Transcribe
Translate
Fan, issue 6, February 1946
Page 5
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
FAN same subtle oral difference as exists between the o sound of hot and of thought, fought, etc. As for a number of English ambiguities, Ackermanese makes no attempt whatsoever to alleviate. Thus read (present tense) is not reed or even ried, and where there are different dip-thongs with identical sonic value, no simplification has been attempted. For a system which has been expounded as seriously and repeatedly as Ackermanese, there should be much more of a practical nature to proffer. Ackerman might have spent all this time and energy in expounding some of the already suggested changes in the language, such as dropping the useless personal flexions on our verbs, or espousing the elimination of the two english articles. Here there would be evidence of sound thinking......at least a serious desire to improve something, rather than a more-or-less systematically obscure sort of jargon. There is good reason to advocate the dropping of the. Since it is not a definite article such as in German or French, serving neither to indicate gender of plural, it might as well be dispensed with. At least, it is a more worthy justification for an expenditure of effort than Ackermanese. Furthermore, while in German a different "the" such as in Der See and Die See (lake and ocean) may alter meaning, no such opportunity exists in English, and in the Scandinavian language "the" in its local forms is gradually going out of use. In fact, philologists are of the opinion that our the is the real -ly not a definite article anyway, or was ever intended to be. It is suspected as being a weak form of that, corrupted from Old inflected English. There have been many very sound systems of english phonetics, and many sound, professional suggestions as to the alteration of our wayward grammar, and though I personally like the horrible old language as it is, persons who wish to be truly progressive in this matter can best serve their own purposes by investigating other attempts, making deductions of their own, and then putting forth an orthography that is philologically and phonetically sound. To any person seriously interested in altering english, the best advice is to get a firm philological foundation in the history of the language from its Erse and Gaellic days on, learn how to use the International Phonetic Alphabet, do some reading on Jesperson, Ogden & Richards, Webster , and a few others. As a good starter for such a project, may I recommend THE LOON OF LANGUAGE, by Frederick Bodmer, and published by Norton & Co., New York, for $3.75. It is a good guidework for language planners. ........T. Bruce Yerke 5
Saving...
prev
next
FAN same subtle oral difference as exists between the o sound of hot and of thought, fought, etc. As for a number of English ambiguities, Ackermanese makes no attempt whatsoever to alleviate. Thus read (present tense) is not reed or even ried, and where there are different dip-thongs with identical sonic value, no simplification has been attempted. For a system which has been expounded as seriously and repeatedly as Ackermanese, there should be much more of a practical nature to proffer. Ackerman might have spent all this time and energy in expounding some of the already suggested changes in the language, such as dropping the useless personal flexions on our verbs, or espousing the elimination of the two english articles. Here there would be evidence of sound thinking......at least a serious desire to improve something, rather than a more-or-less systematically obscure sort of jargon. There is good reason to advocate the dropping of the. Since it is not a definite article such as in German or French, serving neither to indicate gender of plural, it might as well be dispensed with. At least, it is a more worthy justification for an expenditure of effort than Ackermanese. Furthermore, while in German a different "the" such as in Der See and Die See (lake and ocean) may alter meaning, no such opportunity exists in English, and in the Scandinavian language "the" in its local forms is gradually going out of use. In fact, philologists are of the opinion that our the is the real -ly not a definite article anyway, or was ever intended to be. It is suspected as being a weak form of that, corrupted from Old inflected English. There have been many very sound systems of english phonetics, and many sound, professional suggestions as to the alteration of our wayward grammar, and though I personally like the horrible old language as it is, persons who wish to be truly progressive in this matter can best serve their own purposes by investigating other attempts, making deductions of their own, and then putting forth an orthography that is philologically and phonetically sound. To any person seriously interested in altering english, the best advice is to get a firm philological foundation in the history of the language from its Erse and Gaellic days on, learn how to use the International Phonetic Alphabet, do some reading on Jesperson, Ogden & Richards, Webster , and a few others. As a good starter for such a project, may I recommend THE LOON OF LANGUAGE, by Frederick Bodmer, and published by Norton & Co., New York, for $3.75. It is a good guidework for language planners. ........T. Bruce Yerke 5
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
