Spelling Systems have always been mixes and have drawn ideas from multiple sources
By Niklaus Shaefer   Draft for JSSS30
 

1. Introduction 2. Semitic Alphabet  2.1 Matres lectionis 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11. crazy english References

References

Spelling systems are heterogeneous systems that derive from several sources. This is most often the case, and there are probably no ex nihilo spelling systems. Even the "Ur-Alphabet", namely the Phoenician, developed from several sources. Although there are scholars who derive alphabets such as the runic or the Ogham alphabet from a single source, this seems very unlikely. The creators of spelling systems are, as Miller (68) pointed out, multilingual and familiar with several older systems. Politics also play an important role in adapting alphabets. Those in power are able to choose their kind of alphabet. Reasons for adapting a certain alphabet may vary over time. Religion, nationalism and identity in general is probably the main force. The need to innovate and to mix different scripts is not only the result of the phonetic shape of a given language, but also due to the pressure on a political entity to have a script of
their own, in order not to get confused with other groups. This political pressure also is responsible for the conservativism often encountered when it comes to changing already established systems. English spelling with its inconsistent, historical and etymological (sometimes even pseudo-etymological) mix of the Anglo-Saxon, the Anglo-Norman and other traditions is perceived as a national symbol by many
speakers of English. That English spelling is eclectic is not the problem – the problem is that English spelling mixes different systems without being consistent. Other systems – from Ancient Greek to modern Wolof spelling – are eclectic and consistent at the same time.

Nationalism has also lead to some innovation – US <color> instead of <colour> - but in general it made English spelling a very conservative system where reform is virtually absent. 

2. The Semitic Alphabets and their Origins 

The first partly alphabetic spellings can be found in the Middle Kingdom (Sass 26). According to Bauer (Coulmas 1998: 141) the Semites borrowed the principle of consonantal alphabetic orthography (Skoyles) from the Egyptians. Gardiner (1916, in Coulmas 1989: 140) and Praetorius (1916, ibid.) saw the origin of the Semitic alphabets in the Cretan syllabaries (Linear A and B) and Cypriote syllabic writing. Sayce (1910,
ebd.) was convinced that the Hittite script was the predecessor of Semitic writing. The most probable case, however, is an extensive Egyptian influence and a at least graphic influence from other sources.

In the beginning, the Semitic alphabets did not contain vowel graphemes. That is why some scholars see these alphabets as syllabaries (Gelb 147 ff., Powell 238 ff.). However, syllabaries consist of items that always designate a "consonant + vowel" or in some cases "vowel". Consonantal alphabets, on the other hand, only have signs that designate consonants. It is not clear why the Semites in the beginning did not designate vowels – some scholars claim that this has something to do with the paucity of vowels present
in early Semitic (as in Classical Arabic), others state that the system of Semitic roots is the cause of this system: Daniels (DB 27) claims that "[t]he Semitic abjads do fit the structure of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic very well". A syllabic system would not be fit for Semitic languages – due to the phonological properties of those languages. In Japanese, on the other hand, a consonant is always followed by a vowel, therefore syllabic writing is in a way more than fit for Japanese. The English word hotel for example is written as ho-te-ru and is also pronounced trisyllabically. Greek on the other hand is hard to write syllabically. ******v for example would have to be written as *su-ki-ze-nu. Hence, the syllabic Linear B which was used by the Mycenaeans and was derived from the earlier Minoan system (Linear A) was a system that was not created for Greek, but for a still unknown language with a phonetic structure
probably similar to Japanese. Miller (18 ff.) gives the following example: /p_hásgana/ was written as pa-ka-na (id. 19) in Linear B. 

2.1. Matres lectionis

According to Sass (5), already in the Middle Kingdom there were some cases of matres lectionis, i.e. consonant graphemes which were used to transcribe vowels in foreign words, namely in Punic (Jensen 290, Naveh 62), Aramaic and Hebrew (hê, wâw, jôd; sometimes even 'âlep; Naveh 62). – In Modern Hebrew (Ivrit), this system is used in non-Biblical words such as xatúl ('cat'), which is spelled xtvl. Naveh (ibid.) notes that the earliest Aramaic and Hebrew documents already used matres lectionis. Some
scholars argue that therefore the Greeks must have borrowed their alphabet from the Arameans. But the practice has older roots: the Semitic cuneiform alphabet of Ugarit (13th ct. BC) already has matres lectionis (Naveh 138). 

3. The Greek Alphabet 

The fact that the Greek alphabet derives from an earlier Semitic script is uncontested, the exact source(s) of the Greek alphabet are however controversial. Sass (94) mentions the Proto-Canaanite and the Phoenician scripts, Coulmas (1989: 142) and Naveh (1979: 55) mention only the Phoenician alphabet. 

According to Miller (53), the *-form kappa comes from the Proto-Canaanite. Kappa probably stood for /k/ as well as /k_h/ in early Greek orthography. Later on, the K-like kap was re-borrowed from Phoenician, in order to distinguish /k/ from /k_h/ graphemically (ibid.). Today the sign * stands for /ps/, whereas X symbolizes /x/ that developed from the aspirated velar stop. Ypsilon, too, was re-borrowed from
Phoenician, digamma (*) thus is the same letter, simply based on an earlier form (id. 45). Some sources however see * as a real Greek innovation that has no Semitic predecessor. Jensen (426) on the other hand links psi to Y and qoppa/phi and Safatenic letters (Jensen 463).

Other Greek letters of disputed origin are X (Chi), * (Phi) and san. Bernal (116) and Brixhe (336) assume
that qoppa originally symbolized /k_w, k_h_w, g_w/ in Greek. Those phonemes fell together with /p, p_h,
b/ – qoppa soon became superfluous. Since pi was the letter for both the aspirated and the
non-aspirated phonemes, qoppa came to be the letter that symbolized the aspirated sound. – This theory
is highly controversial, there are however parallels to this process: the modern sound value of Castilian
<z> is explained by the phonetic change from /dz/ over /ts/ to /*/. Other scholars claim that phi is an
original Greek invention. Sampson (102) maintains that thêta (Jensen 462) is the origin of the letter, and
Swiggers (265) assumes that the letter is of Cypro-Minoan origin. 

Bernal (117) claims that khi is of South Semitic origin; other scholars view it as a symbol that derives from
* (xi) (Jensen 462). Sampi, whose name is probably derived from Greek (ô) sán pi ('like pi') (Jensen 462) is
presumably a newly developed form of san, a Semitic letter that can also be found in Etruscan. In Ionic
Greek, sampi – as the Semitic letter – stood for /ts/ (id. 450). Gercke (ibid.) views * as the predecessor of
sampi.

