Discussion Groups / British English / October 2005

http://rudhar.com/lingtics/nlij_en.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/ij-letter

It seems that it started life just as a printer's convention for the
letter y, much like the s-zett over there ->. Is there any evidence of
it in manuscript BEFORE it was established in print?

Funny how you humans get yourselves into these tangles- the English sore
thumbs are, of course, the taboo on split infinitives, and the
possessive apostrophe, both utterly bogus and unnecessary grammatically.

Paul Burke

Nor does it have much control over how people use Dutch at any
particular time.  NT just prescribes how people are supposed to use
the language at arbitrarily chosen publication dates and thereafter,
until NT changes its mind.  I expect that German, French and Spanish
speakers find their official language definers similarly irritating.
But NT prescribes the official language as of its most recent
publication dates.

Here is a nice rant about Dutch spelling reform:
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j19/duch.php

In the paragraph about the 'tussenletter problem', the writer gives
one example of a silly contradiction introduced by the 1996 spelling
rules ('bessesap' versus 'bessenwijn').  These dictated (with some
exceptions and rules guiding those exceptions) that compound words
using the schwa 'tussenletter' which was previously indicated by the
letter 'e' would henceforth represent that schwa by the letters 'en'.

Now, on the face of it, this reform makes some sense (so long as you
ignore beverages made from redcurrants), since terminal consonants in
Dutch are often unvoiced.  Terminal 'b' sounds like 'p', terminal 'd'
sounds like 't', etc.  An unvoiced 'n' is usually so quiet as to be
inaudible (try it if you don't believe me).  So, the reform still
conformed to common pronunciation.

This change involved changing the spelling of many words.  But, for
many nouns in Dutch, the '-en' suffix is the marker for a plural (cf
English 'oxen' and 'children').  Sometimes, this isn't a problem.
'Notekraker' (English 'nutcracker') became 'notenkraker', for
instance.  This change was uncontroversial since a nutcracker is an
implement for cracking nuts.  'Nutcracker' could be read as
'nutscracker' in the reformed orthography.  Nothing egregiously wrong
with that.  The meaning of the word is correctly conveyed with either
spelling.

Things became a little iffy with 'pannekoek' (English 'pancake')
becoming 'pannenkoek' since the new spelling could be read as meaning
a cake that is made in multiple pans.  Nevertheless, it was accepted,
albeit with grumbles from pedants.

Where newspaper editorials started to be written, though, was over the
change in the spelling of the word for "Queen's Day" (an important
public holiday celebrating the Queen's official birthday).
'Koninginnedag' became 'koninginnendag'.  This could be read to imply
that there was more than one Queen.  Much public indignation ensued,
together with (unfulfilled) threats that some newspapers would not
adopt the new orthography.  'Koninginnendag' remains the official
spelling, but things got quite heated for a while.

For what it's worth, I live about 400 metres away from Koninginneweg
(sic) and there is no Koninginnenweg in Amsterdam.  I very much doubt
that the name of the street will be changed to accommodate the
official orthography of the day.

I prefer the system of definition by commonly accepted usage, as used
when describing English.  At least the spellings don't keep changing
while I am not paying attention (not during my expected lifetime
anyway).

Giles