This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Orthography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
== Wiki Education assignment: History of Writing and Literate Cultures ==
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jhoey 1 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
7mood575,
Aqp24.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Penscythe. Peer reviewers:
Kvazquez3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Fredafbzhao.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
Surely writing that belnds meaning and orthography is, um, meaningful writing. Constrained writing can be many things, but it tends to be a bit more constrained than "it must make sense". -- Camembert
Surely that should be United Bible Society? Can someone who has the book please check? -- mpt, 2003-06-04
What is the principled distinction between this article and writing system? Most of this article could be transplanted into the latter. -- Ryguasu 00:16 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A bit on the history of orthography wouldn't hurt if anybody has the required knowledge. -- 82.82.146.239 22:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The rule "i before e except after c" is wrong. "Feign" clearly is an exception. How can it be an orthagraphic rule if orthography means "how to write correctly"? Surely this is not an orthographic rule. Rintrah 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not wrong; that's just a truncated version. "I before e except after c and when sounding like a as in neighbor or weigh..." I'm pretty sure that's not the end of the rhyme, either. Besides, English is famous for nothing if not exceptions. J.M. Archer ( talk) 19:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that doesn't explain words such as "protein". 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)~
Quoting the spelling Tzschaetzsch as an example for German orthography is not very good. No German in their right mind would write the name in this way. Normally, it would be spelled Tschätsch. In normal German orthography "tz" on the beginning on a word isn't valid, as well as "tz" before "sch". Moreover, "ae" is never written vor umlaut-a, instead the letter "ä" is used. Such crazy spellings only occur in names derived from Slavic languages and also then they're very seldom. Furthermore, "Tschätsch" is not a personal name in German, but a (seldom) surname. 62.46.180.91
When I click this link http://www.rechtschreibprüfung24.de/ I get a "Can not find server" error.
198.85.228.129 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that English is defective because "th" doesn't differ between [ð] and [θ], but how is Italian and Arabian orthography defective? Maybe the article would need a short explanation? 惑乱 分からん 10:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement "These are all considerations in the design of a writing system" is, for lack of a better word, misleading. It implies that writing systems were actually designed, rather than simply evolving over time through cultural/social means. I'm going to remove the sentence for now. If someone can rewrite it so that it's meaningful, give it a shot. Fuzzform ( talk) 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The text currently says "Complex orthographies often combine different types of scripts and/or utilize many different complex punctuation rules." AFAIK, punctuation has nothing to do with it. There are several issues--combining different types of scripts is, I guess, one of them (someone who knows more about Japanese can perhaps confirm that). Other issues include the use of context-sensitive forms of letters (like Arabic), and complex rules for positioning when combining characters (Bengali and many other languages written with Indic scripts). But I am looking at this from the perspective of computer rendering of written forms, and maybe there are other considerations when it comes to hand-written texts (like the number of different characters in the writing system). Mcswell ( talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't etymological spelling be one of the kinds of spelling systems together with phonemic and morpho-phonemic? -- Antonielly ( talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems completely inadequate as a typology of orthographic systems. I know of no source (and the article cites none) that divides the world of orthographies into phonemic, morpho-phonemic, and defective, full-stop. These terms seem to be applicable only to alphabets, abjads, and syllabaries. Where are the logographic or mixed orthographies? Should transcription systems not commonly used by speakers (ASL comes to mind, as does IPA) be considered another type? I really don't know, but I would bet that scholars have considered such questions. If they have, cite them. If they have not, this section is original research and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia.
This is not my area of expertise, but I'm fairly sure that the current typology misrepresents world orthographies, so I would be surprised if it does not misrepresent the state of accepted scholarship.
By the way, the typology section only mentions the terms "alphabet", "abjad", and "syllabary" in passing, and they are not defined anywhere on the page. These should be key terms in a typology, I think. At the very least they should be defined on a page about orthography. Cnilep ( talk) 04:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I reverted an edit setting a link to the Kurdic Academy of Language web site. When I checked the site, it was off-line, which is why I removed that link. Today I checked again, and the site is up and running, and immensely interesting. I would still think that the link is not appropriate for a page dealing with othography in general, but others might disagree with me on this. If so, then someone with a user name should put up the link once more. Landroving Linguist ( talk) 13:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone familiar with orthogaphy and Orthography drop by and have a look? I'm getting a strong feeling it's turning into a content fork. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We need help to develop this artilce not have it moved around. This is part of the Dyslexia project series of articles, and the relevant discussions about this article are on Talk:Orthographies and dyslexia . The article was referred the article to be deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexiaConsensus was to Keep the article and develop the content in a multi discipline way with contributions from all interested specialists, so all content contributions are welcome. dolfrog ( talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree my "content contribution" was too much close to a joke, so it was right to undo it.