The Greeks were the first people who generalized the alphabetic designation of vowels. They probably
did so unconsciously, but opinions on this topic are characterized by great dissension. It is not clear
whether Greeks and Semites made the distinction between vowels and consonants the same way present
western civilization does. Bernal (128) mentions Phoenician colonization of Greece: bilingualism was
probably rather frequent – also for economic reasons. Without communication, there is no commerce.
This in turn seems to imply that – as in the case of other alphabets – primarily bilingual or multilingual
people are those who adapt alphabets. The Greek alphabet is probably not the result of a unique and
isolated adoption, but a multi-layered process based on several Semitic alphabets. Other scripts – Miller
(52) even mentions graphic Linear B influence – may also have played a part. 

Maybe it is also necessary to examine whether Greeks and Phoenicians made the same distinctions
between different Semitic languages that scholars make today. 

4. The Etruscan Alphabet 

The Etruscan alphabet derives from the Greek, it is however not clear whether the process of adaptation
took place in Italy or in Greece/Asia Minor. It was in any case a Western Greek alphabet. In the alphabets
of the West, X had the sound value [ks], * stood for [k_h]; in Etruscan: X = [s], * = [k_j] or [k*] (Rix
202-209). An additional sign, 8, was present in both Lydian and Etruscan (Jensen 513) Its origin is
disputed; it may be an altered B or H or an ex novo creation (Rix 202). Its sound value was /f/ and it
replaced the Etruscan *H. 
 
 
 
 

5. The Latin Alphabet 

The Latin alphabet derives mainly from the Etruscan script. According to Hammarström (in Jensen 521),
the letters for B, D, O, X hail from a Southern Italian Greek alphabet. However, there are Etruscan
abecedaria with B, D, O, X (Sampson 108). Rix (203) claims that the sound values of those letters in Latin
is to be attributed to Greek influence, the letters themselves were probably all present when the Romans
took over the alphabet from the Etruscans (Wachter 33). 

It is uncontested that the alphabet is mainly of Etruscan origin. The sound value of C proves that clearly.
Etruscan had no voiced plosives, so this symbol – derived from the Greek gamma – came to stand for the
unvoiced /k/ in Etruscan – as later in Latin. Jensen (521) notes that the letters C, K, Q were originally used
in Latin according to Etruscan usage: C in front of /e, i/; K in front of /a/; Q in front of /u, o/. The letters
thus stand for different allophones of /k/ (in the case of Latin, also /g/ and probably the phonemes /k_w/
and /g_w/ in the case of QU and GU). These spelling rules are due to the names of the letters: gamma or
gemma; kappa; qoppa or quppa (Wachter 15). In Etruscan there was no /o/, so Q was used both in front of
/o/ and /u/ in Latin. Y and Z were later additions taken from the Greek alphabet. G was created
approximately in the 3rd century BC by Spurius Carvilius Ruga as a modification of C (Sampson 109). *
(digamma) stood for /w/ in both Etruscan and Latin, but the Romans simplified the *H-/f/combination to
F /f/. The semi-vowels /w, j/ and the vowels /u, u:, i, i:/ were written with the same letters, namely V
and I respectively. 
 
 

6. The Runes 

The runes were created by speakers of Germanic dialects in order to write their languages. Although
some scholars claim the runes to be entirely of Greek (Morris in Odenstedt 359) or Latin (Odenstedt 362)
origin, most scholars view this alphabet as a script of mixed origin. Seebold (441), Krause (38 ff.), Jensen
(571) and Coulmas (1996: 444 ff.) think that the Runic alphabet is a mixture of North Italic/Alpine
alphabets with additional Latin influence. This most frequent school of thought is certainly more realistic
than the monogenetic explanations provided by Morris and Odenstedt. Some letters are obviously Latin in
origin, for example the runes for /f/ and /r/, others remind clearly – at least on a formal level – of Alpine
letters, for example the /h/-rune. There are also symbols that could be either Latin or Alpine, e.g. the
/i/-rune. Bernal (36) thinks that there was also some substrate alphabet involved, Miller (62) claims that
the origins of the runic alphabet are archaic-Mediterranean. Both do not specify their ideas. Miller (ibid.)
also writes that the phonetic parameters on which the runic alphabet is based are ultimately clearly
Semitic and links them to the scripts of Byblos and Ugarit as well as the Phoenician alphabet.

Several different Runic scripts developed, including an Anglo-Saxon system that even had different
symbols for /k/ and /c/ (modern English /tS/). The latter was symbolized by the old /k/-rune; a new
symbol was created for Anglo-Saxon /k/. 
 
 

7. Ogham 

Although the origins of the Ogham alphabet are disputed, it is clear that the graphically innovative system
has its roots in already existing alphabets, probably the runes and/or the Etruscan and Latin alphabet.
Many writing systems have letters with new forms, but this does not mean that the idea of writing
alphabetically has been re-invented in those cases. Han-kul for example has – on a formal level – little in
common with alphabetic scripts in use in the vicinity of Korea, however, the creator(s) of the alphabet
were certainly aware of Indic alphabets such as the Mongolian 'Phags pa (DB 225). The script may be
formally closer to Chinese, but its structure is clearly alphabetic, and the fact that each consonant is
accompanied by a vowel letter below has a close parallel in Indic scripts where consonant and vowel
letters merge into quasi-units. 

The similarities between Ogham and runes are in any case remarkable. Both systems are based on
phonological and phonetic knowledge: in the case of Ogham, the vowels are in one row, dental /d, t/ and
velar /k, k_w/ stops are all placed next to each other as well as fricatives /f, s/ and velar sounds /g, N/. It
is also interesting to note that all Ogham letters, including the odd [st]-symbol (sometimes transcribed as
<z>, DB 341), have Anglo Saxon runic counterparts. Of course, it is necessary to examine whether these
letters are due to phonetics and/or phonology or rather to the model given by another alphabet (runic or
Latin). Also, it is not clear how this symbol was actually pronounced. 

At the same time, the creativity of the creators of Ogham as well as other alphabets should not be
underestimated: the vowel order is probably based on the distinction front/back: back vowels /a, o, u/ [A,
o, u] are followed by front vowels /e, i/. The shape of the letters is certainly also rather original, as in the
case of the Korean Han-kul or in the case of some runic characters. 

Crystal (205) states that Ogham letters symbolized either Gaelic or Pictish phonemes. The alphabet was
probably created around the 4th century BC. It can be found on rocks, stones and pottery in Wales and
Ireland. According to Babaev, Old Irish ogam is not a Celtic word. Although Pictish is probably a
non-Indo-European language, Celtophiles argue that due to the fact that there is no /p/ letter in Ogham
Pictish itself must be a Celtic language. Babaev assumes that there was probably some Celtic influence on
Pictish. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

8. The Gothic Alphabet

It was probably Bishop Wulfila who created the Gothic letters. As in the case of the runes, there have
been scholars who claim that Wulfila's letters have been developed from a single source. Kirchhoff (1854)
claimed that the origins of all Gothic letters are Greek, and Zacher (1855) maintained that Wulfila created
all letters with Latin counterparts in mind (Braune 15-16). Later on, scholars tended to agree that the
letters are mainly of Greek origin, with the exception of some letters that must be of runic and Latin
origin (ibid.). However, there are still scholars like Ebbinghaus (Braune 16) who maintain that the origins
of the alphabet are to be viewed as monogenetically Greek. Wimmer (1887), Gutenbrunner (1950), Mossé
(1950) however all agree that the Gothic alphabet must be viewed as a synthesis of two traditions, namely
the "latino-graeca" and the "runo-graeca" (ibid.) Most letters are seen as Greek by the majority of
scholars, but the origin of some letters, e.g. the symbols for /f/, /j/ and /u/, is controversial (Braune 16). 

