4 ms·

> In English words are roughly spelled in terms of their root meaning, which makes it easier for a native speaker to figure out the meaning of an unfamiliar wor

• yebyen 9y ago
  > > The second is that pronunciation inherently shifts over time so you must continually tinker with spelling > Not really? Last spelling change was before WW2 I am not an expert but I've taken a class called language variation and identity, and I can tell you at least that this is a generally accepted principle of language evolution, that one of the most common ways that languages change is by shifting pronunciation over long periods of time. There is also always a counter-example to every rule such as this one; this is not a hard science like chemistry or physics where the results will be the same every time, but the general principals are definitely reoccurring all the time in all languages. Consonants that are difficult to say will be "elided," or omitted in colloquial pronunciations, and sometimes this will result in a spelling change. Phonemes will be "assimilated" into the other sounds that they are nearby so that the combinations are easier to say, or easier to distinguish from one another, and sometimes this will also result in a spelling change. Or you can imagine sometimes language might change for no other reason than because a new large migrant population finds a word is confusingly similar to a swear/curse expression from their native language, and it makes them uncomfortable to pronounce it in the native way... or more predictably because the migrant population does not agree on the pronunciation of a vowel, the regional dialect may change over time to favor their native pronunciation. Or other reasons we won't have thought of, but these changes are often gradual and not noticeable by a person within their lifetime. That the last spelling change in Poland was before WW2 does not sound like strong evidence that it does not undergo the same transformations over time. Some languages with stricter phonetic rules about how spelling of words maps directly to pronunciation may shift less. Some changes are harder to detect from written records of the language (especially vowel shifts.) Sometimes a linguistic authority will intervene, with varying degrees of success, to prevent (or instigate) a change. Even in Polish, if you go back far enough you might be surprised: this poster on Stack Exchange[1] seems to be saying that there was a big vowel shift in Polish, but it was more than 400 years ago. [1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/127564 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/127564
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • ajuc 9y ago
    Well, yes, but one minor change a century doesn't seem to be a problem. Texts from 1545 are still more readable in Polish than in English, so abandoning phoneticity doesn't seem to matter that much.
    • yebyen 9y ago
      Yeah, "phoneticity" is a new word for me, but I'm assuming you mean retaining the (sometimes bizarre) original spelling of loan words so that it's clearer where they came from. In a language like Polish where rules are rules, I think you will be able to see fewer shifts in texts. I think where you would notice a real difference is if you could get a recording of a Polish speaker from 1545. (That is, if you could somehow get a recording from 1545 without somehow also making it available to most of the people since 1545. It's going to be interesting to see 1000 years from now how the availability of recorded media at scale is going to change the basis of new language evolution.)
      • ajuc 9y ago
        Sorry, by "abandoning phoneticity" I just meant "script becoming non-phonetic". Like what happened in English. So you're essentially right.