The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0346 Monday, 24 April 2006
[1] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 21 Apr 2006 16:15:57 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0338 WordHoard
[2] From: Thomas Le <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 2006 07:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0338 WordHoard
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 21 Apr 2006 16:15:57 -0400
Subject: 17.0338 WordHoard
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0338 WordHoard
>'turd', which may be punned on at least once in a brogue
>pronunciation of 'third' in TN II.iii., and 'drasty'- i.e., shi**y).
In MW/W,III.iii Dr. Caius says "If there be one or two, I shall make-a
de turd."
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Le <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 22 Apr 2006 07:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 17.0338 WordHoard
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0338 WordHoard
Stephanie Kyd's point is well taken.
There is no necessary connection between speech and script. It just so
happens that all Western languages use the Roman alphabet, which is
largely phonetic, i.e., approximating the sound of speech, thus giving
rise to the conception of speech-script correspondence. But it would be
dangerous to deduce from this imperfect correspondence that the graphic
symbols on paper faithfully represent the language as it is spoken.
A case in point would be the Chinese characters, which are largely
ideographic and pictographic. There is no way a Western eye can discern
any sound at all from looking at these characters. There is a complete
disconnect between speech and script. On the other hand, any Western
reader who sees this Vietnamese phrase "thi ca Viet Nam " (Vietnamese
poetry) can pronounce it without undue trouble, albeit imperfectly, and
without understanding.
To muddy the water, there are linguistic phenomena such as epenthesis,
in which an extraneous sound is inserted in a word without a
corresponding spelling change. For example, some people say 'nuculer'
but would spell the word 'nuclear'.
Language (speech) change is a constant, unintentional, and inevitable
process whereas spelling change is a slow, deliberate and conscious
process. Language change is organic and no one can stop it. The spelling
difference between British and American English is not a natural
evolution of language in the same sense as the English vowel shift is.
Thomas Le
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|