Actually, the Greek alphabet had no letter for /j/ and there was no /j/ in the Greek of that time, and the
Latin letter I stood for /i/ as well as /j/. So the Runic /j/-letter was an obvious choice. The Latin V was
ambiguous, unlike the runic /u/-grapheme. 

Both the letter forms and phonetic facts can be used as evidence against monogenetic theories. There
are many other alphabets derived mainly from Greek that also have a few letters of different origins, e.g.
Coptic (DB 287), Armenian (DB 366) and Glagolitic (DB 347), the script from which the Cyrillic was derived.
 
 
 

9. Latin Orthography of Languages other than Latin 

9.1. Anglo-Saxon 

Many languages all over the world are spelled with Latin characters. Old English, too, came to be written
by means of Latin characters instead of the former Runic system. However, not all phonemes of OE had
Latin counterparts. At first, /w/ and /*/ were represented by means of runic letters (wynn and thorn
respectively) and eth. The Anglo-Saxons learned the Latin alphabet from Irish monks. Early manuscripts
symbolized the phoneme /*/ by means of <th> word-initially and by <d> elsewhere. Later on, the Runic
thorn as well as the newly created eth were allographs which symbolized both the voiced and the
voiceless allophones of /*/. /w/ was first symbolized by <u, uu> and then replaced by the Runic wynn
(Weimann 59). Not only Irish scribes had an influence on Anglo-Saxon spelling: Greek members of the
Canterbury mission introduced <y> with its Greek value /y/ (formerly /u/) into English spelling (Kniesza
26). The relationship between Northumbrian monasteries and those of northern Ireland was very close.
Therefore, northern spelling conventions were closer to these sources than to the south, where wynn,
thorn and eth were used. Instead, Northumbrian spelling has <th>and <u>. <th> "has always been
recognized as an alternative to thorn by English writers" and "was used to transcribe Greek theta" (Scragg
2). Although Northumbrian scribes started to use thorn and wynn, they disappeared in both Scots and
English – probably due to their inavailability to printers. The Lindisfarne texts have both wynn and <w>
(Kniesza 29). Even before the Norman influx, Northumbrians used <ch> for /*/. Furthermore, diacritics
or doubling of vowel letters are typical of Northumbrian spelling (30). In the Middle English period,
Norman influence formed and changed English spelling. <ch>, <qu> were typical French graphemes that
were rare before. The simplification <sch> to <sh> (Scragg 46) and other digraphs with <-h> as their
second element may have been coined after <ch> (id. 30). 

In Scots, <hw> or <wh> was written as <quh> more often, and <sh> was also rare; the scribes
preferring the older <sch> grapheme (Kniesza 32). Digraphs with <i> were also typical of Scots (id. 40)
In this context, it is, as Kniesza (33) states, 

also essential to have a look round and make a similar analysis not only of the neighbouring dialects [of Scots], but of all languages
whose speakers played an important historical-cultural role in the life of Scotland: French, Dutch/Flemish and so on. This is because
writing can be influenced externally, and the adoption of a certain spelling habit does not necessarily mean the adoption of the
underlying pronunciation, let alone a parallel process in sound changes. 

Scragg (17) has looked more closely at "foreign" influences. First, Latin conventions lead to a certain
degree of confusion: <th> and <ch> were introduced and <ae> was often used instead of <e>. The
sounds [ç] and [x] were sometimes represented by Anglo-Norman <s> as well as Old English [h] and the
new grapheme yogh and yogh plus <h> (23) – probably due to the absence of these sounds in French.
Scragg (49) mentions the introduction of the new <ie> grapheme which was taken over from French.
Even Spanish influence may be present in English spelling, as Scraggs (57) notes, namely the <l> in the
word emerald which is sometimes ascribed to sixteenth century Spanish influence. 

In 1476, William Caxton established the first press in England (Scraggs 5). Caxton also translated himself,
and according to Scraggs (66) "he seems heavily influenced by his sources, the most notorious of his
permanent contributions to the language being the introduction of the Dutch convention <gh> for /g/ in
ghost, a native word spelt gost until the later fifteenth century." <gh> may actually be a Dutch grapheme
introduced into English; however, the grapheme was almost certainly not pronounced as /g/: 

De spelling in het Middelnederlands was in ieder greview sterk beïnvloed door Franse schrijvers. In oude teksten vindt men
bijvoorbeeld vaak -ghe- of -ghi- in plaats van de huidige spelling -ge- of -gi-. Dit betekent dat de letter <g> moet worden
uitgesproken als [x] net zoals in het hedendaags Nederlands en niet zoals het Franse <g> dat voor /e/ en /i/ tot een stemhebbend
<sj> wordt. 

(Dünser et al.) 

English translation by Dr. John Gledill (Dünser et al.): 

The spelling in Middle Dutch was in any case strongly influenced by French writers. In old texts we can, for example, often find
-ghe- or -ghi- instead of the modern -ge- or -gi- This means that the letter <g> must have been pronounced [x] as in modern
Dutch (ie like the <ch> in Scottish "loch"), and not like the French <g> which had changed to voiced <zj> in front of /e/ and /i/ (as
in the English word "leisure"). 
 
 

Therefore, Caxton's choice of spelling is probably solely graphic and not based on phonetic properties.
He also used other "Dutch spellings". In one of his translations from the Dutch, Reynard the Fox (1481),
he wrote goed instead of good and ruymen for make room. Dutch goed was at this time probably already
pronounced as /u/. Words like good, foot, stood had alternative pronunciations with /u:/ until the 17th
century (Cruttenden 113). The <uy> spelling in ruymen seems to imply a diphthongized pronunciation (or
maybe an older Dutch pronunciation /u:/). 

The phoneme /d*/ that was symbolized in OE either as <cg> or in some cases <gg> due to contact with
Old French orthography was now spelled either as <i> or <g> (only before <e, i>). (66/67) The spelling
<gu-> before <i, e> was also due to French influence: guest instead of gest. 16th century Italian
influence lead to spellings such as ghest or ghess which reflect the Italian way of distinguishing between
palatal and non-palatal pronunciations before <i, e> (ibid.) 

Both Scots and English spelling – as we have seen, Scots and English were probably more heterogeneous
at an earlier stage which makes the term "Anglo-Saxon" more fit to describe the language – have been
subject to many different influences. 

