden will be reduced. Gradual reform has been implemented in Portuguese, by edict of an authority. It has taken place in English, from the ground up, with no authority to promote it. It's slow. It's also fairly painless.

Do we have any evidence or logic to support the idea that a thorough and major orthographic reform will provide greater benefits than costs to society, either short term or long term?


----------



## felicia

"Do we have any evidence or logic to support the idea that a thorough and major orthographic reform will provide greater benefits than costs to society, either short term or long term? "What a heated if though erudite discussion! "I write about what I know" said Cuchuflete, so will I. Norwegian is a language that is built or based upon old norse, with many "infiltrations" over the years. We have had two major spelling reforms i the 20th century, changing French/English etc. spelling to coincide with Norwegian pronunciation. E.g. chauffeur - sjåfør, Mueble - møbler,
etage - etasje, bureau - byrå and countless others. There is an ongoing process in Norwegian to absorb foreign words and "fornorske" them. This has the advantage that Norwegian children can write phonetically what they hear and say. My theory is that this has a social benefit in that it saves time and heartache, and reduces costs in the form of "unnecitating" supplementary teachers, who are then released for other services. (Pardon my halting English, sometimes the Norwegian word describes more exactly than the English equivalent!")


----------

