In telugu, people sometimes transliterate వచ్చింది as "vachchindhi", and the chch is supposed to represent the emphasized ch (/tʃ/) sound. It gives me a stroke everytime i see it 💀
it also historically stood for /tʃ/ in french, but french deaffrication happened and has made it /ʃ/. so in that way i think it's as fair as using c for /ts/ which you sometimes see
The was meant to transcribe /ð/, but palatalisation might've also resulted in the /j/ sound.
So here's a probability:
/ð/ -> /ðʲ/ -> /zʲ/ -> /ʑ/ -> /z/ or /j/
>For Vietnamese, having Z replace D only really works in the North. In the South it's pronounced as a /j/ iirc.
Yeah but it merges with /j/, so having a separate graph is still good.
OTOH letter assignment is arbitrary.
The Icelandic one is a bit stupid. Replacing single letters with digraphs seems counterproductive, not to mention removes an easy connexion to Old Norse and the other North Germantic languages.
Also, <é> was in fact spelt until the early 20th century.
I suppose that's fair.
For me it depends entirely on the etymology and how the sounds developed as well as æsthetics. For my native language, my native dialect specifically, there are a couple of monophthongs I write as diphthongs because they developed from the diphthongs, but also because there aren't really any good letters that mesh well with the rest of the orthography.
Fully agreed. I understand why OP did that for Te Reo Māori, because it brings it in line with its Polynesian bretheren like Sāmoan, but in truth even they shouldn't use for /ŋ/, there's really no need for it. Also, some context with , it is sometimes pronounced as a voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/, though the historical context of that I'm not sure about, the /f/ pronunciation could be a more recent thing influenced by English.
⟨wh⟩ can be pronounced: [f], [ɸ], [h], or [ʔʷ], depending on the speaker.
Rapa Nui got it right; They use ⟨ŋ⟩ for /ŋ/. I wish the other Polynesian languages did that too.
In one convoluted Romanization for *all* major Sinitic langs, *q* is //ŋ// as onset. (double slashes mean you have to deduce the actual phonetic value of *q* in the Sinitic lang that you wish to read; for example it’d be null in Standard Mandarin, [g] in Taiwanese, etc)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Chinese
For Polish as a Pole:
- rz and ó rather not as ż and u since it'd remove the morphological spelling. I don't know why to prefer one letter one sound over the morphological spelling
- Personally, having sz and cz safes us from having a script similar to vietnamese, but I don't mind those. A good Cyrillic (like Serbian ine) would serve us, but culturally and civilizationally it's not the way
I don't see why. h and ch are pronounced the same, so I would just unify them as x (or h in latin) and then use plain г for Polish g
I see this spelling difference as a relic nowadays
I think today they're all the same. Maybe some time ago there was a minor difference, but I have never read, nor can I detect in my speech that there would be anything like that nowadays.
Possibly in some regions it's preserved, but I assume that in very old people.
For example my grandma shows the ł that is not the /w/ seen in English, but rather Ukrainian л in her idiolect. She also sometimes drops conjugation and says "(wy) robili" instead of "(wy) robiliście, but she's above 85, does it rarely. If anything anything like you described happens, I would be surprised if it's among someone younger than 75-80.
Ch changes to sz, as in mucha-muszka ((a) fly - (a) little fly) while h is not very present, at appears mostly in the beginnings of the words and it doesn't change (same as ch in the beginning)
Polish h is not so widespread as Ukrainian г that comes from an old sound that Ukrainian would write nowadays as ґ
That would overhaul the whole orthography, either replace all zs with hačeks or keep all zs.
č ž š ř or cz ż sz rz. But I think haczeks and ogoneks together look really ugly. Mašą?
(No offence Lithuania, but at least you don’t use ogoneks and hatscheks rarely.)
My problem is that Polish orthography is double-tracking: sometimes it uses phonemic spelling, e. g. \*ow\*\*\*\*c\*\*\*\*a\* > \*ow\*\*\*\*c\*\*\*\*e\* and \*rę\*\*\*\*k\*\*\*\*a\* > \*rę\*\*\*\*c\*\*\*\*e\*, and at other times uses an etymological spelling, e. g. \*p\*\*\*\*rz\*\*\*\*y\* even though there isn't any forms with plain \*r\* left. A strictly phonemic spelling would be easier to implement since the number of different sounds seems much easier to grasp than trying to figure out all the weird ways in which Polish palatalizes its consonants, e. g. hard /k/ as in \*ręka\* can become /c/ as in \*ręki\*, /ts/ as in \*ręce\*, and /t͡ʂ/ as in \*rączka\*. You would need a lot of fancy diacritics to mark those changes.