As an italian who (tries to) use english, I (childly) just couldn't resist when I read "citation needed" referred to "English is among the least phonemic [orthographies]" !
With respect and gratitude to the wiki comunity,
bye,
Michele. --
84.220.224.242 (
talk) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I propose a new verb? If it doesn't already exist then it really should - to orthograph.
Orthograph vb. The act of transliterating words into a standard spelling. Thus Chaucer's 'Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote, the droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote...' can be orthographed as 'When that April with his showers sweet, the drought of March hath pierced to the root...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.107 ( talk) 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The importance of orthography is stressed in the studies of Linguistic. So the subject of it's important should be a main focus of the Wikipedia page for the overall topic of orthography. The information on orthography is already limited, new facts and connection to other topics can boost the overall length of the article.
Sometimes there may be variation in a language's orthography, as between American and British spelling in the case of English orthography.
In the formal Canadian register, our orthography is predominantly British. In the informal register, our orthography is rife with Americanisms, almost to the point where anything goes (from either camp): even if the document on its own terms is inconsistent from one place to another.
At the semi-formal end—where the writer projects an educated persona, but might not be writing a formal piece as such—it's considered bad form to mix and match on an inconsistent basis (choose one or the other on each major decision point and stick with it), but only the most vigilant fussbudget reads carefully enough to notice this (Margaret Atwood?), so in practice this has little ultimate import (apart from, I suspect, some internal, rivalrous score-keeping).
It's not that different in Canada with measurement, either.
You can mix kg and °F in the same document (like a blog post), hardly anyone would bat an eyelash, though randomly switching between kg and lbs in the same document would attract some notice. You can also use °K for gas cylinders, °C for outdoor temperature, and then °F for your souffle recipe in the same post, and no Canadian would find this weird, either (living as a quasi-British culture as the cranial cumberbund of The Beast as we do, the "when in Rome" factor in Canada is unusually contextual). Canadian ovens are all in Fahrenheit, Canadian radio is all in Celsius, Canadian science is all in French (units), Canadian grocery pricing is half and half (until you get to the till, where receipts are recorded in kg only).
I'm not going to source any of this, but it's a thing, and if someone has a source, it wouldn't hurt the article to put the contingent dimension forward. — MaxEnt 21:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Why does the article mention transnational languages first? Why not just say that most languages with a writing system have an orthography? To me, it seems that could mislead someone who is skimming the article. Turist-n ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, for some reason the link to the Dutch page of this article links to the Dutch Spelling page. There's no Dutch page for Ortography, only a translation on https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/orthografie.
I'll happily translate the page but the link should be removed or linked to another more similar article before that is done.
Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.89.157 ( talk) 08:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, I was wrong. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.112.89.157 (
talk) 08:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a proposed new template, {{ Linguistics notation}}, which is intended as an entry point for readers unfamiliar with the specialist notation used in the subject. It would normally be placed after the lead of articles that use grapheme (and related) notations so that it sits beside the ToC. After a long discussion at template talk:Linguistics notation, the consensus is that the phoneme aspect is best handled by an addition to {{ IPA key}}, leaving the orthography and typography aspects remaining. The proposal therefore is to rename the template as {{ orthography notation}} and the opening sentence would read "This page uses orthography notation".
