Linguistic Birthdays

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
go through 2018. So, today (your "today" may differ):

January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

Could you back up and do Jan 1-3?

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

Could you back up and do Jan 1-3?

Sorry, that's not the plan. I did mention that there were a lot of names
(500+) on the calendar. There were four in Jan.1-3, none of whom I've heard
of. I'm picking out ones that every linguist (and everyone interested in
linguistics) should know about, and maybe a few others that I just think
are interesting. Comments, little-known facts, assessments (positive or
negative) of their life and achievements, are welcome. Others might want to
add their own favourites. I may add a few words by way of explanation in some cases -- I was going to say something like "sound laws and folk tales" after J.G., but decided not to set a precedent. I think we can just enjoy remembering
these people and what we owe them. If anyone wants to know more about
particular linguists, most of them are in Wikipedia.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

Could you back up and do Jan 1-3?

Sorry, that's not the plan. I did mention that there were a lot of names
(500+) on the calendar. There were four in Jan.1-3, none of whom I've heard
of. I'm picking out ones that every linguist (and everyone interested in
linguistics) should know about, and maybe a few others that I just think
are interesting. Comments, little-known facts, assessments (positive or
negative) of their life and achievements, are welcome. Others might want to
add their own favourites. I may add a few words by way of explanation in some cases -- I was going to say something like "sound laws and folk tales" after J.G., but decided not to set a precedent. I think we can just enjoy remembering
these people and what we owe them. If anyone wants to know more about
particular linguists, most of them are in Wikipedia.

That doesn't help if we don't have their names!

Maybe Emil Rödiger is included, but if you don't know the name, you wouldn't
list him -- but he was quite important!

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

Could you back up and do Jan 1-3?

Sorry, that's not the plan. I did mention that there were a lot of names
(500+) on the calendar. There were four in Jan.1-3, none of whom I've heard
of. I'm picking out ones that every linguist (and everyone interested in
linguistics) should know about, and maybe a few others that I just think
are interesting. Comments, little-known facts, assessments (positive or
negative) of their life and achievements, are welcome. Others might want to
add their own favourites. I may add a few words by way of explanation in some cases -- I was going to say something like "sound laws and folk tales" after J.G., but decided not to set a precedent. I think we can just enjoy remembering
these people and what we owe them. If anyone wants to know more about
particular linguists, most of them are in Wikipedia.

That doesn't help if we don't have their names!

You will have their names when I post them.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Maybe Emil Rödiger is included, but if you don't know the name, you wouldn't
list him -- but he was quite important!

That's fine. Now you've told us his name; if you want, you can tell us
something more about him. I'm not going to search the calendar for him.
(Wikipedia is quicker: Born 13 October 1801. Not on the calendar.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

Could you back up and do Jan 1-3?

Sorry, that's not the plan. I did mention that there were a lot of names
(500+) on the calendar. There were four in Jan.1-3, none of whom I've heard
of. I'm picking out ones that every linguist (and everyone interested in
linguistics) should know about, and maybe a few others that I just think
are interesting. Comments, little-known facts, assessments (positive or
negative) of their life and achievements, are welcome. Others might want to
add their own favourites. I may add a few words by way of explanation in some cases -- I was going to say something like "sound laws and folk tales" after J.G., but decided not to set a precedent. I think we can just enjoy remembering
these people and what we owe them. If anyone wants to know more about
particular linguists, most of them are in Wikipedia.

That doesn't help if we don't have their names!

You will have their names when I post them.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Maybe Emil Rödiger is included, but if you don't know the name, you wouldn't
list him -- but he was quite important!

That's fine. Now you've told us his name; if you want, you can tell us
something more about him. I'm not going to search the calendar for him.
(Wikipedia is quicker: Born 13 October 1801. Not on the calendar.)

He was Wilhelm Gesenius's most prominent student, co-decipherer of Epigraphic
South Arabian, and editor of the first several posthumous editions of Gesenius's
Hebrew Grammar, and completer of Gesenius's massive dictionary of Biblical
Hebrew. There probably isn't anything left of Gesenius in the English-language
standard grammar, Cowley's translation of Kautzsch's edition (1910 -- Geoffrey
Khan has been commissioned to create the first new English edition since then),
but there's probably a considerable amount of Rödiger.

How about Adoniram Judson? I just learned that it's he who's commemorated in
Greenwich Village's famed Judson Memorial Church.

[Daud Deden]

It won't contain any linguist(s/icians) born after 1965?

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Daud Deden
It won't contain any linguist(s/icians) born after 1965?

I expect Daud Deden to be born on February 39.5 on that calendar, the next day after Franz was born on February 38.5.
A.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Daud Deden
It won't contain any linguist(s/icians) born after 1965?

I expect Daud Deden to be born on February 39.5 on that calendar, the next day after Franz was born on February 38.5.
A.

You misunderstood.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Arnaud Fournet
I expect Daud Deden to be born on February 39.5 on that calendar, the next day after Franz was born on February 38.5.
A.

Actually I was born on a spring equinox. February 39.5 in a regular year
(not a leap year) would then translate to March 11.5, not even ten days off.
Also, I noticed, spring is my linguistic season. May have a biological reason,
spring being the season of love, birds warpling (?) for a mate ...

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Daud Deden
It won't contain any linguist(s/icians) born after 1965?

I think the cutoff date will be earlier than that. These are
people who had achieved fame (at least in some circles) by the
early 80s.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)
(Yes, that's Old Style; that's where Nuessel puts him on the calendar.
Apparently New Style would be January 17, 1706.)

Franklin was not really a linguist, but he was interested in a lot
of things, and actually worked out a proposed reformed English
orthography. Details and a sample here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin%27s_phonetic_alphabet

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)
(Yes, that's Old Style; that's where Nuessel puts him on the calendar.
Apparently New Style would be January 17, 1706.)
Franklin was not really a linguist, but he was interested in a lot
of things, and actually worked out a proposed reformed English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin%27s_phonetic_alphabet

Posting this calendar here is a nice idea.
I appreciate it. Thanks.
A.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

Edmont was a shopkeeper in Saint-Pol-sur-Ternoise (Pas de Calais),
who was interested in his local dialect, and wrote something about it
which won a prize from the local Academy of Sciences. This brought him
to the attention of Jules Gilliéron, who was organizing a dialect
survey of France. He recruited and trained Edmont as his field assistant.
Between 1897 and 1901 Edmont visited (mostly by bicycle) 639 communities
in France, Belgium and Switzerland, administering Gilliéron's survey
questionnaire. His phonetic transcriptions were so good that he was
recognized as co-author of the Atlas linguistique de la France (1902-1914).