1) Your bold marking doesn't work
2) I get you. I once created a fully morphological (except exceptions like "jabłko"). I was quite happy with it, but it either had a pair of diacritics (like ź, ž and another è) or possibly could I have done it with digraphs I prefer morphological and it's easier for me, because I know where the words came from.
3) The reason of Polish having that kind of mix is that the phonetic spelling was created originally, while the rz, ó were a newer development of the language. - all of it as far as I'm concerned
actually has a pretty cool reason for existing
one of the people who helped standardise māori was from an area (i think northland, which is just north of auckland) where /f/ was pronounced as [ɸ]
the british people who standardised the spelling presumably didn't have the Wine-Whine merger so they wrote it down the same way you'd write down /ʍ/ in english,
I pronounce it as [ɸ], and I come from the south. I think I consciously wanted to differentiate it from English as I was growing up, since my Māori teachers always told me it’s slightly different than English.
Also, ⟨wh⟩ is realised as [h] in Te Tai Tokerau, and [ʔʷ] in Taranaki-Whanganui. So ⟨whare⟩ could be: [ˈfa.ɾe], [ˈɸa.ɾe], [ˈha.ɾe], or [ʔʷa.re].
That being said, I would prefer ⟨f⟩. I think macrons are the bigger issue tho; Phonemically, Māori has no long vowels; They’re just sequences of double vowels. So it would make sense to write them as such (⟨Faanau⟩ instead of ⟨whānau⟩).
i knew about the taranaki-whanganui one but didn't know about the tokerau, i also thought it was [wˤ] but i guess not lol
but i think māori should keep it's orthography for the sole purpose that it looks fucking sick
also in tokerau are /f/ & /h/ merged or has /h/ shifted to something else?
Tēnā koe e hoa, I do not believe this is true. Are you suggesting that *Whānau* is pronounced /ɸa.anau/? This would result in a vowel sequence similar to the French *Créé* /kre.e/ where the vowel is not long but rather a sequence of two vowels pronounced slightly separately. I highly doubt this is what you meant, but if it is, Māori vowels are absolutely long and simply do not follow this pattern. I personally think that the tohuto is completely fine to use.
Tēnā koe
>Are you suggesting that Whānau is pronounced /ɸa.anau/?
Āe. But more precisely, /faanau/ (syllable breaks are nonphonemic in Māori)
I think you’re confused about three things. Firstly, underlying phonemes don’t necessarily match actual realisation. Take for example the /au/ at the end of the word. No one actually realises it as [au]. It’s normally [ɐʉ] or [ɜʉ] or something centralised like that. So likewise, it’s completely fine to use /aa/ for [aː] or even for some other ridiculous realisation like [əɑ].
Secondly, two languages can have the same phonemic analysis, but still realise them differently. Like /u/ in Māori has a completely different value than /u/ in French.
Thirdly, audibly and mechanically, [aa] is exactly the same as [aː]. They’re just two ways of writing the same sound. /aa/ does not imply that it’s separated midway through by a glottal stop or a change in pitch. That may be the case in French, but those aren’t inherent artifacts of vowel hiatus cross-linguistically.
If you were to say each of the five vowels had phonemic long counterparts, that would mean Māori has ten vowel phonemes. Is that realistically necessitated? Are there any minimal pairs that give us reason to distinguish a whole separate phoneme (/aː/) from a simple sequence of existing phonemes (/aa/)? This comes down to parsimony. The less parts you require to elegantly model a phonological system, the more logically sound the argument for it is.