If there are any comments or reservations, please use template talk:Linguistics notation#Proposed new name: Orthography notation to express them. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
A lot of this article reads like an essay based in large part on original research and lacks citations to relevant sources. For example in one section there is the sentence "This is discussed further at Phonemic orthography § Morphophonemic features." which sounds more like something from an academic paper than an encyclopedia! 95.150.59.152 ( talk) 12:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
716jrogers (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 ( talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Orthography article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
== Wiki Education assignment: History of Writing and Literate Cultures ==
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jhoey 1 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
7mood575,
Aqp24.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Penscythe. Peer reviewers:
Kvazquez3.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Fredafbzhao.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
Surely writing that belnds meaning and orthography is, um, meaningful writing. Constrained writing can be many things, but it tends to be a bit more constrained than "it must make sense". -- Camembert
Surely that should be United Bible Society? Can someone who has the book please check? -- mpt, 2003-06-04
What is the principled distinction between this article and writing system? Most of this article could be transplanted into the latter. -- Ryguasu 00:16 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A bit on the history of orthography wouldn't hurt if anybody has the required knowledge. -- 82.82.146.239 22:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The rule "i before e except after c" is wrong. "Feign" clearly is an exception. How can it be an orthagraphic rule if orthography means "how to write correctly"? Surely this is not an orthographic rule. Rintrah 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not wrong; that's just a truncated version. "I before e except after c and when sounding like a as in neighbor or weigh..." I'm pretty sure that's not the end of the rhyme, either. Besides, English is famous for nothing if not exceptions. J.M. Archer ( talk) 19:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that doesn't explain words such as "protein". 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)~
Quoting the spelling Tzschaetzsch as an example for German orthography is not very good. No German in their right mind would write the name in this way. Normally, it would be spelled Tschätsch. In normal German orthography "tz" on the beginning on a word isn't valid, as well as "tz" before "sch". Moreover, "ae" is never written vor umlaut-a, instead the letter "ä" is used. Such crazy spellings only occur in names derived from Slavic languages and also then they're very seldom. Furthermore, "Tschätsch" is not a personal name in German, but a (seldom) surname. 62.46.180.91
When I click this link http://www.rechtschreibprüfung24.de/ I get a "Can not find server" error.
198.85.228.129 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess that English is defective because "th" doesn't differ between [ð] and [θ], but how is Italian and Arabian orthography defective? Maybe the article would need a short explanation? 惑乱 分からん 10:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement "These are all considerations in the design of a writing system" is, for lack of a better word, misleading. It implies that writing systems were actually designed, rather than simply evolving over time through cultural/social means. I'm going to remove the sentence for now. If someone can rewrite it so that it's meaningful, give it a shot. Fuzzform ( talk) 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The text currently says "Complex orthographies often combine different types of scripts and/or utilize many different complex punctuation rules." AFAIK, punctuation has nothing to do with it. There are several issues--combining different types of scripts is, I guess, one of them (someone who knows more about Japanese can perhaps confirm that). Other issues include the use of context-sensitive forms of letters (like Arabic), and complex rules for positioning when combining characters (Bengali and many other languages written with Indic scripts). But I am looking at this from the perspective of computer rendering of written forms, and maybe there are other considerations when it comes to hand-written texts (like the number of different characters in the writing system). Mcswell ( talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't etymological spelling be one of the kinds of spelling systems together with phonemic and morpho-phonemic? -- Antonielly ( talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems completely inadequate as a typology of orthographic systems. I know of no source (and the article cites none) that divides the world of orthographies into phonemic, morpho-phonemic, and defective, full-stop. These terms seem to be applicable only to alphabets, abjads, and syllabaries. Where are the logographic or mixed orthographies? Should transcription systems not commonly used by speakers (ASL comes to mind, as does IPA) be considered another type? I really don't know, but I would bet that scholars have considered such questions. If they have, cite them. If they have not, this section is original research and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia.
This is not my area of expertise, but I'm fairly sure that the current typology misrepresents world orthographies, so I would be surprised if it does not misrepresent the state of accepted scholarship.
By the way, the typology section only mentions the terms "alphabet", "abjad", and "syllabary" in passing, and they are not defined anywhere on the page. These should be key terms in a typology, I think. At the very least they should be defined on a page about orthography. Cnilep ( talk) 04:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I reverted an edit setting a link to the Kurdic Academy of Language web site. When I checked the site, it was off-line, which is why I removed that link. Today I checked again, and the site is up and running, and immensely interesting. I would still think that the link is not appropriate for a page dealing with othography in general, but others might disagree with me on this. If so, then someone with a user name should put up the link once more. Landroving Linguist ( talk) 13:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone familiar with orthogaphy and Orthography drop by and have a look? I'm getting a strong feeling it's turning into a content fork. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
We need help to develop this artilce not have it moved around. This is part of the Dyslexia project series of articles, and the relevant discussions about this article are on Talk:Orthographies and dyslexia . The article was referred the article to be deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexiaConsensus was to Keep the article and develop the content in a multi discipline way with contributions from all interested specialists, so all content contributions are welcome. dolfrog ( talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree my "content contribution" was too much close to a joke, so it was right to undo it.