  1.Irish 
  2.Latin 
  3.French 
  4.Dutch 
  5.Italian 
  6.Spanish 

And many others – e.g. Icelandic (geysir), Gaelic (loch), Portuguese (piranha), German and German
transcription of Yiddish (dachshund, schmuck). English and Scots spelling is a living example of a system
that has various origins and even applies different rules at the same time, due to the different systems
that formed English spelling in the past. Modern borrowings may even be disregarded. Kniesza (46)
states that "[o]riginal Scots orthography, as it appeared in its most pristine forms in the manuscripts
written at the end of the fifteenth century, was a blending of common Middle English spelling, special
northern English scribal traditions and, in some cases, native innovations or graphemes not evidenced
elsewhere." 

10. The order of alphabetic systems 

Unlike the Ogham and Runic alphabets, most other alphabets follow the order of letters in the original
alphabet from which it was derived rather closely, e.g. Greek, Latin, Gothic and so on. Driver (183)
pointed out that the order of the (North) Semitic alphabets is not a coincidence. Miller (75) even claims
that the matrices of Semitic writing are based on a change between different categories of sounds.
Reflexes of these matrices can be found especially in the Runic alphabet; it is however important to note
that some of those classifications can be still found in the Greek, Gothic and Latin alphabets. The ogham
alphabet has however – probably consciously – a matrix of its own. Additions to an already existing
alphabet normally follow the same patterns: Y, Z in the Latin alphabet, for example, were added at the
end. Sometimes – if it is a grapheme that developed from a certain other grapheme or shares phonetic
properties – the new letters are put next to the original letter. (e.g. * and * in Cyrillian, W in Latin). The
substitution of Z by means of G in Latin is quite exceptional (Wachter 11). The runic alphabet reorganized
the alphabetic system on the grounds of the Semitic matrix and Germanic phonology. The Gothic
alphabet however only slighty changed the Greek pattern. It is however hardly a coincidence that Gothic
/k_w/ took the place of the Greek digamma that originally had /w/ as its sound value. At that time, * no
longer had any phonetic value, so Wulfila must have known the old sound value. 
 
 
 
 

11. Multiple Origin of Letters 

Some letters stand for another letter. For example, Afrikaans <y> stands for former <ij> which is
treated as a single letter in Dutch. So it is not clear whether this <y> is actually connected to the Greek
ypsilon. Rather, the shape of the letter and not any actual pronunciation lead to present day usage. First,
<ÿ> was seen as a ligature of <i> and <j>, but later on, the dots disappeared and the origin of the letter
obscured. English <y> also stands for <j>, as O'Connor (DB 789) notes. In the case of <ç>, two letters
may have been confused by scribes. Harris-Northall (429) writes: "in the Visigothic script of the Peninsula
this z appears with a considerable right-facing curve at its top, almost as if it were crowned by the letter
c. Eventually, this interpretation was reversed and the symbol taken to be a c with an understroke of
variying size, i.e. ç." O'Connor (DB 635), on the other hand, asserts that <z> "fused with c to form ç",
representing Gallo-Romance [ts]. This actually would explain the name cedilla ('little zed') – but it is of
course possible that the name was added later on. Letter names, too, have been invented after their
introduction, e.g. omikron and omega. They were invented by Byzantinian scholars, at a time, when both
Greek letters were pronounced as [o], and the distinction was merely graphic. The name, therefore,
related to the form of the letters and not to their sound. 

12. Multiple Origin of Writing Systems 

Writing systems themselves – like some letters – are derived from different sources. Tifinagh, the Berber
alphabet, clearly has different sources (O'Connor 112), probably Punic and Northern Arabic scripts, while
at the same time being very innovative. Swiggers (111) assumes that the Iberic scripts are the result of a
fusion of the Punic and Greek alphabetic traditions. The fact that the Iberian scripts are both alphabetic
and syllabic is probably due to the nature of Iberian phonology. There are, as a matter of fact, "pro-Greek
and pro-Semitic camps" (Daniels/Bright 110). 

Other alphabets with polygenetic origins are the Russian (Cubberly 347) and the IPA alphabet
(international phonetic alphabet). The latter contains Latin and Greek symbols as well as derived letters.
The Coptic alphabet is like the Gothic mostly Greek, but six letters hail from the older Demotic alphabet
(Coulmas 1996: 92-93). In the 20th century, the IPA alphabet – itself Latin- and Greek-derived – has
influenced new orthographic systems, e.g. Kurdish (Paul) or Wolof (Franke). Like in many other alphabets,
the IPA alphabet also includes letters of unknown origin, and some of the letters have sound values that
do not conform to traditional assignments, e.g. [c] (DB 366). It may be surprising that Native (Northern)
American scripts – developed under European (settler) influence – are syllabic in nature and not
alphabetic; it has to be investigated whether this has something to do with the phonology of those
languages. The shapes of some scripts such as the Cherokee syllabary are clearly influenced by European
alphabets (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic) (DB 587), but there is no real relation between the syllables represented
and the signs. There is also a syllabary that was probably influenced by Cherokee, namely the Vai script.
Both African and Native American syllabaries are quite innovative, in some cases the relationship towards
former scripts is not clear at all (DB 594). The Somali alphabet is a mixture of Arabic and Latin. Berry (5)
writes: 

Ferguson (1986) has an interesting example from history of St.Stefan of Perm who, in the fourteenth century, invented an alphabet for
the Komi called Abur. The alphabet was clearly based on knowledge of Greek and Church Slavonic, but he deliberately made the
forms of the letters sufficiently different from both so that the Komi could regard the writing system as distinctively theirs and not
an alphabet used for another language. 

This is probably an early example of the way identity is created or at least supported by a spelling
system. 

13. Spelling and politics 

Spelling has many implications, and probably all of them have some political relevance. 

Fishman (XV) writes: "Latinization, Cyrillization, or Sinoization are not merely far-going indications of
desired (and frequently subsidized or directed) social change and cognitive-emotional reorganization,
but they have immediate consequences for the relevance of traditional elitist skills and implications for
the distribution of new skills and statuses related to literacy and to the philosophy or ideology which is
the carrier of literacy." 

13.1. STANDARD SPELLING

The implication of a certain spelling may vary. Geerts et al. (234) point out that Dutch speaking Belgians
prefer the spelling kultuur because it looks less like French, whereas in Holland, people tend to prefer
the spelling cultuur because it looks less like German. Also, a more conservative spelling is not always
due to conservative persuasion of the writer. In Belgium, Father Verschueren devised a more
phonological system which was used only by Catholic newspapers. The modern spelling à la Verschueren
now is seen by many as a right-wing way of spelling. In general, the superimposition of a new spelling
may be directly linked to the creation of a nation. Both Norwegian languages, bokmål and nynorsk, are
very similar to Danish. Some Danish spellings are now after spelling reforms no longer used in
Norwegian, but the languages are still – also on an orthographic level – mutually intelligible. 