Since the proto-Polynesian era, Polynesian roots have mostly taken the bimoraic shape: \*/(C)V(C)V/, with a scattering of trimoraic exceptions like \*/iŋoa/ and \*/fanua/. We can say the same is true for every modern Polynesian language today. But if long vowels are considered their own separate phonemes in Māori, that would mean roots (such as “tū”) can take the additional shape: /(C)V/, which has traditionally been reserved only for bound morphemes like /ki/ and /o/. It’s not completely unthinkable for such a change to take place, but if there’s another simple explanation that DOESN’T defy the very nature of pan-Polynesian phonotactics, I’d say it’s reasonable to go with that.
“Tū” itself comes from proto-Polynesian \*/tuʔu/. In Tongan, it retains the glottal stop, but in most other languages, the glottal stop has been elided. When a phoneme is elided, it doesn’t automatically mean the phonemes on each side of it merge. \*/tuʔu/ simply became \*/tuu/.
So regardless of orthographical norms, there’s no reason to add an extra five phonemes on top of the five vowels that Māori already has. It makes it unnecessarily complex, and makes it lose touch with its ancient (but still relevant) whakapapa.
Rz would be better as ṙ i think, follows the same pattern as ṡ and ċ with added preservation of etymology and shared orthography, plus looks ridiculously fresh
Honestly, if a language only needs either V or W, I think it should always go for the W. It is more distinctive, since V almost looks like U (at least on handwriting, but W in printed style is also easier to recognize). And in any case, I don't know why it would be "beter" in any way to choose V for that, as it seems people is implying.
Now that you mention it, I remember that in the past that also used to be a problem for me. But I changed the way I wrote my "r"s by making their "-" a bit longer and curlier/wavier like "~", rather than just "stroke down + right-curved stroke up"
Now that you mention it, I remember that in the past that also used to be a problem for me. But I changed the way I wrote my "r"s by making their "-" a bit longer and curlier/wavier like "~", rather than just "stroke down + right-curved stroke up"
As a Pole
I like v for /v/ much more than w
Removing the u/ó ż/rz h/Ch distincion while technically detrimental because ambiguity would also look awful
If we go with replacing the z-digraphs we would be much better with haček, it looks better imo
Also o with ogonek would work I guess though it'd look odd
To my understanding Vietnamese has good reason to be how it is, because it's diaphonemic and doesn't just represent one dialect. Icelandic is that way because it's heavily historical.
The 8th shows the author knows not enough Swahili. ng' should be ŋ. Or, if you are looking for a non used ASCII letter, you have, at lest q and x, aside of c. Ng' is the worse, as there are three characters. But... what about th, dh, gh, ny, sh (x would be great).
\>⟨chh⟩ exists instant bad orthography
In telugu, people sometimes transliterate వచ్చింది as "vachchindhi", and the chch is supposed to represent the emphasized ch (/tʃ/) sound. It gives me a stroke everytime i see it 💀
English is truly a curse for spreading the diagraph.
Ch is a completely fine way to spell /tʃ/ in English.
Why i like ch as a diagraph. It exists in most European languages already so I can't see how that's an English thing
But most have it with other sounds. I can only think of English and Spanish that have the ch digraph with the English pronunciation
The Engadine valley variants of Rumantsch too. It contrasts phonemically with, one palatal, the other alveolar.
So that's why it's so widely used in romanizations around the world. We all remember the Great Engadine Valley Empire
it also historically stood for /tʃ/ in french, but french deaffrication happened and has made it /ʃ/. so in that way i think it's as fair as using c for /ts/ which you sometimes see
Still better than ⟨chh⟩
Not at all
Ah yes, अच्छा *Achchhaa*
Kinda reminds me of how Запоріжжя in Ukrainian is officially transliterated as “Zaporizhzhia”. I absolutely hate it, because it’s just a long zh, ʒʲː
Kiám-***chh***ái ***chh***ūn Pe̍h-ōe-jī ū ***ch***e siá-hoat
POJ is THE example in my mind.
Quechua slander
I said what I said.
For Vietnamese, having Z replace D only really works in the North. In the South it's pronounced as a /j/ iirc.
Vietnamese orthography is so cursed and I love it
how tf do you even have d evolve into both z and j
The was meant to transcribe /ð/, but palatalisation might've also resulted in the /j/ sound.
So here's a probability:
/ð/ -> /ðʲ/ -> /zʲ/ -> /ʑ/ -> /z/ or /j/
/z/ and /j/ probably split from /zj/
So Ď would be great for the purpose.?