As an italian who (tries to) use english, I (childly) just couldn't resist when I read "citation needed" referred to "English is among the least phonemic [orthographies]" !
With respect and gratitude to the wiki comunity,
bye,
Michele. --
84.220.224.242 (
talk) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I propose a new verb? If it doesn't already exist then it really should - to orthograph.
Orthograph vb. The act of transliterating words into a standard spelling. Thus Chaucer's 'Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote, the droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote...' can be orthographed as 'When that April with his showers sweet, the drought of March hath pierced to the root...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.107 ( talk) 09:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The importance of orthography is stressed in the studies of Linguistic. So the subject of it's important should be a main focus of the Wikipedia page for the overall topic of orthography. The information on orthography is already limited, new facts and connection to other topics can boost the overall length of the article.
Sometimes there may be variation in a language's orthography, as between American and British spelling in the case of English orthography.
In the formal Canadian register, our orthography is predominantly British. In the informal register, our orthography is rife with Americanisms, almost to the point where anything goes (from either camp): even if the document on its own terms is inconsistent from one place to another.
At the semi-formal end—where the writer projects an educated persona, but might not be writing a formal piece as such—it's considered bad form to mix and match on an inconsistent basis (choose one or the other on each major decision point and stick with it), but only the most vigilant fussbudget reads carefully enough to notice this (Margaret Atwood?), so in practice this has little ultimate import (apart from, I suspect, some internal, rivalrous score-keeping).
It's not that different in Canada with measurement, either.
You can mix kg and °F in the same document (like a blog post), hardly anyone would bat an eyelash, though randomly switching between kg and lbs in the same document would attract some notice. You can also use °K for gas cylinders, °C for outdoor temperature, and then °F for your souffle recipe in the same post, and no Canadian would find this weird, either (living as a quasi-British culture as the cranial cumberbund of The Beast as we do, the "when in Rome" factor in Canada is unusually contextual). Canadian ovens are all in Fahrenheit, Canadian radio is all in Celsius, Canadian science is all in French (units), Canadian grocery pricing is half and half (until you get to the till, where receipts are recorded in kg only).
I'm not going to source any of this, but it's a thing, and if someone has a source, it wouldn't hurt the article to put the contingent dimension forward. — MaxEnt 21:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Why does the article mention transnational languages first? Why not just say that most languages with a writing system have an orthography? To me, it seems that could mislead someone who is skimming the article. Turist-n ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, for some reason the link to the Dutch page of this article links to the Dutch Spelling page. There's no Dutch page for Ortography, only a translation on https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/orthografie.
I'll happily translate the page but the link should be removed or linked to another more similar article before that is done.
Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.89.157 ( talk) 08:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, I was wrong. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.112.89.157 (
talk) 08:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a proposed new template, {{ Linguistics notation}}, which is intended as an entry point for readers unfamiliar with the specialist notation used in the subject. It would normally be placed after the lead of articles that use grapheme (and related) notations so that it sits beside the ToC. After a long discussion at template talk:Linguistics notation, the consensus is that the phoneme aspect is best handled by an addition to {{ IPA key}}, leaving the orthography and typography aspects remaining. The proposal therefore is to rename the template as {{ orthography notation}} and the opening sentence would read "This page uses orthography notation".
If there are any comments or reservations, please use template talk:Linguistics notation#Proposed new name: Orthography notation to express them. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 00:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
A lot of this article reads like an essay based in large part on original research and lacks citations to relevant sources. For example in one section there is the sentence "This is discussed further at Phonemic orthography § Morphophonemic features." which sounds more like something from an academic paper than an encyclopedia! 95.150.59.152 ( talk) 12:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
716jrogers (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 ( talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)