On the other hand, the Norwegian Language Council for example standardized the Norwegian spelling of
rough and tough, with the effect that speakers of English will not easily recognize Norwegian røf and tøf.
In other cases, there is no standardized form, e.g. crash may be written as kræsj, krasj or as in English
crash (Gundersen 257). These measures to suppress foreign elements may also encourage nationalism.
On the other hand, more regular spelling is less élitist and insofar may in some contexts be less
conservative. For example, the conservative Swiss German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung
(www.nzz.ch) always spells the German word Plastik 'plastic' as in English (even though capitalized),
whereas less conservative Swiss German papers such as Tages Anzeiger (www.tagesanzeiger.ch) always
spell the word Plastik. However, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes Plastik in the sense of 'sculpture'
always with a <k>. On the other hand, banning etymological or other alternative spellings would be
undemocratic and a typical result of dualist thinking. Actually, authorities on German spelling such as
Duden or Bertelsmann do not list Plastic as a German spelling. 

Rumantsch (Romansh) was standardized in the last century. On the orthographic level, Heinrich Schmidt
sought to avoid all odd-looking spellings, in order to increase general acceptability of the new idiom and
its spelling. Therefore, words with /c/ plus /e, i/ have <tg> (tgirar) instead of <ch>. Words with /c/
followed by /a, o, u/ have <ch> (chalanda) as both speakers of Engadin (chalanda) and the Rhine territory
(calanda) except a spelling with <c->. At the same time, che and chi are – due to this rule, called "Leza
Uffers Kompromiss" – pronounced /ke/ and /ki/. <k> on the other hand would be a grapheme deemed
unfit for a Romance tongue such as Romansh. Schwa, however, is represented by <e> in RG which makes
it closer to German, as does the use of <sch> for both /*/ and /*/ and <tsch> for /*/. 

On the other hand, the fact that there is no <ü, ö> in RG may not only be due to the lack of /y/ and /2/ in
most Romansh idioms, but also to the graphic form which is seen as non-Romance. This also shows that it
is not always phonetics that leads to the adoption of a new grapheme, but sometimes also the lack of a
grapheme that leads to a certain phonetic shape of the standard. All in all, RG spelling is a compromise
between Romance (Italian, French) and Germanic (German) spelling. 

Spelling is in any case a highly political matter. Serbian and Croatian were written with the Cyrillic and
Latin alphabets, although basically one standard language (with minor differences according to religious
community) was in use, namely Serbo-Croatian. The same applies to Urdu and Hindi, the first being
written with a script derived from Arabic, the latter spelled by means of the Indic Devanagari script.
Spelling conventions sometimes reflect matters of identity and power, and not any linguistic properties of
a given language. With the rise of nationalism, theses issues have become more important. The Latin
alphabet substituted the Runes and Ogham also due to the fact that it was perceived as a Christian
alphabet. Wulfila, too, probably introduced his Greek-derived script as a Christian alphabet. 

Generally, those in power will pick a script that will symbolize the people's independence from another
power. For example, Rumanian is written with Cyrillic graphemes in Moldavia. During the Western (mainly
Venetian) colonization of Greece, some parts of Greece wrote their languages by means of Latin
graphemes (Katsikas 427). In the early phase of the Soviet Union (1920s and 1930s), Pontic Greek was
written with a phonetic alphabet based on Greek. 

Whereas Standard Greek has several graphemes for /i/, Pontic spelling at that time only has iota. The
same applies for /e/ (always written with epsilon) and /o/ (omikron), and /u/ was symbolized with ypsilon
instead of OY. Further Cyrillic influence can be seen in the spelling ** instead of ** and **. ** and ** are
written phonetically as either ** ** ** **. Xi and psi are written as ** and **, and there is only one symbol
for sigma, namely * that in Greek Greek appears only in final position. [z] is always symbolized with zita,
and there are no double consonants, except ** and ** which symbolize [*] and [*], both not present in
Greek Greek (ibid.)

Of course, it is always difficult to say whether for example Greek and Pontic Greek are in fact the same
language, since they do have differences. However, many differences were in this case – as in the case of
Serbo-Croatian and Hindi/Urdu – only there on a graphemic level and not part of the languages per se.
Another case where it is difficult to draw boundaries between nationalism and religious motivations is
Israel. The spelling of Ivrit is mostly identical with Biblical Hebrew (Rabin 155), and those who want to
change those rules are seen as traitors by many Israeli Jews. From an economic point of view it can be
noted that a Hebrew text is 25% shorter than its translation into a European tongue (id. 155). If a more
phonetic system would be established, it would probably reflect either Ashkenazi or Sephardi
pronunciation (id. 156). For those and other reasons, it is almost impossible to change Ivrit spelling.
Whereas a speaker of German who does not want to change etymological spellings like Philosophie is
probably concerned that the Greek origin of the word may be obscured, a speaker of Ivrit may be
concerned that people may no longer be able to read the Torah which has different implications, both
national and religious. Of course, there are also often linguists who are trying to preserve a system,
supposedly on linguistic grounds. Noam Chomsky for example called English spelling a "near optimal
system for representing the language" (Berry 9). Others scholars may prefer more phonological spelling
systems, but it is in any case not clear whether (almost phonological) Finnish spelling is actually more
efficient than (highly etymological, unsystematic) English spelling (Burnaby 63). It is certainly doubtful
whether standards can be enforced in a strictly democratic way (> Schmid). In the case of Somali, there
were three possible spelling systems at hand: Arabic, Latin and Ismaniya. A UNESCO commission decided
that Latin was – out of practical considerations – best for Somali. However, the speakers of this language
felt otherwise: "Die lateinische Schrift war Sinnbild des Kolonialismus und des Christentums für die
einen, Verheissung des Fortschritts für die anderen; die arabische Schrift war für die einen mit dem
Islam, für die anderen mit der Reaktion verbunden; und die Ismaniya-Schrift galt den einen als Symbol
der Eigenständigkeit Somalias, während sie für die anderen seine Isolation festschrieb." (Coulmas 1985:
144) In the end, in 1972 the Somali military regime declared Somali with Latin spelling language of state.
(ibid. 142) 

13.2. NO STANDARD SPELLING 

In other cases, there is actually no state to enforce a standard orthography. In the case of Kurdish,
especially the Turkish state continues to discourage the use of the language. Paul and Pulur both use a
spelling that is basically Turkish but uses also additional letters such as <ê> and <kh>. Others want
Kurdish spelling to be closer to European spelling, claiming that the idiom "deserves" an orthography
closer to its European relatives:

Being an Indo-European language, a Latin-based alphabet better suits this vowel-rich language than a Semitic-based medium, like
Arabic. [...]No letters should be allowed for the imported Semitic sounds (like ·ayn o or Ha) or Turkic (like ö, ü) in a reformed Kurdish
alphabet. These imported Semitic sounds are found exclusively in South Kurmanji of Iraq and small portions of Iran's, but are absent
from North Kurmanji. Conversely, the imported Turkic sounds are found exclusively in North Kurmanji. These localized imports
should not be marked in any fashion in the Kurdish alphabet. Instead, their eventual expulsion should be facilitated by their non-
representation. [...]