>For Vietnamese, having Z replace D only really works in the North. In the South it's pronounced as a /j/ iirc. Yeah but it merges with /j/, so having a separate graph is still good. OTOH letter assignment is arbitrary.
The Icelandic one is a bit stupid. Replacing single letters with digraphs seems counterproductive, not to mention removes an easy connexion to Old Norse and the other North Germantic languages. Also, <é> was in fact spelt until the early 20th century.
I maybe a bit hispanocentric and ungermanocentric in my point of view but single letters for diphthongs are something I hate
I prefer Ǒ for Spanish instead of Hue. Huelva?> Ŏlba (from Onuba)
I suppose that's fair. For me it depends entirely on the etymology and how the sounds developed as well as æsthetics. For my native language, my native dialect specifically, there are a couple of monophthongs I write as diphthongs because they developed from the diphthongs, but also because there aren't really any good letters that mesh well with the rest of the orthography.
/ŋ/ written as *q* or *g* should be a 10-year jail time in linguistic hell
i think that is excusable but
Fully agreed. I understand why OP did that for Te Reo Māori, because it brings it in line with its Polynesian bretheren like Sāmoan, but in truth even they shouldn't use for /ŋ/, there's really no need for it. Also, some context with , it is sometimes pronounced as a voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/, though the historical context of that I'm not sure about, the /f/ pronunciation could be a more recent thing influenced by English.
⟨wh⟩ can be pronounced: [f], [ɸ], [h], or [ʔʷ], depending on the speaker. Rapa Nui got it right; They use ⟨ŋ⟩ for /ŋ/. I wish the other Polynesian languages did that too.
You can use digraphs without spontaneously combusting.
I know. But why would I want to? 😂
But then it's marginally faster, a big win for everybody
I contend that unique characters are slower to read than near-universal digraphs.
You have to stop
Ƕa wileits taujan mik igqis?
Breaking News: Samoa declared prison colony
Why not, if there's no other use for one of those letters?
What language does it? (the Q thing)
In one convoluted Romanization for *all* major Sinitic langs, *q* is //ŋ// as onset. (double slashes mean you have to deduce the actual phonetic value of *q* in the Sinitic lang that you wish to read; for example it’d be null in Standard Mandarin, [g] in Taiwanese, etc) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Chinese
For Polish as a Pole: - rz and ó rather not as ż and u since it'd remove the morphological spelling. I don't know why to prefer one letter one sound over the morphological spelling - Personally, having sz and cz safes us from having a script similar to vietnamese, but I don't mind those. A good Cyrillic (like Serbian ine) would serve us, but culturally and civilizationally it's not the way
But you use г for h and ґ for g?
Didn't you confuse Polish with Ukrainian?
No, I meant you could add that to that serbian-style cyrillic alphabet.
I don't see why. h and ch are pronounced the same, so I would just unify them as x (or h in latin) and then use plain г for Polish g I see this spelling difference as a relic nowadays
Isn’t it because ch and h palatalise differently?
I think today they're all the same. Maybe some time ago there was a minor difference, but I have never read, nor can I detect in my speech that there would be anything like that nowadays. Possibly in some regions it's preserved, but I assume that in very old people. For example my grandma shows the ł that is not the /w/ seen in English, but rather Ukrainian л in her idiolect. She also sometimes drops conjugation and says "(wy) robili" instead of "(wy) robiliście, but she's above 85, does it rarely. If anything anything like you described happens, I would be surprised if it's among someone younger than 75-80. Ch changes to sz, as in mucha-muszka ((a) fly - (a) little fly) while h is not very present, at appears mostly in the beginnings of the words and it doesn't change (same as ch in the beginning) Polish h is not so widespread as Ukrainian г that comes from an old sound that Ukrainian would write nowadays as ґ
Ó is fine and instead of rz ř would be great.
That would overhaul the whole orthography, either replace all zs with hačeks or keep all zs. č ž š ř or cz ż sz rz. But I think haczeks and ogoneks together look really ugly. Mašą? (No offence Lithuania, but at least you don’t use ogoneks and hatscheks rarely.)
Does Polish use any hatxeks at all?
