Print

Print


Is the spelling consistent within each of those different varieties?
I suspect the spelling is individual enough that one can attribute
common authorship of texts to certain writers.

Just think what would have happened if one of the kings had decreed
a common spelling system for all the areas. All that fascinating variety
would have been lost. Thanks to Noah Webster's chauvinistic arbitrariness
we can now distinguish some U.S. from British spellings. How interesting it
would be if we could distinguish regional texts in North Aremica. As it is
we're stuck with sterile conformity. Colin Dexter of Inspector Morse
fame, has his hero declaring U.S text as misspelled. An interesting bit
of cultural heritage. Obviously he and I would have something to
talk about if I ever made it to the home of the twilight of the British
gods.

P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged menacles' (sic) and
spelling )


Which Anglo-Saxon othography?  Northumbrian? Mercian? West Saxon? Kentish?
Why can we tell them apart?  Why do many spellings remain the same today in
Scotland (like a for o)?  Why is it possible to place an Anglo-Saxon text
within specific geographic areas and within about 50 years if there was no
standard?

It is not emotion.
Cheers

>>> [log in to unmask] 04/06/06 8:02 PM >>>
My goodness, such personal remarks!!!
Naughty, naughty, naughty. Seems I provoke
emotion from you no matter what. Why do you
give my remarks attention if you have so little regard for them?

Also, my apologies for the multiple mail testings.
My ISP had a mail breakdown. Some of my mail was getting through
but I was getting error messages saying it wasn't getting through.
I believe the problem is fixed.

Also, why is there not an outrage at the use of the name of God,
such as there was when I quite innocently used the word doxy as
an abbreviation for orthodoxy? (I had never read the Jack the
Ripper lit, which, I gather, made the doxy/prostitute connection
so noteable).

As to the matter in hand, given the kinds of response that
my application of Blake to yet one more social stricture evoked,
I suspect I have touched a nerve.

There are always Houdinis who can manipulate and sqirm out
of a set of manacles. So, of course we of the literary and artistic
elite can manipulate grammar, spelling and meaning six ways
from Sunday. It is the regular users of language, the Joe and
Jane six-packs (as I have heard them called on US tv) who are not
particularly conscious of how they have been conditioned to
this particular social stricture, and so are confined by convention,
such that they are inhibited from orthographic creativity, or don't even
realise they can make the language work to their own ends,
about whom I am concerned. Electronic culture is, naturally,
breaking down such conventions rather drastically, a factor which
I applaud.

Mantaining standardized spelling as a social necessity is a kind
of fundamentalist equivalent of insisting on a literal reading of
scripture. Language can be analogized with an ocean. It contains
no shape that it cannot instantly counter. It is an illusion to think
that language can be contained or forced into a particular shape,
any more than a huge body of water can. Finnegans Wake is
a dynamic assertion of that character. The Anglo-Saxon orthographic
got along just finely from the seventh to the seventeenth century
through all kinds of twists, graftings, and breakdowns, without
any rule demanding consistency of spelling. It was only with the
development of those instituions that Blake decried, and Hogarth
portrayed, because of the imposition of power and control, that
a similar control was imposed on spelling (with the aid, of course,
of printing forcing homogenization to alleviate the work of compos-
itors.).

Reason and evidence are irrelevant here, because I am not trying
to prove a point (the point is already blatantly obvious). I am ad-
vocating a new, dynamic approach to the subject -- one of explor-
ation and experimentation, in effect a new creativity.

Cheers,
Peter

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged menacles' (sic) and
spelling )


Oh nonsense.  For someone who pretends not to like arrogant assertion, you
are amazingly given to pronouncements from some high perch of your own
making.  There was no point to get.
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 04/05/06 1:25 AM >>>
If you think it is a matter of reason and evidence, then you don't get the
point.
p.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged menacles' (sic) and
spelling )


Since the same spelling can elicit totally different sounds ("I say ba nŠ na
and you say ba naa na") or cough and tough, and different spellings can
elicit the same sound (thyme and time), what straight jacket is that?   It
has apparently never constrained GWB, who still cannot pronounce "nuclear."
And have you ever heard Downeast Maine speech?  It's not spelled
differently, but it is the most distinctive dialect I know of in America
except Gullah.