Finally, a standard, pan-Kurdish alphabet must never conform to anything present in Turkish alphabet and standards. Firstly, the
Turkish system is strange and rife with Kemalian innuendos, being a source of numerous mispronunciations and puzzlement to
people proficient in any one of major European languages. Secondly, adoption of the Turkish norms for Kurdish alphabet would
readily produce the erroneous and unwelcome impression of affinity between Kurdish and Turkish. Better for Kurdish to resemble its
cousin languages in Europe-such as English, French or German-than the utterly alien, Turco-Mongolian, East Asiatic tongues like
Turkish. No Ç ç etc. 

Others also anglicize Kurdish spelling, however, with more pragmatic goals: 

The development of a unified, electronic writing system has proceeded along three lines. First one letter has been designated for
each sound (with the exception of "jh" and "sh"). Second, no diacritical marks have been allowed that are difficult to convey via the
Internet without the use of specialized programs. Specifically, all characters in the unified alphabet have been chosen carefully from
the ISO-8859-1 "Latin 1" system for West European languages in order to ensure that the Kurdish characters follow a global
standard. 

http://www.humanrights.de/~kurdweb/kval/english/indexe.html 

While the origins of the Latin alphabet as such are neither Greek nor Latin but BOTH, the present day
Latin alphabets have even more diverse sources. For example, the "Unified Kurdish Alphabet" contains –
as most European languages – <j>, <u> and <w>, letters that have not been part of the classical Latin
alphabet. <j> was originally solely the capital of <i>, and it was the humanist Pierre de la Ramée (d.
1572) who first made the distinction on phonetic grounds. The same is true of the couple <u> and <v> .
<w> was invented in the 7th century by Anglo-Saxon writers; it was originally a double-u: <uu>, hence
the English name. It was used to represent /w/, because at this time, <v> was pronounced /v/ in
Romance languages. Also, not all letters of this alphabet have their Latin sound values, e.g. <q> is
pronounced as /q/. <c> is pronounced /tS/, <sh> is an English digraph, <ll> is pronounced as a velar
/l/, <jh> is a new digraph for /*/, <x> symbolizes /x/. Most letters have English counterparts, however,
there are additional distinctions between <é> and <e>, <i> and <í>, all based on (absence of) length
(as in Hungarian), as well as <u>, <ú> and <ù>, based on quality (as <é>, <è> in Italian). Izady's
"Pan-Kurdish Alphabet" is almost identical with the "Unified Kurdish Alphabet", it is however – with the
exception of the vowel signs <æ, ae>, <î, ii> and <û, uu> – even closer to English spelling, <ch> and
<kh> both being English graphemes – even though the latter is used only in the transcription of
non-English languages (as <zh> mainly in words of Russian origin). These alphabets, although fairly
close to English, still represent sounds typical of Kurdish and use some graphemes in a manner unlike
English. Still, if compared with the Kurmanjî alphabet, it is obvious that the latter is much closer to
Turkish spelling. The Zaza alphabet is also close to Turkish, but with more additional letters, probably
due to the phonetic features of this language. In some parts of Kurdistan, the language is written by
means of a Perso-Arabic script. Even the Cyrillic and Armenian scripts were formerly employed to write
Kurdish. The languages of Sardinia, like the Kurdish idoms, do not have a standard. Opinions on how
those languages should be spelled differ. Pittau claims that double consonants should be indicated – in
many cases, only on historical grounds. Blasco Ferrer maintains that double consonants do not have any
phonological significance, Bolognesi (24), on the other hand, claims that double consonants are far from
meaningless: "Basando le convenzioni grafiche del sardo standard sulle Forme Sottostanti le geminate
vanno indicate (come appunto in inglese o in olandese), e nei dialetti in cui è presente la lenizione, il
contrasto fra lettere singole e doppie indicherebbe il contrasto fra fonemi 'lenibili' e fonemi
'inalterabili'." In other words: Double consonants symbolize consonants always pronounced as plosives,
whereas single consonants are fricativized medially. A single consonant as the <c> in mudu ('mute') is
pronounced as [ð], the double consonant <cc> in muttu is always pronounced as [t]. Tradition is always an
important argument. It is probably also why <k> spellings in front of palatal vowels (instead if <ch> as in
Italian) are not very popular. [j] and its fricative counterpart are sometimes written as in Spanish <y>,
most often, however, the older Italian <j> is preferred (Corda 188). Instead of the popular <x> for [*],
Corda (189) writes <sg>; he also prefers <z> and <zz> to Pittau's <tz>, claiming it is anti-economic and
inelegant, even though unambiguous (id. 190). Both authors write <cu> instead of <qu>. Corda's
spelling is closer to Italian, Pittau prefers the non-Italian <x> and <tz> to Corda's <sg> and <z, zz>.
Additionnaly, Corda prefers <dd> to Pittau's <ddh, dh>; both stand for a d cacuminale, i.e. [*].

Scots is also a language without a standard. After the unification of England and Scotland in 1603,
Scottish spelling became more and more like English (Crystal 330). William Caxton played a crucial role in
this process (Kniesza 44). There have been attempts to standardize the language, e.g. Lallands. Spelling,
if course, is controversial: "should 'out' be spelled out or oot, or 'was' as was or wes?" (id. 333) In other words, should an Anglicized spelling be adopted, or should the idiom be made autonomous of English by
means of orthography? 

In a (quasi-) colonial situation with languages that have not been written before it is even more difficult to lay down the spelling of a given language: "Besonders kritisch ist die Frage des Mediums von Alphabetisierungskampagnen für Bevölkerungsgruppen, deren Sprachen bisher nicht verschriftet sind. Sollen sie zum Zwecke der Alphabetisierung mit einer Schrift resp. mit einer Orthographie versehen
werden und, wenn ja, mit welcher?" (Coulmas 1985: 215) Coulmas (1985: 215-216) reports that the language of the Santal is written (not unlike Kurdish) with four different scripts: the three scripts of the states that the Santal belong too plus one autochthonous, newly invented system. Of course, the authorities do not encourage the use of this script because they are afraid that it may lead – as a symbol of the Santal people – to separaratism: 

Die Neuverschriftung von Sprachen ist in mehrfacher Hinsicht ein Politikum. Zu dem Kanon der Schriftsprache wird ein weiterer Kandidat hinzugefügt, wodurch eine weitere sprachlich definierte Gruppe buchstäblich sichtbar ihren Anspruch auf Eigenständigkeit artikulieren kann. Ausserdem ist die konkrete Entwicklung einer Orthographie [...] ein Politikum, da erstens eine bestimmte Varietät als Grundlage für die Verschriftung ausgewählt werden muss, was im Einklang mit der Einstellung der Sprachgemeinschaft zu verschiedenen Varietätaten stehen muss, um Möglichkeiten des Transfers zu maximieren. (Coulmas 1985: 221). 

The Chinese government developed a new Latin orthography for Kazakh and Uigur. Both languages were
written with an Arabic alphabet before (Coulmas 1985). Whereas it was not possible to introduce the latin
alphabet in China for writing Chinese, those marginalized peoples of China did not have the power to
defend their cultural identity. On a cultural level, this is probably unfortunate in terms of cultural Uigur
and Kazakh self-assuredness. In the case of Turkish, Atatürk's racism against Arabs and Kurds has
probably played a role in his reform of spelling. Instead of the former Arabic alphabet, a Latin alphabet
with letters used in European orthographies (probably with the exception of yumu*ak g and the dotless
<i>) was introduced (Coulmas 1996: 513). Atatürk's goal was to Westernize Turkey, insofar he succeeded,
also in terms of the alphabet. But he probably did not really respond to the wishes of speakers of Turkish
– and speakers of Kurdish, Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and so on – in abandoning the Arabic alphabet. 

Politics are – besides economic reasons – the main shaper of spelling systems. Especially languages that
are official in less powerful conuntries or are not official at all lose out compared with more powerful
languages. Not only may the languages themselves be in danger of becoming extinct, but their spelling
systems can often not be used according to the rules due to technical reasons. For example, in e-mails it
is often not possible to use accent marks not used in English; the internet in general has been clearly
designed with English in mind. The absence of thorn, eth and wynn in Modern English spelling is a result
of their inavalilability to printers. Of course, today's technical possibilities are different from early
printing. This is probably also the reason why Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other scripts may be used in
the future even for URLs. The reason for this might be economic itself, as many Latin URLs are already
taken (Metzger). 
 
 

13. Conclusion

Monogenetic theories are usually unfit to explain the origins of alphabets and other scripts. This is true
in both older alphabets as well as orthography of modern languages. There have been probably no ex
nihilo alphabets and other scripts, and alphabets that have been created from a single source are also
very hard to find. As culture in general is always eclectic, so are alphabets and other scripts. This also
means that most often multilingual people who already know several tongues and scripts create new
scripts. Modern day spelling systems are no exception to this rule, from the syllabic writing of Native
Americans to the spelling systems of other modern languages, from English to Rumantsch Grischun. The
heterogeneous origins of spelling systems are also the result of politics. Especially in modern times,
nations identified themselves not only with their language, but also with their script. Before that, religion
was more important – that is probably why Wulfila created a Greek-based alphabet instead of taking over
the runic script. Also some modern nations write according to their religion, e.g. Serbs use Cyrillic and
Croats use Latin letters. The political implications of letters are also clear wherever a standard is not yet
created and there is no state who promotes the language, as in the case of Kurdish and closely related tongues such as Zazaki. Also economic reasons may change spelling systems, as the "Unified Kurdish Alphabet" shows. Choices based solely on linguistic considerations were possible in earlier times; nowadays it is hardly possible to change spellings without political support. 

Bibliography
Titles available in English are listed at Splbib.htm

Babaev, Cyril. "Picts and Pictish Language". http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/asearch.html [28.2.01]

----. "Ogham Script" http://www.geocities.com/indoeurop/asearch.html [28.2.01]

new URL for Indo-European database: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/barnsbury/841/tree/czech.html 

Bammesberger, Alfred (ed.) 1991. Old English Runes and their Continental Background. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. 

Barthel, Gustav. 1972. Konnte Adam schreiben? Weltgeschichte der Schrift. Von der Keilschrift zum Komputersatz. Schauberg, Köln:
DuMont. 

Bernal, Martin. 1990. Cadmean Letters. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 

Berry, Jack. 1977. "The 'Making of Alphabets' Revisited" In: Fishman 3-16. 

Bilder/Schriften/Alphabete. 1985. Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz. 3., erweiterte Auflage. 

Bolognesi, Roberto. "Per un approccio sincronico alla linguistica e alla standardizzazione del sardo"
http://www.condaghes.com/bolognesi.pdf [2.4.2001] 

Bonfante, Larissa. 1996. "The scripts of Italy" In: Daniels/Bright S. 297-311. 

Boüüaert, J. 1950. "Oorsprong en vorming van het gotisch alphabet" In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire No. 2, S. 423-437. 

Braune, Wilhelm. 1981. Gotische Grammatik. Mit Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis. 19. Aufl., neu bearbeitet von Ernst A.
Ebbinghaus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Vlg. 

Burnaby, Barbara. 1997. "Writing Systems and Orthographies" In: Edwards, Viv and David Corson (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and
Education – Volume 2: Literacy. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p.59-86. 

Corda, Francesco. 1994. Grammatica moderna del sardo logudorese. Con una proposta ortografica, elementi di metrica e un
glossario. Cagliari: Edizioni Della Torre. 

Coulmas, Florian. 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

-----. 1985. Sprache und Staat. Studien zur Sprachplanung. Berlin und NY: Walter de Gruyter. 

-----. 1996. The Blackwell encyclopaedia of writing systems. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 

Cristofani, Mauro (ed.)1993. Gli etruschi. Una nuova immagine. Firenze : Giunti. 

Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. 

Daniels, Peter T. and William Bright. 1996. The World's Writing Systems. NY and Oxford: OUP 1996. (=DB) 

Desbordes, François. 1990. Idées romaines sur l'écriture. Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille. 

Diringer, David. 1986. The Alphabet. A Key to the History of Mankind. 3rd. Ed . Vols. I and II. Completely revised. London : Hutchinson. 

Driver, G.R. 1976. Semitic Writing. From Pictograph to Alphabet. Newly revised edition. Oxford: OUP. 

Dünser, Julian et al. 1997. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/nl/ 

Ebbinghaus, Ernst. 1996. "The Gothic alphabet" In: Daniels/Bright 290-296. 

-----.1997. "Wulfila's Script – Facts and Inferences" In: General Linguistics Vol. 35/ No. 1-4/ 1997. 

Elliott, Ralph W. "The runic script" In: Daniels/Bright S. 333-339. 

Everson, Michael et al. [everson@egt.ie] 1997. "On the status of the Latin letter þorn and of its sorting order"
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/wynnyogh/thorn.html [25.3.2000] 

Firmage, Richard A. 1993. The alphabet abecedarium. Some notes on letters. Boston: David R. Godine, Publisher. 

Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) 1977. Advances in the Creation and Revision of Writing Systems. Den Haag: Mouton & Co. 

Franke, Michael. 1994. Wolof für den Senegal. Wort für Wort. Bielefeld: Rump. 

Geerts, G.; J. Van den Broeck and A. Verdoodt. 1977. "Successes and Failures in Dutch Spelling Reform" In: Fishman, p. 179-245. 

Gelb, I.J. 1969 [1952] A Study of Writing. Chicago and London: The U of Chicago P. 

Goody, Jack; Watt, Ian and Gough, Kathleen. 1986. Entstehung und Folgen der Schriftkultur. Übersetzt von Friedhelm Herborth. Mit einer Einleitung von Heinz Schlaffer. Frankfurt a.M. : Suhrkamp.[Titel der Originalausgabe: Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge: CUP 1968] 

Gordon, A.E. 1973. The Letter Names of the Latin alphabet. Berkley, LA und London: U of California P. 

Gundersen, Dag. 1977. "Successes and Failures in the Reformation of Norwegian Orthography" In: Fishman 247-265. 

