Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Thanks to Prof Kaminski for a thoughtful and well-argued response to my remarks in 11.1614 -- rather 'off-the-cuff' as they were. I should precede my further response with a disclaimer: in Australia, the honorific "Prof." is restricted to those of the rank of full or associate professor. Alas, I can lay claim to no such label! Prof. Kaminski is, of course, quite right to point out words with similar spelling and different pronunciation (as evidenced in so many -ough words). These are excellent examples of "spelling anomalies"; thus far, I stand corrected. However, where I take issue with Prof. Kaminski is in his apparent identification of English as "native Anglo-Saxon" augmented by imports and exotic loan-words. First, Anglo-Saxon is itself something of a mongrel, and contributes much to what I called the "rich and varied" parenthood (perhaps I should have called it ancestry) of Modern English. Second, to suggest that Norman French vocabulary is "borrowed" rather than "naturalized" is, I think, questionable. (Surely beef and mutton are just as English as cow and sheep?) I rather think that Prof. Kaminski and I are in disagreement on the definition of parentage, rather than on historical fact. I cannot claim sufficient knowledge of the dialects of German or Italian to offer more than a supporting comment to Prof. Kaminski's remarks. The Standard forms of both languages are, indeed, highly regular -- even "phonetic" -- in orthography. I would be delighted to see any comments on the development of these languages. The contrasting case of irregular orthography in Irish Gaelic also warrants much more study. What of other Gaelics -- Welsh and Scottish? My _very_ limited acquaintance with the former suggests quite regular orthography; I would welcome enlightenment! Equally cordially :-), Michael Lewis Department of Linguistics Macquarie UniversityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue