Diacritics.

We see ‘a:’, ‘ei’, ‘’, ‘æ’, in an A. Sanskrit, kaya clinic,
See ei, ai, æ, in ‘ai’ combination. Paisa, Jain, saif, Mumbai,
See ei in ‘e’ venu, renu, jadeja, star savera, et. al.
i: comes so easy with ‘ee’ combination.
Seema, reema, geeta, and what not.
Most of us do not understand the purpose of a diacritic: cedilla, umlaut, grave, acute, circumflex, caron, et. al.
We all have been so innocent: Nobody told us, and who so ever did (indirectly: media) were no better.
Such like application is a disservice to the concept of diphthongs/vowel combinations. Why would we need a vowel combination if can we do away with it, and keep it simple?
It is not that much difficult to keep the spellings short, simple, and easily understandable, suggesting a particular way (a particular sound) in which it should be pronounced.
The use of diacritics marks.
Most of us actually don’t know, and even if a few do, application differences are observed. And in most of the cases, out of all those who follow diacritics, not everybody follow a specific usage. It is actually gratuitous to English language and most of the times we really do not need them. But we do what we do: Blinkered.
Perfect example: the word resume. Some say it rezju:mei, some say it rezum( short snapped ‘U’ sound). Some write it as résumé, some resumé, and some resume.
The word ‘façade’: a very few would the know purpose of a cedilla.
Détente, detente,
The word bruchetta, Montenegro, skodo, et. al.( refer to page no.____)
But the big question remains unanswered: Do we really need to remember such like small signs, when the most of our friends scrawl? It makes it practically implausible to discover diacritics in an illegible scrawl.
But diacritics have their application, purpose, and the fact is, sometimes we really need them to keep the true sounds come easy. Ignorance of the structural arrangement of letters to get the sound right has given a new direction to the spelling, reading, and pronunciation habits.
ci-t Italian
ai, ei, ay-ai German.
If we try to regularize the use of diacritics before educating everybody of the structural vagaries, it won’t help us much, would complicated things. The regularization of the usage of diacritics should not be done prior to the structural arrangement (structural behavior) regularization. As different languages across the globe use diacritics for different purposes (same diacritic but varied application in different regions or within a particular region).
The idea is to understand the structural arrangement first and see if we really need them, and if we can do without them. Because it has been observed that in most of the cases that we don’t actually need them, but we apply, and which in turn lead to alternate pronunciations and sound confounding. English language never used much diacritics, except a few borrowed words (French). And it would be in the interest of word-sounds, if we can see if we need a diacritic or not to get a particular sound. Not like the way we are managing things (varied appl. from a single diacritic) at present, and damaging the sounds. We assimilate a foreign language word (spelling) with accent marks without structural compatibility test and in most of the cases at a later stage we omit accent marks. Like the obsolete umlaut in cooperate, reenact, et. al., as it has been falling out of use.
The idea is we should use accent marks for vowel apophony, only when we cannot get the right sound with structural alterations, to keep the structure short, simple, and easily understandable. Is rather gratuitous for English language, as most of the times we really do not need them, but we assimilated foreign words like the way they were spelled by different foreign regions, and later on we damaged the sounds.
Montenegro:
This won’t make much of a difference to libertarians as they keep on damaging the sounds, as they read what they understand, as they don’t want to see beyond script. But the question is: Do we really need to?
Not in every other place.
But at least we should act in time.
Circumflex seems to be replaced by acute mark, and in some languages represent a lax sound, to distinguish homonyms, to suggest ‘s’ sound or ‘ð’ after the vowel with circumflex mark, sometimes to represent ‘a:’ sound (Turkish), sometimes to simply suggest that the vowel to be simply of a longer duration, or rise and fall of the pitch, sometimes to keep space for analogies to replace the silent ‘ugh’ (eighteenth century), et.al.
All these usages were observed to simplify the spelling but did not solve the purpose as such, as the usage was not codified and different applications and different perception existed. Instead of simplification we added to the already existing confounding.
The idea is, if we introduce something new, and the very purpose of which is simplification, and universal application, it should be told to every-possible-body. As it does not make sense in today’s modern world, you introduce something for a specific region (small) without precisely indicating the application to the rest of the world, and you simply pass on the word for the universal acceptance with such a unique mark without any indication of the pronunciation, and at a later stage you cry for the right pronunciation like the way you do. Till the time you don’t tell the world, how would the world get to know the right pronunciation?
The fact is, if we codify the use of diacritics and the educate everybody about it, we won’t misconstrue a foreign language word (spelled with English alphabetic script). Which is not that much difficult. Example: pa:tei, pætei or paste.
The unwarranted fascination for the letter ‘a’ to get every possible sound from the poor ilk, is responsible for most of the sound- spelling confounding in South-east Asia. It seems to me as if each time the letter ‘a’ is crying loud: “I am not this sound please don’t use me”, “why the hell you need me everywhere?”. But we never listened to the poor ‘a’. For how long can one take this disrespect?
And now I hear no cries but laugh: ha ha!“ I m done with your love”, and if you don’t care, I’ll damage your speech”.
Without any recourse on the structural behavior of letters, especially vowels, we would only damage sounds and probably make them conspicuously long. And the popularization of these transmuted sounds and unnecessarily lengthened words will further on the confusion. The ignorance of structural arrangement has given a new direction to spelling and reading habits.
South-east Asians spell their native language words with no better structural understanding than the easy superimposition of their native sounds with English alphabetic script, by simply comparing every sound with close alternative available in English, either be separate letters or combinations (vowel), with the same flow which they follow to spell words in Hindi script. ‘ee’ combination is the most popular combination for ‘ i:’ sound. And the sound ‘i:’ come so easy with ‘ee’ that they do not bother to see beyond. Just like the way they understand their language. To quote an example: if they had to spell they would simply superimpose with ‘s’ , with ‘ee’, with ‘m’, with ‘a’.
Recently I got to know from “Believe me I m only 24”, by Priyanka Dasgupta(TOI), that pollywood( come on, you know it) actor Meeraa proclaimed, that she is only 24, on the provocation by critics who think otherwise.
I was amazed: How does it affect anybody if she 24 or less? And also, it is improprietous to comment on her age. Isn’t it enough that she is beautiful?
But somebody told me that critics are critics, this is only what they do. O.k. fine.
I hate all those critics who just say because they have to say something. Her name (meeraa) itself suggests just the opposite. Suggest that she is of tender age, if not the disposition the spelling prowess.
Is a very popular name, and we really do not need these many letters to spell it the way it was spelled.
The answer to the spelling and pronunciation confounding is not far away from the core of the problem.
There is remarkable similarity in the different follies, the way a particular area would understand the sub language. “ jaldi karro”, “ yeh kya kar diya”.
We won’t take much time if we had seen such a script before. The idea is, it is not that difficult to understand a particular style of structural arrangement of letters to write any language with the help of English alphabetic script. And if we can read such a script with remarkable improvement in understanding of the style and with increasing ease in reading, as long as we are aware of the sounds, it is not that difficult to understand the paradigm. The knowledge of the sounds is very important.
In fact, the paradigm is much simpler than any of these writing styles.