orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems. it's like what font you use for writing code. it doesn't affect the syntax or semantics of the language.

which isn't to say that orthography (or fonts) aren't interesting.

>orthography is not a deep part of language. language has been around much longer than writing systems.

And that era was a primitive, oral tradition, era. Just because something emerged later doesn't mean it's not as deep, or even more important, than what was there previously. Else gestures and groans would be even "deeper" than language (they are with us for hundreds of thousands of years before language).

Also many would argue that orthography is not just "what font you use for writing code", but has deeper connections with the language (historical and etymological for one, orthography gives us hints about the meaning and etymology of words).

So you don't speak anymore?

It's not just because orthography emerged later, but because it's entirely parasitic upon actual language. It's simply a representation, so the font metaphor is entirely appropriate. The representation can be changed in arbitrary ways that don't really affect the underlying structure.

also, when talking about modern communication, as the TFA says, it's all written.

Text is king, people don't talk on the phone any more, we text each other. I think I type at least as many words as I speak every day, and on some reclusive days, many, many more.

And because people infer emotional content from subtle cues in text, orthography is important now.

> also, when talking about modern communication, as the TFA says, it's all written.

You don't talk to anyone?

I have been known to text my girlfriend when she's sitting next to me. She does the same.

That's a fair point, although I think that writing has been with us for so long that we can no longer say that it's something we haven't adapted our language to. Think of it this way: when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down? That is probably a different mindset from the one people who can't read are in. Plus, many times orthography has to do with how the word has evolved from a different language.

> when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down?

Not really, actually. To illustrate, if someone asked me what "diarrhea" means, I would answer quickly that it's having a stomachache and runny shits, and it would be an adequate definition, even though I would have to take a moment to figure out its spelling and even then I won't be certain.

I stand corrected, that's good counterexample.

>when you think in terms of defining a word, don't you picture how it's written down?

Interesting hypothesis.

I don't think I do, and my assumption is that most other people don't either?

I learnt to speak well before I learnt to read and write. The process of speaking without any knowledge of the letters was deeply embedded in my brain.

People that are unable as adults to read or write, or have severe impediments to reading/writing in the same way that I do (e.g. dyslexia) don't speak any differently.

If I try to, I can picture how my spoken word is written down, but I'm pretty sure when I'm talking in a more "autonomic" fashion I'm not really picturing the words?

That's actually a very good point. The way I see it, although I may be wrong, is that people that have difficulties in reading/writing are a minority, at least in developed countries. Thus, they are nevertheless exposed to a way of speaking that is mainly influenced by the majority, who are influenced somehow by the written word.

On the other hand, what strikes me as a contribution of Internet to the language is our capacity to communicate through videos and pictures. Which means that our vocabulary is narrower. I don't have to be so elaborate when describing my room; I can just take a picture, and tweet it.

Orthography doesn't affect underlying structure of language. It's a meta-representation layer. Again, this doesn't mean it isn't interesting, but I'm not going going to say "Oooh, people are writing sentence in English which don't start with capital languages, what an exciting language change." Because it's an orthographic change, and not a language change.

Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.

>Orthography is just a system to write down language on a specific medium. Recording speech in mp3 instead of analog magnetic tape doesn't change the language.

For ancient civilizations (pre 3000 B.C) when it was all about the oral language, maybe.

We've moved way beyond that, and orthography is not a pure recording medium, but it's forms are historically tied to the language and its development (including borrowings from other languages). All kinds of continuity is lost if you "switch" orthography en masse (instead of organically).

And it's more like using guitars or synths, or B-3 vs Rhodes to play the same melody, than mp3 vs magnetic tape. The timbre when you change orthography is not the same -- something most poets, writers etc, would be quick to point out.

It's more tied to which 19th century prescriptivist happened to have more influence on your side of the Atlantic. Before them, English orthography wasn't even expected to be consistent. Switching orthography en masse through particular prescriptions being adopted by schools in actuality changed the spoken language very little. The new tendency to ignore those spelling rules has also changed the spoken language very little.

Moving to consistent spellings obscured the origins of English words maybe as often as it illuminated them.

That seems a poor example.

'normal' writing v text speak or leet speak would seem to be a better example?