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Edmont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_linguistique_de_la_France

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)

One of the youngest people on the calendar. Known to me mainly as the
first generative (Chomskyan) linguist to attempt to theorize morphology.
(Word Formation in Generative Grammar, 1976). Also (i) I think PTD
knows him personally and (ii) he's Canadian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Aronoff

[Daud Deden]

Ross, you are Canadian, right? If not, I'd be surprised.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)
One of the youngest people on the calendar. Known to me mainly as the
first generative (Chomskyan) linguist to attempt to theorize morphology.
(Word Formation in Generative Grammar, 1976). Also (i) I think PTD
knows him personally and (ii) he's Canadian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Aronoff

Canadian!? He has a perfectly good New York accent! It says he came south at age 20. He provided
one of the blurbs for my book. The other is taken from the Foreword by David Share. Mark is,
among other things, the Americanization editor of O'Grady et al.'s excellent Canadian
textbook for introductory linguistics.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)

January 12 - Louis Gauchat (1866)
Swiss dialectologist
His _L'unité phonétique dans le patois d'une commune_ (1905)
described variation in the dialect of the village of Charmey
as it correlated with such factors as age, sex and social class.
Gauchat suggested that some of these variables were evidence of
sound change in progress, which was confirmed by Herman's followup
study in the 1920s.
Although not much noticed at the time, the work was later recognized
by Labov and others as a forerunner of variationist sociolinguistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Gauchat
https://archive.org/details/lunitphontiqued00gaucgoog

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)

January 12 - Louis Gauchat (1866)

January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon. In 1889 this was changed to
L'Association Phonétique des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes, and then
in 1897 it became L'Association Phonétique Internationale. Daniel Jones
was one of his students (1905-6).

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

Where?

[Gerd Thieme]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

Where?

Either “tîčerz'” or, more probably, “tîtcerz'”.

Gerd

[António Marques]

(...)

How on earth do you send your photo along with your message?

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by António Marques

(...)

How on earth do you send your photo along with your message?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Face

It's positively ancient. From the compface library README:

Compface - 48x48x1 image compression and decompression
Copyright (c) James Ashton 1990.
Written 89/11/11

[Gerd Thieme]

Post by António Marques
How on earth do you send your photo along with your message?

There is an X-Face line in my posting’s headers. It contains a zipped
48-by-48-by-1 bit image in Mime-64 encoding.

Gerd

[Gerd Thieme]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

Their paper was called “Dhi Fonètik Tîtcer” according to
https://www.worldcat.org/title/dhi-fonetik-titcer/oclc/31793803

Gerd

[António Marques]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There’s 3 different values for <c> there. Either it’s
following-vowel-dependent or there is more than a <t> missing.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There’s 3 different values for <c> there. Either it’s
following-vowel-dependent or there is more than a <t> missing.

Which would be part of why, two years later, an international meeting got together to draw up
a consistent system of phonetic transcription.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

There’s 3 different values for <c> there. Either it’s
following-vowel-dependent or there is more than a <t> missing.

Which would be part of why, two years later, an international meeting got together to draw up
a consistent system of phonetic transcription.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Then that's not where the problem lies, is it.

Have you since gone on to read the several posts with the answer?

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by António Marques
There’s 3 different values for <c> there. Either it’s
following-vowel-dependent or there is more than a <t> missing.

Which would be part of why, two years later, an international meeting got together to draw up
a consistent system of phonetic transcription.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 14 Jan 2018 06:35:15 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Then that's not where the problem lies, is it.
Have you since gone on to read the several posts with the answer?

Since.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

Hardly!

Moreover, it's true. Merely not on point.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

hahaha! you wretched PTD idiot.
ghoti is a fanciful spelling of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
You damn incompetent ignoramus.
When do you plan to shit up, senile?
A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonctik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

hahaha! you wretched PTD idiot.
ghoti is a fanciful spelling of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
You damn incompetent ignoramus.
When do you plan to shit up, senile?

You really don't know how to think things through, do you. Read pages 15-17 of my book, where
the supposed spelling is thoroughly debunked. The Wikiparticle succinctly tells you why but
doesn't explain the origin of the three components of the orthography.

That article actually cites Ben Zimmer's column on the matter but fails to include his conclusion:
the false attribution to Shaw is due to none other than the linguistic fraud Mario Pei. (I
inquired at the Columbia University Archives whether they have Pei's papers, in which a
letter might have been found where Shaw at least mentions the spelling, but they don't, and
they didn't know whether his papers were preserved anywhere.)

What does Polish have to do with it?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:07:26 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonctik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

hahaha! you wretched PTD idiot.
ghoti is a fanciful spelling of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
You damn incompetent ignoramus.
When do you plan to shit up, senile?

You really don't know how to think things through, do you. Read pages 15-17 of my book, where
the supposed spelling is thoroughly debunked. The Wikiparticle succinctly tells you why but
doesn't explain the origin of the three components of the orthography.
the false attribution to Shaw is due to none other than the linguistic fraud Mario Pei. (I
inquired at the Columbia University Archives whether they have Pei's papers, in which a
letter might have been found where Shaw at least mentions the spelling, but they don't, and
they didn't know whether his papers were preserved anywhere.)
What does Polish have to do with it?

Arnaud Fournet know so little about Polish phonology and orthography,
that he _thinks_ ghoti resembles a Polish word. I don't know much
about these subjects either, but enough to see that ghoti cannot be
Polish just a little as it can be English.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:07:26 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonctik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

hahaha! you wretched PTD idiot.
ghoti is a fanciful spelling of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
You damn incompetent ignoramus.
When do you plan to shit up, senile?

You really don't know how to think things through, do you. Read pages 15-17 of my book, where
the supposed spelling is thoroughly debunked. The Wikiparticle succinctly tells you why but
doesn't explain the origin of the three components of the orthography.
the false attribution to Shaw is due to none other than the linguistic fraud Mario Pei. (I
inquired at the Columbia University Archives whether they have Pei's papers, in which a
letter might have been found where Shaw at least mentions the spelling, but they don't, and
they didn't know whether his papers were preserved anywhere.)
What does Polish have to do with it?

Arnaud Fournet know so little about Polish phonology and orthography,
that he _thinks_ ghoti resembles a Polish word. I don't know much
about these subjects either, but enough to see that ghoti cannot be
Polish just a little as it can be English.

Perhaps less: what use would it have for <gh> at all? Unless Flemish printers were the first
to print in Polish, too?

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:07:26 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What does Polish have to do with it?

