Dutch spelling reform protest
Alwyn Thomas
Gerard van Wilgen wrote:
> Yes, I do. This part of the spelling reform dealt mainly with the
> loanwords from Latin and Greek in which a "k" was sometimes
> substituted for a hard "c". For most of these words the "c" spelling
> has become the only allowed spelling, but there are many exceptions.
> Previously you could either spell "accoord" and "accordeon" or
> "akkoord" and "akkordeon", and nevertheless be sure that you were
> using correct spellings. But now you have to know that it is
> "akkoord", but "accordeon" (or look it up) if you want to use the new
> spelling correctly. This does not seem very effective to me.
I have no difficulty with "akkoord" and "accordeon". The former has got
a double-o to reflect the Dutch pronunciation of an originally French
word, therefroe it is logical to have the "Dutch" double-k as well,
whereas the latter is exactly the way it was when it was taken from
English or French, or whatever. The same applies to "vakantie" and
"vacature" and a host of other words.
It would doubtless be more consistent to have "k" throughout, but, if
you do this, you are violating the principle of Dutch spelling that says
loan-words should as far as possible keep the spelling they had in the
donor language. If you're willing to break that principle, then you can
have "etaasje" for "etage" (Norwegian has "etasje", whereas Danish has
"etage"; both are pronounced about the same) and "sjudaransj" for "jus
d'orange". If you went this way, than an awful lot of words that were
spelled correctly in the old spelling become incorrect in the new.
> But the abolishment of alternative spellings is actually the least
> criticized part of the reform. The real stumbling-block was, and is,
> the use of a silent "n" to link the parts of compound words.
From what I have read, there's no agreement as to what the bones of
contention really are. Mostly people are protesting because they don't
like change, it seems to me, and, after all, no spelling system can be
perfect.
What's Dutch for a hen's egg? ("Hen" = "kip", plural "kippen", "egg" =
"ei") A "kippe-ei", a kippee"i or a "kippenei"? (Some way is required of
keeping the two "e"s apart, because "ee" represents a Dutch phoneme
separate from "e".) I think it should be the first. After all, an egg
can only come from one chicken, so the plural form is excluded, if that
what the form ending in "-en" is. Secondly I like to see as few diareses
(" above a vowel) as possible. Thirdly, I think that the pronunciation
of the "n" in the Dutch "-en" ending should always be optional; however,
if you pronounce the "n" in "kippenei" in the same way that you may
optionally do in the plural "kippen", then you are effectively creating
a new word in the language.
So, if the commission has stipulated "kippenei", then I'm not too happy
about it either. But let's get this in proportion; English has loads and
loads of silent letters and other inconsistencies, and only
schoolchildren complain about that.
As I said before, what I like about the new spelling is that it has got
rid of the alternatives (mostly with "k" and "c"). In practice, Flemings
were choosing the forms with "k" to distinguish from French, and
Dutchmen were choosing the forms with "c" to distinguish from German. I
found this divisive and silly, and I am glad that "De Standaard", my
favourite Dutch newspaper (published in Brussels), which used to have
all sorts of eccentric spellings (like "kamion", borrowed from French
"camion" for "lorry") now conforms to the same standard as any
respectable paper published in Holland like "De Volkskrant" or
"NRC-Handelsblad".
Alwyn
Peter Elderson
Hi.
I'm new to nl.taal. I joined because I like language issues, and I'd
like to contribute to the natural development of the Dutch language and
it's written equivalent. My contention is that language is a means to
communication, and that
language rules should be aimed at improving the quality of
communication. New rules that do not clearly contribute to this goal,
are better done without.
Peter Elderson
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> Mostly people are protesting because they don't like change, it seems to me,
> and, after all, no spelling system can be perfect.
What exactly are you saying?
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> But let's get this in proportion; English has loads and
> loads of silent letters and other inconsistencies, and only
> schoolchildren complain about that.
Wouldn't you object if a commission introduced another load of artifacts
and inconsistencies into written English, replacing one set of
artificial
rules with a different set?
Alwyn Thomas wrote:
> As I said before, what I like about the new spelling is that it has got
> rid of the alternatives (mostly with "k" and "c").
I for one like to have alternatives at my disposal when I'am using
written
language to communicate. Choices enrich the language. Freedom of choice
from
widely used alternatives allows the language to evolve.
Bye
Peter Elderson