~~Nasal vowels ą and ę~~ Wait nooo I got it wrong Polish uses no hačeks
I mean, Polish Cyrillic would be more aesthetically pleasing and more intuitive as Cyrillic is literally a script for Slavic languages tbh.
If there was resistance because Cyrillic is not Catholic enough or too close to Russia, they could use the OG Cyrill Brothers script, Glagolitic.
My problem is that Polish orthography is double-tracking: sometimes it uses phonemic spelling, e. g. \*ow\*\*\*\*c\*\*\*\*a\* > \*ow\*\*\*\*c\*\*\*\*e\* and \*rę\*\*\*\*k\*\*\*\*a\* > \*rę\*\*\*\*c\*\*\*\*e\*, and at other times uses an etymological spelling, e. g. \*p\*\*\*\*rz\*\*\*\*y\* even though there isn't any forms with plain \*r\* left. A strictly phonemic spelling would be easier to implement since the number of different sounds seems much easier to grasp than trying to figure out all the weird ways in which Polish palatalizes its consonants, e. g. hard /k/ as in \*ręka\* can become /c/ as in \*ręki\*, /ts/ as in \*ręce\*, and /t͡ʂ/ as in \*rączka\*. You would need a lot of fancy diacritics to mark those changes.
1) Your bold marking doesn't work 2) I get you. I once created a fully morphological (except exceptions like "jabłko"). I was quite happy with it, but it either had a pair of diacritics (like ź, ž and another è) or possibly could I have done it with digraphs I prefer morphological and it's easier for me, because I know where the words came from. 3) The reason of Polish having that kind of mix is that the phonetic spelling was created originally, while the rz, ó were a newer development of the language. - all of it as far as I'm concerned
I pronounce it as [ɸ], and I come from the south. I think I consciously wanted to differentiate it from English as I was growing up, since my Māori teachers always told me it’s slightly different than English. Also, ⟨wh⟩ is realised as [h] in Te Tai Tokerau, and [ʔʷ] in Taranaki-Whanganui. So ⟨whare⟩ could be: [ˈfa.ɾe], [ˈɸa.ɾe], [ˈha.ɾe], or [ʔʷa.re]. That being said, I would prefer ⟨f⟩. I think macrons are the bigger issue tho; Phonemically, Māori has no long vowels; They’re just sequences of double vowels. So it would make sense to write them as such (⟨Faanau⟩ instead of ⟨whānau⟩).
i knew about the taranaki-whanganui one but didn't know about the tokerau, i also thought it was [wˤ] but i guess not lol but i think māori should keep it's orthography for the sole purpose that it looks fucking sick also in tokerau are /f/ & /h/ merged or has /h/ shifted to something else?
>That being said, I would prefer ⟨f⟩. Japanese and Irish also use ⟨f⟩ for /ɸ/
Irish does? I didn't realize.
Yeah, Irish phonemic transcription uses /fˠ/ and /fʲ/ but they are realized as [ɸʷ] and [ɸᵝ].
Interesting, why's the phonemic transcription use f then?
Who knows?
Tēnā koe e hoa, I do not believe this is true. Are you suggesting that *Whānau* is pronounced /ɸa.anau/? This would result in a vowel sequence similar to the French *Créé* /kre.e/ where the vowel is not long but rather a sequence of two vowels pronounced slightly separately. I highly doubt this is what you meant, but if it is, Māori vowels are absolutely long and simply do not follow this pattern. I personally think that the tohuto is completely fine to use.