Arnaud Fournet know so little about Polish phonology and orthography,
that he _thinks_ ghoti resembles a Polish word. I don't know much
about these subjects either, but enough to see that ghoti cannot be
Polish just a little as it can be English.

To be frank, I used to be quite empathic with Polish people, until those assholes began to buy American military stuff, with European money.
Poles, the new race of cock-sucking Quislings.
A.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
the false attribution to Shaw is due to none other than the linguistic fraud Mario Pei.

Hey, I'm willing to cut Pei some slack, given that he's the author
who piqued my interest in language beyond the purely utilitarian.

[António Marques]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That article actually cites Ben Zimmer's column on the matter but fails
the false attribution to Shaw is due to none other than the linguistic fraud Mario Pei.

Hey, I'm willing to cut Pei some slack, given that he's the author
who piqued my interest in language beyond the purely utilitarian.

Good grief. I’ve seen no reference to him other than as a disseminator of
linguistic myths.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That article actually cites Ben Zimmer's column on the matter but fails
the false attribution to Shaw is due to none other than the linguistic fraud Mario Pei.

Hey, I'm willing to cut Pei some slack, given that he's the author
who piqued my interest in language beyond the purely utilitarian.

Good grief. I’ve seen no reference to him other than as a disseminator of
linguistic myths.

Generations of linguistics professors were employed in driving his misteachings
out of the minds of former high school students. One of the big general books
was actually lent to me by my French teacher. The one good thing I got out of
it (even back then it seemed remarkably prejudiced) was a fairly long poem
that could be read in either Latin or Italian. (Our Latin teacher, Mr. Guarino,
disagreed. He was so Italian he used that middle-finger-extended-pointing-down
gesture that in Italy is perfectly innocent.)

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:20:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Generations of linguistics professors were employed in driving his misteachings
out of the minds of former high school students. One of the big general books
was actually lent to me by my French teacher. The one good thing I got out of
it (even back then it seemed remarkably prejudiced) was a fairly long poem
that could be read in either Latin or Italian. (Our Latin teacher, Mr. Guarino,
disagreed. He was so Italian he used that middle-finger-extended-pointing-down
gesture that in Italy is perfectly innocent.)

Must have been in Interlingua then?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:20:48 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet

Post by Arnaud Fournet
hahaha! you wretched PTD idiot.
ghoti is a fanciful spelling of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

Yes, everybody knows that, but it doesn't make what PTD wrote any less
true.

Post by Arnaud Fournet
You damn incompetent ignoramus.
When do you plan to shit up, senile?

Arnaud Fournet is een scheldende dwaas, met weinig tot geen inzicht in
taal. Jammer.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:20:48 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet

Post by Arnaud Fournet
hahaha! you wretched PTD idiot.
ghoti is a fanciful spelling of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti

Yes, everybody knows that, but it doesn't make what PTD wrote any less
true.

Post by Arnaud Fournet
You damn incompetent ignoramus.
When do you plan to shit up, senile?

Arnaud Fournet is een scheldende dwaas, met weinig tot geen inzicht in
taal. Jammer.

yes, Dutch people, the worst Quislings, only second to Poles.
A.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Arnaud Fournet is een scheldende dwaas, met weinig tot geen inzicht in
taal. Jammer.

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:26:26 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet

Post by Arnaud Fournet
yes, Dutch people, the worst Quislings, only second to Poles.

Gelukkig weet ik niet wie of wat Quislings is, en ik ga het ook niet
opzoeken.

(Hint: DeepL often translates Dutch to English reasonably well.)

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

You know perfectly well that "ghoti" is the facetious spelling for "fish", suggested by George Bernard Shaw. Polish has nothing to do with it, except in the French Nazi's diseased mind.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

You know perfectly well that "ghoti" is the facetious spelling for "fish", suggested by George Bernard Shaw. Polish has nothing to do with it, except in the French Nazi's diseased mind.

Shaw had nothing to do with it; there's no evidence that he had ever even heard
of the jest.

Actually it was part of the same fad for creative misspellings that gave us
"OK" ("Oll Korrekt").

[Daud Deden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

You know perfectly well that "ghoti" is the facetious spelling for "fish", suggested by George Bernard Shaw. Polish has nothing to do with it, except in the French Nazi's diseased mind.

Shaw had nothing to do with it; there's no evidence that he had ever even heard
of the jest.
Actually it was part of the same fad for creative misspellings that gave us
"OK" ("Oll Korrekt").

***@English(US)<- Och ***@Scottish(US)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

You know perfectly well that "ghoti" is the facetious spelling for "fish", suggested by George Bernard Shaw. Polish has nothing to do with it, except in the French Nazi's diseased mind.

Shaw had nothing to do with it; there's no evidence that he had ever even heard
of the jest.
Actually it was part of the same fad for creative misspellings that gave us
"OK" ("Oll Korrekt").

That is not at Oll Korrect. The history was unearthed by Allen Walker Read and subsequently by
Allan Metcalf. President Van Buren's nickname, "Old Kinderhook" (for his home town in New York
State), also figured into its popularity.

[Daud Deden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:30:41 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fončtik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

You know perfectly well that "ghoti" is the facetious spelling for "fish", suggested by George Bernard Shaw. Polish has nothing to do with it, except in the French Nazi's diseased mind.

Shaw had nothing to do with it; there's no evidence that he had ever even heard
of the jest.
Actually it was part of the same fad for creative misspellings that gave us
"OK" ("Oll Korrekt").

That is not at Oll Korrect. The history was unearthed by Allen Walker Read and subsequently by
Allan Metcalf. President Van Buren's nickname, "Old Kinderhook" (for his home town in New York
State), also figured into its popularity.

There are many stories about OK.

Och Aye is most secure, in my opinion, in sound and meaning:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/och_aye

English[edit]. Interjection[edit]. och aye. (Scotland) yes, OK; used to state agreement.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Daud Deden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
You know perfectly well that "ghoti" is the facetious spelling for "fish", suggested by George Bernard Shaw. Polish has nothing to do with it, except in the French Nazi's diseased mind.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Shaw had nothing to do with it; there's no evidence that he had ever even heard

of the jest.
Actually it was part of the same fad for creative misspellings that gave us
"OK" ("Oll Korrekt").

That is not at Oll Korrect. The history was unearthed by Allen Walker Read and subsequently by
Allan Metcalf. President Van Buren's nickname, "Old Kinderhook" (for his home town in New York
State), also figured into its popularity.

There are many stories about OK.

You have no grounds for that opinion, and the evidence is massive for the Oll
Korrekt origin.

