Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:15:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:53:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Ruud Harmsen Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Arnaud Fournet Post by Ruud Harmsen Post by Ruud Harmsen Post by Christian Weisgerber Post by email@example.com
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.
Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.
There is no t-sound in English 'association'.
Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.
There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.
I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]
SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.
I know, I learn't that from your previous messages. You don't have to
shout, I was just quoting Mark Rosenfelder, who obviously also didn't
know when he wrote that.
It was inappropriate to quote something you knew to be untrue --
I honestly can't remember if I posted it before or after I read your
explanation about Shaw not being the originator of ghoti. But it
wouldn't have made a difference, because I always quote verbatim, and
Mark Rosenfelders comment about the rules of the English spelling
(which is the whole point of http://www.zompist.com/spell.html) is
valid, with or without Shaw.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
sullying the name of a respected former contributor, no less.
[quickly looking up "to sully", just to be sure it means what I think
it means; and it does]
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.
And I repeat: in his very useful and thoughtful article at
http://www.zompist.com/spell.html, in the year 2000 Mark Rosenfelder
Hou tu pranownse Inglish
© 2000 by Mark Rosenfelder Everybody agrees that English spelling is
There have been almost as many proposals for spelling reform as there
are rewrites of Esperanto. (Tellingly, there has been precisely one
success in each category-- Noah Webster and Ido-- and neither caught
on universally.) Most of these proposals spend their energy fixing
what isn't broken. For instance, they search hard for clever new ways
of spelling the ch sound-- even though ch does the job just fine in
hundreds of languages. Or, they insist on 'correcting' the Great Vowel
Shift, using Italian values for the vowels.
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.
The purpose of this page is to describe those rules-- to explain the
system behind English spelling, the rules that tell you how to
pronounce a written word correctly over 85% of the time.
and that article is still on Mark Rosenfelders website, now on 18
January 2018. And with good reason, because it makes so much sense.
Small minor point is that like so many people, he mis-attributed ghoti
to Bernard Shaw, whereas Shaw never actually mentioned and the first
provable occurrence, according to Wikipedia, is dated a year before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti from which I quote:
The first confirmed use of the word is in a letter from Charles Ollier
to Leigh Hunt. On the third page of that letter, dated 11 December
1855, Ollier explains, "My Son William has hit upon a new method of
spelling 'Fish'." Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."
An early known published reference dates to 1874, citing the above
letter. The letter credits ghoti to William Ollier Jr. (born 1824).
Ghoti is often cited to support English spelling reform, and is often
attributed to George Bernard Shaw, a supporter of this cause.
However, the word does not appear in Shaw's writings, and a
biography of Shaw attributes it instead to an anonymous spelling
reformer. Similar constructed words exist that demonstrate English
idiosyncrasies, but ghoti is the most widely recognized.
Never too old too live and learn.
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com