Harris-Northall, Ray. 1992. "Devoicing, deaffrication and word-final -z" In: Hispanic Linguistics 4:2 (Spring 1992) 

Hooker, J.T. (introd.) 1990. Reading the Past. Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet. London: British Museum Press. 

Izady, Mehrdad R. "The Concise Encyclopædia of Kurdistan. A Pan-Kurdish Alphabet." http://www.kurdish.org 

Jensen, Hans. 1970. Sign Symbol and Script. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Transl. of Die Schrift in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. 1958, as revised by the author. 

Kaegi, Adolf. 1928. Kurzgefasste Griechische Schulgrammatik. 38. Aufl., besorgt von Ewald Bruhn. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 

Katsikas, Sergios. "Probleme der neugriechischen Graphematik aus der Perspektive des Fremdsprachenlernens" In: Eichner et al.
Sprachnormung und Sprachplanung. Festschrift für Otto Beck zum 70. Geburtstag. 2., verbesserte Auflage. Wien: Edition Praesens. P.
419-473. 

Kniesza, Veronika. 1997. "The Origins of Scots Orthography" In: Jones, Charles (ed.) The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language.
Edinburgh UP. p. 24-46 

Krause, Wolfgang. 1970. Runen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 

Lamer, Hans. In Verbindung mit Ernst Bux und Wilhelm Schöne. 1933. Wörterbuch der Antike mit Berücksichtigung ihres Fortwirkens. Leipzig: Alfred Kröner. 

Marchand, James W. 1959. "Les Gots ont-ils vraiment connu l'écriture runique?" In: Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie. Fernand Mossé in memoriam. Paris: Didier. S. 277-291. 

-----. 1973. The Sounds and Phonemes of Wulfila's Gothic Den Haag und Paris: Mouton. 

Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Metzger, Daniel. 2000. "Das Internet lernt jetzt auch Chinesisch" In: Basler Zeitung Nr.279/29.11.2000 

Miller, D. Gary. 1994. Ancient scripts and phonological knowledge. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 

N.N. "A Kurdish Unified Alphabet" http://www.humanrights.de/~kurdweb/kval/english/indexe.html 

Naveh, Joseph. 1979. Die Entstehung des Alphabets. Transl. of Origins of the Alphabet. Zürich und Köln. Benziger.

-----. 1982. Early History of the Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Leiden: E. J. Brill 

Odenstedt, Bengt. 1991. "A new theory on the origin of the runic script; Richard L. Morris's book Runic and Mediterranean epigraphy" In: Bammesberger S. 359-387. 

Page, R.I. 1987. Runes. Berkeley and LA: U of California P. 

Pandolfini, Maristella and Aldo L. Prosdocimi. 1990. Alfabetari e insegnamento della scrittura in Etruria e nell'Italia antica. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki editore. 

Paul, Ludwig. 1994. Kurdisch Wort für Wort. Kirmanci. Bielefeld: Rump. 

Pittau, Massimo. 1991. Grammatica della lingua sarda. Varietà logudorese. Sassari: Carlo Delfino editore. 

Powell, Barry B. 1991. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge: CUP. 

Pulur, U. 1996. Zazaki K*rmanck* D*m*lki Alfabe – Alphabet – Elfabe Elifba. *stanbul: Kora Yay*n. 

Rabin, Chaim. 1977. "Spelling Reform – Israel 1986" In: Fishman, p. 149-176. 

Rix, Helmut. 1993. "La scrittura e la lingua" In: Cristofani, Mauro (hrsg.) 1993. Gli etruschi – Una nuova immagine. Firenze: Giunti. S.199-227. 

Sampson, Geoffrey. 1985. Writing Systems. London (etc.): Hutchinson. 

Sass, Benjamin. 1991. Studia Alphabetica. On the origin and early history of the Northwest Semitic, South Semitic and Greek alphabets. CH-Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

Scragg, D.G. 1974. A History of English Spelling. MUP/Barnes & Noble. 

Seebold, Elmar. 1991. "Die Stellung der englischen Runen im Rahmen der Überlieferung des älteren Fuþark" In: Bammesberger S. 439-569.

Skoyles, John R. 1977. The origin of Classical Greek culture: Hunter-gatherers of the alphabet.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~skoyles/jsbs.htm

Swiggers, Pierre. 1996. "Transmission of the Phoenician script to the west" In: Daniels/Bright S.261-270. 

Threatte, Leslie. 1996. "The Greek alphabet" In: Daniels/Bright S. 271-280. 

Wachter, Rudolf. 1987. Altlateinische Inschriften: sprachliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Dokumenten bis etwa 150 v.Chr. Bern (etc.): Peter Lang. 

Weimann, Klaus. 1995. Einführung ins Altenglische. 3., überarbeitete Auflage. Heidelberg and Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer. 

Spelling in two systems

1. There is a good deal of reserch on the problems of lerning two spelling systems for the same languaj - cf Serbo-Croatian, as well as ita. It is easier to hav difrent speling systems for difrent languajes if u
are bilingual, altho exactly the same would help - if the sounds were the same.

It is harder for children to lern two spelling systems, because this has to be done on a conscious, abstract level. 'Whole Languaj' claims chidlren can absorb them - but this is not true for most children. Children work hard at lerning a spoken languaj but it is not as deliberat.

2. Chanjing first the spellings that give most dificulty can be fraught when these are very familiar spellings, because there is greatest resistence to chanjing them. That is why it is best to start with dropping surplus letters, as this sort of chanje is least obtrusiv.

Valerie,
 

Thanks for the supplemental materials.  The references will be quite helpful. I think that it is important to identify the historical spellings that give people the most difficulty. These should be the changes that are introduced first. Reference: www.unifon.org/spel-demons.htm

TEACHING TWO SPELLING SYSTEMS

As you may know, I advocate a two system approach to the teaching of written English.

This does not appear to be a popular viewpoint. Most oppose doing this. Has there been any research on this? Almost every primary and ESL teacher that I have talked to is opposed to the idea.

Most agree that students need to learn pronunciation guide spelling at some time in their lives but they prefer to postpone it. I want to start teaching pronunciation guide spelling first because it is much easier to teach.

The strong methodological bias against introducing two systems was also found with reformed spelling.

The teachers of i.t.a. often told parents not to expose children to anything written in the traditional system. Presumably because this would confuse the child.

I fail to see the problem.  i.t.a. simply isolated one of the five most frequent spelling patterns in the traditional system and made this the standard for a particular sound.  I would teach all five patterns for
each sound but would reserve one for the pronunciation guide since most of the patterns overlap with at least one other sound.

The belief in one system at a time is widespread. Even Downing thought that children should overlearn i.t.a. before transferring to the traditional system.

It appears that only about 40% of the students overlearned i.t.a.  These are the ones that can use new spelling today.  Those who blame i.t.a.  training for their present day inability to spell are not able to spell i.t.a.  Downing [1990] thought that many students [about 20%] were moved to TO too early -- before they had mastered i.t.a.