Post by Daud Deden
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/och_aye
English[edit]. Interjection[edit]. och aye. (Scotland) yes, OK; used to state agreement.

[Alan Smaill]

Post by Daud Deden
There are many stories about OK.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/och_aye
English[edit]. Interjection[edit]. och aye. (Scotland) yes, OK; used to state agreement.

How does it sound in Scotland, then?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html

" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "

by Mark Rosenfelder:

[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance.
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wiseacre
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wiseacre

So it's from Dutch! But the corresponding Modern Dutch word,
wijszegger, is not an existing word as far as I know.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen
True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance.
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wiseacre
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wiseacre
So it's from Dutch! But the corresponding Modern Dutch word,
wijszegger, is not an existing word as far as I know.

http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=MNW&id=73493&lemmodern=wijszegger
http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M086345.re.1&lemmodern=wijszegger

[Daud Deden]

So it's from Dutch!
-
Wise sage, perhaps?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

@ PTD senile,
your yellings in uppercast do not make you less idiotic and incompetent.
A.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:53:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

I know, I learn't that from your previous messages. You don't have to
shout, I was just quoting Mark Rosenfelder, who obviously also didn't
know when he wrote that.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:53:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

I know, I learn't that from your previous messages. You don't have to
shout, I was just quoting Mark Rosenfelder, who obviously also didn't
know when he wrote that.

It was inappropriate to quote something you knew to be untrue -- sullying the
name of a respected former contributor, no less.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:15:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:53:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

I know, I learn't that from your previous messages. You don't have to
shout, I was just quoting Mark Rosenfelder, who obviously also didn't
know when he wrote that.

It was inappropriate to quote something you knew to be untrue --

I honestly can't remember if I posted it before or after I read your
explanation about Shaw not being the originator of ghoti. But it
wouldn't have made a difference, because I always quote verbatim, and
Mark Rosenfelders comment about the rules of the English spelling
(which is the whole point of http://www.zompist.com/spell.html) is
valid, with or without Shaw.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
sullying the name of a respected former contributor, no less.

[quickly looking up "to sully", just to be sure it means what I think
it means; and it does]

I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

And I repeat: in his very useful and thoughtful article at
http://www.zompist.com/spell.html, in the year 2000 Mark Rosenfelder
wrote:
==
Hou tu pranownse Inglish

© 2000 by Mark Rosenfelder Everybody agrees that English spelling is
horrible.

There have been almost as many proposals for spelling reform as there
are rewrites of Esperanto. (Tellingly, there has been precisely one
success in each category-- Noah Webster and Ido-- and neither caught
on universally.) Most of these proposals spend their energy fixing
what isn't broken. For instance, they search hard for clever new ways
of spelling the ch sound-- even though ch does the job just fine in
hundreds of languages. Or, they insist on 'correcting' the Great Vowel
Shift, using Italian values for the vowels.

Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

The purpose of this page is to describe those rules-- to explain the
system behind English spelling, the rules that tell you how to
pronounce a written word correctly over 85% of the time.

[...]
==

and that article is still on Mark Rosenfelders website, now on 18
January 2018. And with good reason, because it makes so much sense.

Small minor point is that like so many people, he mis-attributed ghoti
to Bernard Shaw, whereas Shaw never actually mentioned and the first
provable occurrence, according to Wikipedia, is dated a year before
Shaw's birth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti from which I quote:
==
The first confirmed use of the word is in a letter from Charles Ollier
to Leigh Hunt. On the third page of that letter, dated 11 December
1855, Ollier explains, "My Son William has hit upon a new method of
spelling 'Fish'." Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."[2]

An early known published reference dates to 1874, citing the above
letter. The letter credits ghoti to William Ollier Jr. (born 1824).[3]
Ghoti is often cited to support English spelling reform, and is often
attributed to George Bernard Shaw,[4] a supporter of this cause.
However, the word does not appear in Shaw's writings,[3] and a
biography of Shaw attributes it instead to an anonymous spelling
reformer.[5] Similar constructed words exist that demonstrate English
idiosyncrasies,[1] but ghoti is the most widely recognized.
==

Never too old too live and learn.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:15:28 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:53:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

I know, I learn't that from your previous messages. You don't have to
shout, I was just quoting Mark Rosenfelder, who obviously also didn't
know when he wrote that.

It was inappropriate to quote something you knew to be untrue --

I honestly can't remember if I posted it before or after I read your
explanation about Shaw not being the originator of ghoti. But it
wouldn't have made a difference, because I always quote verbatim, and
Mark Rosenfelders comment about the rules of the English spelling
(which is the whole point of http://www.zompist.com/spell.html) is
valid, with or without Shaw.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
sullying the name of a respected former contributor, no less.

[quickly looking up "to sully", just to be sure it means what I think
it means; and it does]
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

Publicizing the fact that he has never corrected the erroneous statement on his
page is a disservice, a sullying.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
And I repeat: in his very useful and thoughtful article at
http://www.zompist.com/spell.html, in the year 2000 Mark Rosenfelder
==
Hou tu pranownse Inglish
© 2000 by Mark Rosenfelder Everybody agrees that English spelling is
horrible.
There have been almost as many proposals for spelling reform as there
are rewrites of Esperanto. (Tellingly, there has been precisely one
success in each category-- Noah Webster and Ido-- and neither caught
on universally.) Most of these proposals spend their energy fixing
what isn't broken. For instance, they search hard for clever new ways
of spelling the ch sound-- even though ch does the job just fine in
hundreds of languages. Or, they insist on 'correcting' the Great Vowel
Shift, using Italian values for the vowels.
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

Wrong. 'ghoti vs. goa'tee.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
The purpose of this page is to describe those rules-- to explain the
system behind English spelling, the rules that tell you how to
pronounce a written word correctly over 85% of the time.

A fairly low percentage compared with the descriptions by Carney and by Cummings.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
[...]
==
and that article is still on Mark Rosenfelders website, now on 18
January 2018. And with good reason, because it makes so much sense.
Small minor point is that like so many people, he mis-attributed ghoti
to Bernard Shaw, whereas Shaw never actually mentioned and the first
provable occurrence, according to Wikipedia, is dated a year before
Shaw's birth.
==
The first confirmed use of the word is in a letter from Charles Ollier
to Leigh Hunt. On the third page of that letter, dated 11 December
1855, Ollier explains, "My Son William has hit upon a new method of
spelling 'Fish'." Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."[2]
An early known published reference dates to 1874, citing the above
letter. The letter credits ghoti to William Ollier Jr. (born 1824).[3]
Ghoti is often cited to support English spelling reform, and is often
attributed to George Bernard Shaw,[4] a supporter of this cause.
However, the word does not appear in Shaw's writings,[3] and a
biography of Shaw attributes it instead to an anonymous spelling
reformer.[5] Similar constructed words exist that demonstrate English
idiosyncrasies,[1] but ghoti is the most widely recognized.
==
Never too old too live and learn.

Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:28:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

Publicizing the fact that he has never corrected the erroneous statement on his
page is a disservice, a sullying.

I published something that he himself has kept published for over 17
years! And then suddenly _I_ am the culprit for mentioning it (while
myself also still thinking ghoti was by Shaw, like millions of
others).

Do you really Mark feels very ashamed of having this detail wrong?
He's only human, isn't he?

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
And I repeat: in his very useful and thoughtful article at
http://www.zompist.com/spell.html, in the year 2000 Mark Rosenfelder
==
Hou tu pranownse Inglish
© 2000 by Mark Rosenfelder Everybody agrees that English spelling is
horrible.
There have been almost as many proposals for spelling reform as there
are rewrites of Esperanto. (Tellingly, there has been precisely one
success in each category-- Noah Webster and Ido-- and neither caught
on universally.) Most of these proposals spend their energy fixing
what isn't broken. For instance, they search hard for clever new ways
of spelling the ch sound-- even though ch does the job just fine in
hundreds of languages. Or, they insist on 'correcting' the Great Vowel
Shift, using Italian values for the vowels.
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

Wrong. 'ghoti vs. goa'tee.

Oops: now YOU are sullying Marks name, aren't you? He made a mistake!
How terrible. (Btw, there is no mention of stress in what Mark wrote,
so why you mention this is beyond me.)

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
The purpose of this page is to describe those rules-- to explain the
system behind English spelling, the rules that tell you how to
pronounce a written word correctly over 85% of the time.

A fairly low percentage compared with the descriptions by Carney and by Cummings.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
[...]
==
and that article is still on Mark Rosenfelders website, now on 18
January 2018. And with good reason, because it makes so much sense.
Small minor point is that like so many people, he mis-attributed ghoti
to Bernard Shaw, whereas Shaw never actually mentioned and the first
provable occurrence, according to Wikipedia, is dated a year before
Shaw's birth.
==
The first confirmed use of the word is in a letter from Charles Ollier
to Leigh Hunt. On the third page of that letter, dated 11 December
1855, Ollier explains, "My Son William has hit upon a new method of
spelling 'Fish'." Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."[2]
An early known published reference dates to 1874, citing the above
letter. The letter credits ghoti to William Ollier Jr. (born 1824).[3]
Ghoti is often cited to support English spelling reform, and is often
attributed to George Bernard Shaw,[4] a supporter of this cause.
However, the word does not appear in Shaw's writings,[3] and a
biography of Shaw attributes it instead to an anonymous spelling
reformer.[5] Similar constructed words exist that demonstrate English
idiosyncrasies,[1] but ghoti is the most widely recognized.
==
Never too old too live and learn.

Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

If it's not online, I won't read it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:28:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

Publicizing the fact that he has never corrected the erroneous statement on his
page is a disservice, a sullying.

I published something that he himself has kept published for over 17
years! And then suddenly _I_ am the culprit for mentioning it (while
myself also still thinking ghoti was by Shaw, like millions of
others).
Do you really Mark feels very ashamed of having this detail wrong?
He's only human, isn't he?

He likes to have things correct. Since you are a user of his site, you could
let him know.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

Wrong. 'ghoti vs. goa'tee.

Oops: now YOU are sullying Marks name, aren't you? He made a mistake!
How terrible. (Btw, there is no mention of stress in what Mark wrote,
so why you mention this is beyond me.)

In English, stress is just as important (phonemic) as consonants and vowels.
The word "goatee" and its stress are familiar; the spelling "ghoti" cannot,
according to any patterns of English orthography, be final-stressed.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

If it's not online, I won't read it.

It is.

I believe the entire NYT archive back to 1851 is on line.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:28:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

Publicizing the fact that he has never corrected the erroneous statement on his
page is a disservice, a sullying.

I published something that he himself has kept published for over 17
years! And then suddenly _I_ am the culprit for mentioning it (while
myself also still thinking ghoti was by Shaw, like millions of
others).
Do you really Mark feels very ashamed of having this detail wrong?
He's only human, isn't he?

He likes to have things correct. Since you are a user of his site, you could
let him know.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

Wrong. 'ghoti vs. goa'tee.

Oops: now YOU are sullying Marks name, aren't you? He made a mistake!
How terrible. (Btw, there is no mention of stress in what Mark wrote,
so why you mention this is beyond me.)

In English, stress is just as important (phonemic) as consonants and vowels.
The word "goatee" and its stress are familiar; the spelling "ghoti" cannot,
according to any patterns of English orthography, be final-stressed.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

If it's not online, I won't read it.

It is.
I believe the entire NYT archive back to 1851 is on line.

Not for free, as you well know.

But since I'm fortunate enough to have access, I though I would
share some of the content:

The first known occurrence, as already mentioned here, is in the
letter from Charles Ollier to Leigh Hunt, 1855. This discovery
is credited to "Charles E. Robinson, a professor of English at the
University of Delaware who came across the ghoti letter during research
on the Ollier family about 30 years ago". Ollier attributes the
spelling to his son, William "a journalist whose correspondence reveals
a fascination with English etymology." Zimmer points out that the
mid-19th century was rife with schemes for "phonetic spelling".
Alexander J.Ellis, in "A Plea for Phonotypy and Phonography" (1845)
may have started the fad for inventing bizarre spellings for ordinary
words. W.Ollier may not actually have invented "ghoti", but the
date of his father's letter shows that Shaw certainly didn't.

So what about the attribution to Shaw? I looked quickly through the
"ghoti"s in the ProQuest newspaper database. It's fairly regularly
referred to from about 1940, but with attributions both vague and various.
Then in 1946 (as Zimmer mentions) we have Mario Pei. An unsigned
column titled "Sidelines" (Los Angeles Times, 1946-01-27, p.E2)
has this item:

Contributor Mario Pei, the well-known philologist, tell us this
story about George Bernard Shaw. Mr Shaw has long advocated spelling
reform, and to back his stand it is said that he writes down the
word 'ghoti' and asks people to pronounce it....[standard explanation
follows].

