I just wrote a line of dialogue consisting of the single word "out." Since this is the only word uttered in the scene (making it a monologue, I suppose) I parked on it a minute. And then, I wondered. If I were to write the word phonetically (and, I admit to having an odd accent), I might write 'aut' (short 'a'). Which brings me to my question. To the extent that standard spellings represent pronunciation at all, do they reflect the current pronunciation of words at the time and place they were set, or standardizations of received spellings? I understand, for example (as I believe we once discussed) that (Amer.) Revolutionary War manuscripts contain good information on the pronunciation of Elizabethan English.

Well, I'd heard the Elizabethan English still spoken in the Appalachian mountains factoid, but not the Revolutionary War one. I don't buy either. Orthography is just one dangerous swamp into which I try not to go. That having been said: our spelling totters between the phonological and the etymological. Spelling influences pronunciation and vice versa. What bothers you about out? Is it the 'u'? Stressed vowels becoming diphthongs is pretty normal in language change.

<<What bothers you about 'out'?

Well, "bothers" is a bit strong. The spoken dipthong is 'a' (as in, yes, 'an') and 'u' as in 'blue'. But if I were just coming ashore, I'd read it like a Dutchman 'oh-u-t' -- or, pretty close to 'oat'.

ouch?

edit it took me a while to realize what you were saying, but wow. we ought(!) to spell out owt, nowt?

Ah, but you're not a Dutchman. How do you feel about the 'o' in one? OTOH, ounce, our, and oust all go with with the {#ou} to /Aw/ mapping. There's really no rhyme or reason to English spelling—pausing to don asbestos suit—just a lot of post hoc rationalization.

Well, this one is about as regular as English gets (ahem). Long u, respelt ou under French influence, then Great Vowel Shift to au.

we ought(!) to spell out owt, nowt?

but then we could be saying anything

or nothing as the case may be

Bingley

chuckles appreciatively-e as Bingley rounds off nicely

our spelling totters between the phonological and the etymological - From the perspective of a non-native speaker, that's putting it very mildly. Spelling and pronounciation are connected by exceptions, sprinkled with a few rules.

Spelling and pronounciation are connected by exceptions, sprinkled with a few rules.

I love this definition and plan to plagiarize it!

I love this definition

I agree it has a memorable ring to it, AnnaS, but can we "connect" anything "by exceptions"?


Exceptions more often disconnect than connect, in my experience, altho in most cases, that is lamentable.

P.S. I was tempted to argue that anarchy is connected by exceptions. But, in that case, exceptions are the rule.

Exceptions more often disconnect than connect
An exception is a 1:1 connection, whereas a rule is a 1:n connection, in database parlance.

While studying Sanskrit, I came up with Jim's rule of thumb: in Sanskrit grammar there are rules, exceptions to the rules, and exceptions to the exceptions, which bring you back to the rules. The weird thing is that English could adopt an easier orthography (just as Chinese could use an alphabetic or syllabic writing system), but nobody can agree about the proposed system's particulars. English spelling reform is like squaring the circle: many have tried it, none have succeeded, and lots of us think it's impossible.

ah-oo-t

*******

Frum what I can tell... spellin' reform izn't something one theorizez about, it's something one *duz.

a rule is a 1:n connection, in database parlance

It depends on which meaning you ascribe to "rule".

Where anarchy rules, exceptions are the rule.

Where anarchy rules, exceptions are the rule.

But only in the context where rules are 'the norm'. Would we otherwise call it chaos? or something not comparative (if there is such a thing)?

Where anarchy rules, exceptions are the rule.
Here we reached the slippery slope of paradoxes. They usually arise from confounding logical levels. Anarchy can only be said to "rule", if we look at the situation from a higher logical plane. As the classical story of the lying Cretan shows, any number of paradoxes can be generated.

Re: anarchy rules: "would we otherwise call it chaos"?

Agreed, Musick. Anarchy is the antithesis of "the rule of law".

One definition I consulted describes "rule" as "governing power".

In a state of anarchy, there is no governing power. Power doesn't reside in any single place or in any myriad of places, but power, at least brute power, does "govern" individual outcomes, however arbitrarily and unpredictably it may be exercised.

If power exercised arbitrarily by individuals everywhere is "governance", perhaps anarchy can rule, and chaos can reign, after all.

"Out ... this is the only word uttered in the scene

You've got my interest.

Is the character on stage when the scene opens, or does he come in to say "out"?

More likely someone else is coming in when he says "Out."

But there is no exclamation mark following the word "Out".

Intriguing.

If someone here contributes the name of a lipstick, might someone else contribute a character, a scene, a fragment of dialogue, or many fragments interwoven by the creator?

Could people here be moving in an out of your play without knowing they are in a play?

Could the play be performed in real time as the play is crafted?

Like I said, you've got my interest.

>>you've got my interest<<

I'm not sure I understand you about moving in and out in real time &c but you've got my interest, if you'd like to say a little more. As to this piece I've been asking your help on here and there, it's gone, for now. It's against good sense and superstition to say more about it, except thanks to everyone--and to ask your understanding for the while.

So, perhaps you're suggesting a new piece. Perhaps, even, you've just walked into one unknowing.

tx all

in

So, perhaps you're suggesting a new piece. Perhaps, even, you've just walked into one unknowing.

Yeah, that's it. Now you've got it. A new piece.

For instance, take that one word "Out." without an exclamation mark, which comprises an entire scene.

What a challenge for the imagination!

It could be any single word, of course. Or something more than a single word.

Where would it go if "the audience" created the settings and the bare bones of each scene whilst the playwright pulls it all together in private.

"The audience" is a co-creator, technically, but the production would be a total surprise to the audience once the play is finally performed.

Another fleeting thought: You don't need to see a play to imagine a play as anyone who has studied plays in academia knows.

This play would give full play to the imagination of the audience before the audience ever sees the play.

That's "the thing" about this play.

Since the play is audience-driven, the audience is sure to love it.

P.S. I have some more ideas which I will PM to you if you are interested, no obligation, of course.

BTW I am not walking into a play "unknowing".

I am walking into a play "unrealized", whilst fully realizing what I am walking into.