Orð og tunga - 01.06.2016, Page 130

120 Orð og tunga
pronunciation similar to that of Czech lett ers (Puškin, Ho Či Min, Mao
Ce-tung). A special table of transcription from Russian was provided
in Rules.
In the chapter on geographic names, a principle that concerns Ice-
landic names is also mentioned: if the usage of lett ers not occurring
in the Czech alphabet causes technical problems, the lett er, without
a special sign, could be used (Besancon, Nimes) as well as a lett er ex-
pressing the closest pronunciation. (Even if not mentioned concretely,
this was the reason why translators from Icelandic and Old Norse
used t or th instead of þ, and d instead of ð, see below.) At the end, a
voluminous list of localized place names is given (e.g. Kostnice ‘Kon-
stanz’, Rýn ‘Rhein’, Curych ‘Zürich’, Švédsko ‘Sweden’) (Rules 1957:53).
As to the question of declension, the Rules from 1957 do not substan-
tially diff er from the earlier Rules.
3.3.4  Rules of Czech Spelling 1993
According to Neustupný & Nekvapil (2006) the “fi rst post-Commu-
nist Rules of 1993 proposed only a few changes, but these were wel-
comed in a very critical fashion. This critical tone was partly the con-
sequence of the fact that this was the fi rst time in the second half of
the 20th century when the public could freely express their opinions”
(2006:84). Neustupný & Nekvapil (2006) state that
at least two important themes surfaced in the discussion.
First, the principle of integration of loanwords into the Czech
phonemic system was att acked. The reason was the newly
perceived need to retain uniformity with western European
languages. […] The second theme in the discussion concerned
the att empt by the authors of the 1993 Rules to make the hand-
book easier to use for the ‘average user’ by excluding some
of the more diffi cult alternative spellings […] (Neustupný &
Nekvapil 2006:84)
This was strongly criticized, as the general att itude was to require
more freedom for the powerful, in this case the middle class, and
defend the variation against uniformity which might be desired by
the socially weaker classes. This stand “was further infl uenced by the
penetration of new, postmodern, att itudes that placed variation at the
top of socio-cultural values” (2006:85). The handbook was actually in-
troduced into schools in 1994, with the proviso that alternative spell-
ings were allowed (2006:85), and this principle has been used in later
tunga_18.indb 120 11.3.2016 14:41:18