This seems to be the first association of Shaw's name with "ghoti".
Zimmer notes that Pei also refers to it in his *The Story of Language*
(1949). I couldn't find it in my copy (Mentor Books, 1960). But the
online first edition has it: "Shaw is said to be responsible for the
statement that "fish" could be spelled 'ghoti'...." (293-4). Note
the qualifications ("it is said") in both passages. Now it is said
that exhaustive searches of all Shaw's published works have failed
to find "ghoti". Fine. But it doesn't seem inconceivable that he
might have known it, and perhaps used it in lectures, or in conversations
about spelling reform, which don't happen to have been preserved for
posterity. GBS did a lot of talking, and was still talking and writing
through the 1940s. If Pei didn't hear Shaw himself, he could have got it
from somebody who did.

Or did Pei just make it up? Zimmer suggests: "Pei could have been
confusing Shaw with another prominent British spelling reformer,
the phonetician Daniel Jones..., since Jones really did make use
of the ghoti joke in a 1943 speech."

Note, not in any of his books. So Jones gave one speech in which he used
the "ghoti joke" and it happened to be recorded or printed. Shaw didn't.
For me, this does not make Jones a much stronger candidate.

Oh, and as for how you actually *do* pronounce "ghoti", Zimmer says
"...most people would simply pronounce it as goaty." That sounds right.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:28:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

Publicizing the fact that he has never corrected the erroneous statement on his
page is a disservice, a sullying.

I published something that he himself has kept published for over 17
years! And then suddenly _I_ am the culprit for mentioning it (while
myself also still thinking ghoti was by Shaw, like millions of
others).
Do you really Mark feels very ashamed of having this detail wrong?
He's only human, isn't he?

He likes to have things correct. Since you are a user of his site, you could
let him know.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

Wrong. 'ghoti vs. goa'tee.

Oops: now YOU are sullying Marks name, aren't you? He made a mistake!
How terrible. (Btw, there is no mention of stress in what Mark wrote,
so why you mention this is beyond me.)

In English, stress is just as important (phonemic) as consonants and vowels.
The word "goatee" and its stress are familiar; the spelling "ghoti" cannot,
according to any patterns of English orthography, be final-stressed.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

If it's not online, I won't read it.

It is.
I believe the entire NYT archive back to 1851 is on line.

Not for free, as you well know.

I don't know. Call me the opposite of Ruud -- I generally don't look for things on line.

IIRC, you can access several things a month without paying. Did Ben send me a copy of the
column, or did he send me a url?

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
But since I'm fortunate enough to have access, I though I would

Ruud provided the URL "21 hours ago."

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
The first known occurrence, as already mentioned here, is in the
letter from Charles Ollier to Leigh Hunt, 1855. This discovery
is credited to "Charles E. Robinson, a professor of English at the
University of Delaware who came across the ghoti letter during research
on the Ollier family about 30 years ago". Ollier attributes the
spelling to his son, William "a journalist whose correspondence reveals
a fascination with English etymology." Zimmer points out that the
mid-19th century was rife with schemes for "phonetic spelling".
Alexander J.Ellis, in "A Plea for Phonotypy and Phonography" (1845)
may have started the fad for inventing bizarre spellings for ordinary
words. W.Ollier may not actually have invented "ghoti", but the
date of his father's letter shows that Shaw certainly didn't.
So what about the attribution to Shaw? I looked quickly through the
"ghoti"s in the ProQuest newspaper database. It's fairly regularly
referred to from about 1940, but with attributions both vague and various.
Then in 1946 (as Zimmer mentions) we have Mario Pei. An unsigned
column titled "Sidelines" (Los Angeles Times, 1946-01-27, p.E2)
Contributor Mario Pei, the well-known philologist, tell us this
story about George Bernard Shaw. Mr Shaw has long advocated spelling
reform, and to back his stand it is said that he writes down the
word 'ghoti' and asks people to pronounce it....[standard explanation
follows].
This seems to be the first association of Shaw's name with "ghoti".
Zimmer notes that Pei also refers to it in his *The Story of Language*
(1949). I couldn't find it in my copy (Mentor Books, 1960). But the
online first edition has it: "Shaw is said to be responsible for the
statement that "fish" could be spelled 'ghoti'...." (293-4). Note
the qualifications ("it is said") in both passages. Now it is said
that exhaustive searches of all Shaw's published works have failed
to find "ghoti". Fine. But it doesn't seem inconceivable that he
might have known it, and perhaps used it in lectures, or in conversations
about spelling reform, which don't happen to have been preserved for
posterity. GBS did a lot of talking, and was still talking and writing
through the 1940s. If Pei didn't hear Shaw himself, he could have got it
from somebody who did.
Or did Pei just make it up? Zimmer suggests: "Pei could have been
confusing Shaw with another prominent British spelling reformer,
the phonetician Daniel Jones..., since Jones really did make use
of the ghoti joke in a 1943 speech."

Which is why I asked at Pei's institution's Special Collections if they had his papers.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Note, not in any of his books. So Jones gave one speech in which he used
the "ghoti joke" and it happened to be recorded or printed. Shaw didn't.
For me, this does not make Jones a much stronger candidate.
Oh, and as for how you actually *do* pronounce "ghoti", Zimmer says
"...most people would simply pronounce it as goaty." That sounds right.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 19 Jan 2018 05:51:52 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:28:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
I did no sullying of Mark Rosenfelders name AT ALL, and I think yours
is a slanderous remark vis-à-vis me, which you should apologise for.

Publicizing the fact that he has never corrected the erroneous statement on his
page is a disservice, a sullying.

I published something that he himself has kept published for over 17
years! And then suddenly _I_ am the culprit for mentioning it (while
myself also still thinking ghoti was by Shaw, like millions of
others).
Do you really Mark feels very ashamed of having this detail wrong?
He's only human, isn't he?

He likes to have things correct. Since you are a user of his site, you could
let him know.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Whenever the subject comes up, someone is sure to bring up all the
words in -ough, or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which
illustrates only Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a
nightmare, but it does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only
be pronounced like goatee.

Wrong. 'ghoti vs. goa'tee.

Oops: now YOU are sullying Marks name, aren't you? He made a mistake!
How terrible. (Btw, there is no mention of stress in what Mark wrote,
so why you mention this is beyond me.)

In English, stress is just as important (phonemic) as consonants and vowels.
The word "goatee" and its stress are familiar; the spelling "ghoti" cannot,
according to any patterns of English orthography, be final-stressed.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

If it's not online, I won't read it.

It is.
I believe the entire NYT archive back to 1851 is on line.

Not for free, as you well know.

I don't know. Call me the opposite of Ruud -- I generally don't look for things on line.

Did you not see that ...

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ruud provided the URL "21 hours ago."