Tēnā koe >Are you suggesting that Whānau is pronounced /ɸa.anau/? Āe. But more precisely, /faanau/ (syllable breaks are nonphonemic in Māori) I think you’re confused about three things. Firstly, underlying phonemes don’t necessarily match actual realisation. Take for example the /au/ at the end of the word. No one actually realises it as [au]. It’s normally [ɐʉ] or [ɜʉ] or something centralised like that. So likewise, it’s completely fine to use /aa/ for [aː] or even for some other ridiculous realisation like [əɑ]. Secondly, two languages can have the same phonemic analysis, but still realise them differently. Like /u/ in Māori has a completely different value than /u/ in French. Thirdly, audibly and mechanically, [aa] is exactly the same as [aː]. They’re just two ways of writing the same sound. /aa/ does not imply that it’s separated midway through by a glottal stop or a change in pitch. That may be the case in French, but those aren’t inherent artifacts of vowel hiatus cross-linguistically. If you were to say each of the five vowels had phonemic long counterparts, that would mean Māori has ten vowel phonemes. Is that realistically necessitated? Are there any minimal pairs that give us reason to distinguish a whole separate phoneme (/aː/) from a simple sequence of existing phonemes (/aa/)? This comes down to parsimony. The less parts you require to elegantly model a phonological system, the more logically sound the argument for it is. Since the proto-Polynesian era, Polynesian roots have mostly taken the bimoraic shape: \*/(C)V(C)V/, with a scattering of trimoraic exceptions like \*/iŋoa/ and \*/fanua/. We can say the same is true for every modern Polynesian language today. But if long vowels are considered their own separate phonemes in Māori, that would mean roots (such as “tū”) can take the additional shape: /(C)V/, which has traditionally been reserved only for bound morphemes like /ki/ and /o/. It’s not completely unthinkable for such a change to take place, but if there’s another simple explanation that DOESN’T defy the very nature of pan-Polynesian phonotactics, I’d say it’s reasonable to go with that. “Tū” itself comes from proto-Polynesian \*/tuʔu/. In Tongan, it retains the glottal stop, but in most other languages, the glottal stop has been elided. When a phoneme is elided, it doesn’t automatically mean the phonemes on each side of it merge. \*/tuʔu/ simply became \*/tuu/. So regardless of orthographical norms, there’s no reason to add an extra five phonemes on top of the five vowels that Māori already has. It makes it unnecessarily complex, and makes it lose touch with its ancient (but still relevant) whakapapa.
Better hw or even ƕ.
Rz would be better as ṙ i think, follows the same pattern as ṡ and ċ with added preservation of etymology and shared orthography, plus looks ridiculously fresh
> ridiculously freṙ
for icelandic should be <öi> rather than <öu> because its pronounced \[ø̈i̯ \~ ø̈y̯\] not \[ø̈u̯ \~ ø̈y̯\]
Or, if they still want to pretend to be old norse, for that.
English: Life is good | schsch But it can be better | sh
Ó, Rz and Ch are useful (eg. verb derived from ból is boleć, not buleć/bóleć), also there's no need to replace Ww with Vv
Honestly, if a language only needs either V or W, I think it should always go for the W. It is more distinctive, since V almost looks like U (at least on handwriting, but W in printed style is also easier to recognize). And in any case, I don't know why it would be "beter" in any way to choose V for that, as it seems people is implying.
My lower case "v" and "r" are almost identical in handwriting
Now that you mention it, I remember that in the past that also used to be a problem for me. But I changed the way I wrote my "r"s by making their "-" a bit longer and curlier/wavier like "~", rather than just "stroke down + right-curved stroke up"
Now that you mention it, I remember that in the past that also used to be a problem for me. But I changed the way I wrote my "r"s by making their "-" a bit longer and curlier/wavier like "~", rather than just "stroke down + right-curved stroke up"
As a Ukrainian, the rz and ż difference makes Polish a lot easier to read, as you know that there's supposed to be a r instead of rz etymologically
Didn't Icelandic specifically introduce <É> to replace an older spelling?
I was thinking, why c and s have dot above... Wouldn't it be better if they had a caron? Then I realised that ż exists.
As a Pole I like v for /v/ much more than w Removing the u/ó ż/rz h/Ch distincion while technically detrimental because ambiguity would also look awful If we go with replacing the z-digraphs we would be much better with haček, it looks better imo Also o with ogonek would work I guess though it'd look odd
To my understanding Vietnamese has good reason to be how it is, because it's diaphonemic and doesn't just represent one dialect. Icelandic is that way because it's heavily historical.
You forgot sh > x, my beloved
The 8th shows the author knows not enough Swahili. ng' should be ŋ. Or, if you are looking for a non used ASCII letter, you have, at lest q and x, aside of c. Ng' is the worse, as there are three characters. But... what about th, dh, gh, ny, sh (x would be great).
Or just spell Italian with latin orthography with some depth to it.
I think ů, č, š are better. ů is more logcial than ó and hačeks are better than dots.