If homogenized spelling has put sound in a straight jacket, why are any of
us reading Eliot?  He doesn't exist in that scenario.  If he is in a strait
jacket, why do actors create so many and such varied and powerful sounds out
of his words in standard spelling--just as they do with Shakespeare?  You
give no explanation, reason or example, but your claim doesn't work anyway.
No one wwho tries acting imagines that sound has been lost in
letters-in-consistent-order.  They shout vowels and find the places of
resonance in the face and play with ways to say words--in whispers or
singing or a letter at a time.  This is just not true.  And anyone playing a
part in Shakespeare must make a choice about how to say it.  Any production
places limits and also opens possibility.  It still cannot be just anything
or no one will understand it.

What is at stake in language play in English is not spelling, and something
like L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry, when it breaks up even words into morphemes, is
still playing off the expectation of a standard spelling.  You can add new
words and words will change, but you cannot just dis-assemble what is there.
What poetry uses is the incredible flexibility of vocabulary and sound
relations as well as the given sounds of English.

If you are going to make these incredibly absolutist pronouncements, it
would be a good thing to give some reason or evidence.
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 04/04/06 12:07 AM >>>
Transpose your question to Elizabethan times (where I live) and
think of the effect of all the different spelling possibilities that hap-
pened then (how many ways did Shakespare spell his name).
I suspect it used to be sound that drove spelling, not spelling, sound.
Today homogenised spelling has put sound in a straight jacket.

P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged menacles' and spelling )


> A question worth pondering would be to ask if Blake
> had used such different spellings in other places.
> Just as the word 'Vrka' has sense associations related
> to its sound, Blake might have thought the word
> 'Tyger' brought in similar sound associations the
> standard 'Tiger' wasn't adequate for.
>
> I had difficulty in switching over my accent to
> standard American for a long time after I moved to the
> US.  I still feel affected when I have to use words as
> can't, aunt. (i can't see them as a different
> dialect). For, I am used to their original sounds (I
> mean, the way the British say them), and particularly
> when I read *English* poetry I find myself a little
> uncomfortable when I read it aloud with the American
> accent.
>
>
> --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > As in tire and tyre?
> > P.
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 6:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged
> > menacles' and spelling )
> >
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > I would say Tiger and Tyger sounded differently at
> > > least for Blake.
> > >
> > > --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So where does fixed spelling come into it, as
> > > > opposed to fixed sound?
> > > >
> > > > P.
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:30 AM
> > > > Subject: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged
> > > > menacles' and spelling )
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is more: (it could be very interesting to
> > > > associate Blake's 'Tyger' with the sanskrit
> > 'Vrka')
> > > >
> > > > 'For the reason why sound came to express fixed
> > > > ideas,
> > > > lies not in any natural and inherent equivalence
> > > > between the sound and its intellectual sense,
> > for
> > > > there is none, -intellectually any sound might
> > > > express
> > > > any sense, if men were agreed on a conventional
> > > > equivalence between them; it started from an
> > > > indefinable quality or property in the sound to
> > > > raise
> > > > certain vibrations in the life-soul of the
> > > > human-creature, in his sensational, his
> > emotional,
> > > > his
> > > > crude mental being. An example may indicate more
> > > > clearly what I mean. The word wolf, the origin
> > of
> > > > which is no longer present to our minds, denotes
> > to
> > > > our intelligence a certain living object and
> > that is
> > > > all, the rest we have to do for ourselves: the
> > > > Sanskrit word vrka, "tearer", came in the end to
> > do
> > > > the same thing, but originally it expressed the
> > > > sensational relation between the wolf and man
> > which
> > > > most affected the man's life, and it did so by a
> > > > certain quality in the sound which readily
> > > > associated
> > > > it with the sensation of tearing. This must
> > > > havegiven
> > > > early language a powerful life, a concrete
> > vigour,
> > > > in
> > > > have given one direction a natural poetic force
> > > > which
> > > > it has lost, however greatly it has gained in
> > > > precision, clarity, utility.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
(http://www.searchforlight.org/Arushi/FuturePoetryCh2/Future%20PoetryCh2.htm
> > > > )
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.3/296 -
> > Release Date: 3/29/2006
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 4/3/2006
>


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 4/3/2006


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 4/3/2006


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 4/5/2006