???

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:12:03 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Do you really Mark feels very ashamed of having this detail wrong?
He's only human, isn't he?

He likes to have things correct. Since you are a user of his site, you could
let him know.

I could. So far, I didn't even have time to consider that.

I think I won't. The 2000 document maybe should stay as it is, for
historical reasons.

[António Marques]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
(...)
If it's not online, I won't read it.

You do realise the dangers of such attitude?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:42:53 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
(...)
If it's not online, I won't read it.

You do realise the dangers of such attitude?

Of course. You do realise this was selfspot? As is this word?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:42:53 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
(...)
If it's not online, I won't read it.

You do realise the dangers of such attitude?

Of course. You do realise this was selfspot? As is this word?

A guess: a false friend calque of a Dutch word for self-mockery? (-sport would be Joyceanly clearer.)

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 19 Jan 2018 05:53:48 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:42:53 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

Post by António Marques

Post by Ruud Harmsen
(...)
If it's not online, I won't read it.

You do realise the dangers of such attitude?

Of course. You do realise this was selfspot? As is this word?

A guess: a false friend calque of a Dutch word for self-mockery? (-sport would be Joyceanly clearer.)

You rode it. (raden = guess). Zelfspot is a joy forever.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen
==
The first confirmed use of the word is in a letter from Charles Ollier
to Leigh Hunt. On the third page of that letter, dated 11 December
1855, Ollier explains, "My Son William has hit upon a new method of
spelling 'Fish'." Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."[2]
An early known published reference dates to 1874, citing the above
letter. The letter credits ghoti to William Ollier Jr. (born 1824).[3]
Ghoti is often cited to support English spelling reform, and is often
attributed to George Bernard Shaw,[4] a supporter of this cause.
However, the word does not appear in Shaw's writings,[3] and a
biography of Shaw attributes it instead to an anonymous spelling
reformer.[5] Similar constructed words exist that demonstrate English
idiosyncrasies,[1] but ghoti is the most widely recognized.
==
Never too old too live and learn.

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:28:58 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Someone ought to update that with Ben Zimmer's findings, which were published
in the New York Times Magazine in 2010 (June 27, p. 14).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/magazine/27FOB-onlanguage-t.html

Largely the same story as in the Wikipedia, it seems. Moreover,
Wikipedia mentions another source, also by Ben Zimmer.

[Daud Deden]

Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."[2]
-
Angle(verb) andgl nuadl
Ndjuambu.angdualua mesh.netl
Ndjuambuan.guaduatlay
Ndjuambuan.ghoty
Xyuambua.tlaxya sieve.lace
Ghoti(verb) to fish

Why do Neo-etymologists struggle so hard to misunderstand simple words?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:07:36 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Ollier then demonstrates that "Ghoti is Fish."[2]
-
Angle(verb) andgl nuadl
Ndjuambu.angdualua mesh.netl
Ndjuambuan.guaduatlay
Ndjuambuan.ghoty
Xyuambua.tlaxya sieve.lace
Ghoti(verb) to fish

You are confusing Ndjuambu (whatever that is) with tlhIngan Hol.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Why do Neo-etymologists struggle so hard to misunderstand simple words?

Because your ghunthozy nose know baundz.

[Daud Deden]

Ruud, your English has improved

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:20:03 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden

Post by Daud Deden
Ruud, your English has improved

Phantazy.

[António Marques]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Arnaud Fournet

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fon?tik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There is no t-sound in English 'association'.

Stoopidest remark ever in sci;lang histery.

There's no t in birthday either, or in fish when written ghoti à la Polish.

I don't know what Polish might have to do with it, but <ghoti> is not a
possible spelling
of /fiS/ in English.

True: http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
" [...] or George Bernard Shaw's ghoti-- a word which illustrates only
Shaw's wiseacre ignorance. English spelling may be a nightmare, but it
does have rules, and by those rules, ghoti can only be pronounced like
goatee. "
[now looking up "wiseacre" ]

SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR
PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

No need to shout. Ruud just hadn’t come along to that explanation yet.

[Franz Gnaedinger]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

As far as I remember, ghoti was a joke by James Joyce

gh as in tough - f
o as in woman - i
ti as in nation - sh
together fish

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:02:01 -0800 (PST): Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Franz Gnaedinger

Post by Peter T. Daniels
SHAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
"GHOTI" IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING SHAW EVER WROTE, EITHER FOR PUBLICATION OR, AS
FAR AS IS KNOWN, IN UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS.

As far as I remember, ghoti was a joke by James Joyce
gh as in tough - f
o as in woman - i
ti as in nation - sh
together fish

No it was not.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There’s 3 different values for <c> there.

/əˌsoʊʃiˈeɪʃən/

<c> clearly serves as /ʃ/.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There’s 3 different values for <c> there.

/əˌsoʊʃiˈeɪʃən/
<c> clearly serves as /ʃ/.

Then there's a [t] missing in "Teachers'."

[António Marques]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There’s 3 different values for <c> there.

/əˌsoʊʃiˈeɪʃən/
<c> clearly serves as /ʃ/.

I don’t recall ever hearing it with two /S/ (which I find quite unwieldy).
I see a reference online to the transcription you give, but when played it
has /s s S/, not /s S S/. Maybe it was different in 1886, or I’ve just been
listening to the wrong dialects.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:41:25 -0000 (UTC): António Marques

I don’t recall ever hearing it with two /S/ (which I find quite unwieldy).
I see a reference online to the transcription you give, but when played it
has /s s S/, not /s S S/. Maybe it was different in 1886, or I’ve just been
listening to the wrong dialects.

It seems /s s S/ is American:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/association
and /s S S/ British. Although
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/association does
not confirm that.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by António Marques

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)
In 1886 he organized a group of language teachers in Paris, who called
themselves Dhi Fonètik Tîcerz' Asóciécon.

Something isn't right with that name. Either there's a -t- missing
or a diacritic got lost.

There’s 3 different values for <c> there. Either it’s
following-vowel-dependent or there is more than a <t> missing.

Ah, I see the problem. Though for me there are only two -- I have
two /S/'s in "association", unless I'm being very formal. So it's
in "teachers'" that the real problem lies.

And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic Association"
and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet I cut-pasted the
phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of mine. Googling "Tîcerz'"
gets 684 results. I'm not going to try to figure out which one was
responsible.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic Association"
and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet I cut-pasted the
phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of mine.

After Gerd Thieme dug up a reference to the correct spelling and
posted it here, somebody--probably Gerd himself--corrected the
Wikipedia article.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic Association"
and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet I cut-pasted the
phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of mine.

After Gerd Thieme dug up a reference to the correct spelling and
posted it here, somebody--probably Gerd himself--corrected the
Wikipedia article.
--

Who's Gerd Thieme? And where's "here"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic Association"
and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet I cut-pasted the
phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of mine.

After Gerd Thieme dug up a reference to the correct spelling and
posted it here, somebody--probably Gerd himself--corrected the
Wikipedia article.

Who's Gerd Thieme? And where's "here"?

Someone quoted one sentence he posted, but since he has "X-No-Archive" selected,
GG will not show his messages, and we can only know what he said if someone
quotes it in full.

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic Association"
and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet I cut-pasted the
phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of mine.

After Gerd Thieme dug up a reference to the correct spelling and
posted it here, somebody--probably Gerd himself--corrected the
Wikipedia article.

Who's Gerd Thieme? And where's "here"?

Someone quoted one sentence he posted, but since he has "X-No-Archive" selected,
GG will not show his messages, and we can only know what he said if someone
quotes it in full.

Weird. I know of one other person (on a.u.e.) who does this, so that
I only see his stuff when somebody else replies to his initial posts.
But why?

[Gerd Thieme]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic
Association" and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet
I cut-pasted the phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of
mine.

After Gerd Thieme dug up a reference to the correct spelling and
posted it here, somebody--probably Gerd himself--corrected the
Wikipedia article.

Several articles in about a dozen languages including Chinese, Tamil and
Arabic. The only language i did not correct immediately was my own
native German, because I did it anonymously, and that is not welcome in
Teutonia.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Who's Gerd Thieme? And where's "here"?

Someone quoted one sentence he posted, but since he has
"X-No-Archive" selected, GG will not show his messages, and we can
only know what he said if someone quotes it in full.

Correct. And just for this one posting, I'll remove this Header, so you
can see me.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Weird. I know of one other person (on a.u.e.) who does this, so that
I only see his stuff when somebody else replies to his initial posts.
But why?

Google does not obey Cancel messages or Supersedes headers as any
respectable news server would do. So I am unable to remove or replace my
own postings in Google’s archive.

That’s why I recently decided to add X-No-Archive.

On the other hand, there are enough good news readers available. You are
not forced to use Google’s poor web interface.

Gerd

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Gerd Thieme

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
And whaddya know? I go back to Wiki "International Phonetic
Association" and find "Tîtcerz'", which is what it should be! Yet
I cut-pasted the phrase from somewhere, so it wasn't a typo of
mine.

After Gerd Thieme dug up a reference to the correct spelling and
posted it here, somebody--probably Gerd himself--corrected the
Wikipedia article.

Several articles in about a dozen languages including Chinese, Tamil and
Arabic. The only language i did not correct immediately was my own
native German, because I did it anonymously, and that is not welcome in
Teutonia.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Who's Gerd Thieme? And where's "here"?

Someone quoted one sentence he posted, but since he has
"X-No-Archive" selected, GG will not show his messages, and we can
only know what he said if someone quotes it in full.

Correct. And just for this one posting, I'll remove this Header, so you
can see me.

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Weird. I know of one other person (on a.u.e.) who does this, so that
I only see his stuff when somebody else replies to his initial posts.
But why?

Google does not obey Cancel messages or Supersedes headers as any
respectable news server would do. So I am unable to remove or replace my
own postings in Google’s archive.
That’s why I recently decided to add X-No-Archive.
On the other hand, there are enough good news readers available. You are
not forced to use Google’s poor web interface.
Gerd

Thanks for explaining. Somehow I thought it would end up with somebody
shaming me for using GG. I've tried others. I didn't like them.
Your reasons for wanting to remove or replace your own postings might
be interesting. But I won't try your patience.

[Gerd Thieme]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Your reasons for wanting to remove or replace your own postings might
be interesting. But I won't try your patience.

Mostly typos (which are not really a problem).

But now and then I did post mathematical nonsense or spammed angry
responses through far too many newsgroups.

Unfortunately, these mistakes are fixed for eternity now in Google’s
archive. I think that’s enough, no need to add more of my silliness.

Gerd

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)

January 12 - Louis Gauchat (1866)

January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)

January 14 - C.F.Voegelin
Anthropological linguist
Again for somewhat personal reasons.

He did a number of interesting things:
- after getting a B.A. in Psychology from Stanford, he went to
New Zealand to study Maori music (!! I didn't know about this);
- studied anthropology with Kroeber et al. at Berkeley, but his
PhD thesis was a grammar of Tübatulabal (U-A);
- postdoctoral study with Sapir at Yale;
- then at Indiana U for the rest of his career;
- revived IJAL (International Journal of American Linguistics) after
Franz Boas' death; his second wife (Flo) was the founding editor of
_Anthropological Linguistics_, one of my favourite journals;
- "among his graduate students at Indiana were Ken Hale and Dell Hymes",
and (the personal bit) my mentor Bruce Biggs, and later his student
Pat Hohepa. Bruce must have been sent out to do some American fieldwork,
since his first big-time publication was "Testing intelligibility among
Yuman languages" (IJAL XXIII (2), 1957).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Voegelin

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)

January 12 - Louis Gauchat (1866)

January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)

January 14 - C.F.Voegelin
Anthropological linguist

!! Got so involved in the details that I left off his birth year (1906)

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

January 6 - Benjamin Franklin (1705)

January 8 - Edmond Edmont (1849)
The man on the bicycle

January 9 - Mark Aronoff (1949)

January 12 - Louis Gauchat (1866)

January 13 - Paul Passy (1859)

January 14 - C.F.Voegelin (1906)
Anthropological linguist

January 17 - Charles Hockett (1916)

(Sorry, I was away for a couple of days without internet access, and
missed the actual date.)

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

The January 13 Google Doodle honors Zhou Youguang, the "father of
Pinyan."

[b***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

The January 13 Google Doodle honors Zhou Youguang, the "father of
Pinyan."

ITYM Pinyin.
(Don't google "Pinyan" unless you want to read about the Enumclaw Horse Sex Case.)

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
I recently came across my copy of "A Linguistic Calendar 1984", produced
by Frank Nuessel and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
It notes the birthdays of hundreds and hundreds of linguists (and some
other famous people). I thought I would mention a few of those as we
January 4 - Jakob Grimm (1785)

The January 13 Google Doodle honors Zhou Youguang, the "father of
Pinyan."

ITYM Pinyin.
(Don't google "Pinyan" unless you want to read about the Enumclaw Horse Sex Case.)

Ha !