I recently had a chance to see a debate through a series of emails between Masha Bell and Vivian Cook, on the merits of spelling reform.Masha pitched for and Vivian against.People have been discussing this for quite some while.Reformers have been struggling to persuade the rest of the world ever since the incorporation of the society, but it hasn’t taken any shape yet.Being a spelling reform protagonist, I strongly believe that we need some regularization of English.And she put forth her mind quite well.I was pretty impressed with the conversation, until I saw addendum simplified glossary link. And I did a little search to check what the world think of it.
Almost everybody commented on this. Everybody is so opinionated, except a few like Percy Balemans (pbtranslations.com). As we always oppose change, so nothing new to it.Some said if Poor is Por, Your is Yor, Worse is Wors; then what about horse or hors. ( louise dade).Only the BBC web-page seem healthy to me. The good thing is that it created a stir. But it was too less to opine; too short to form opinionated interpretations, good or bad.Every healthy debate on reforms should be encouraged. I commend BBC.Why did they only notice the ‘wors’?What about the rest of it?Some called her a ‘foreigner’ and ‘ an idiot’; and the society ‘The moron’s society of people who can’t spell’.Who is more idiot than someone who himself is foreign to the difficulties their kids face in the real world?This all came from someone who just ain’t an idiot, but also inconsiderate. At least the society recognizes it.It was just an attempt to bring to notice that something is hindering the language acquisition, and we can do something to make it little easy for all those who feel distraught when they see word, worm, world, and even worse.And what about norm, storm, horn, etc., and warm, warn, and barn, farm, etc.They is a discontent on the level we want our spelling to be phonetic, to want extend we want to push our brains to remember words?The problem could be at the project front. Even if the society proposes spellings to be phonetic, we have got to remember specific patterns for similar sounds.It was just a suggestion.They clearly dont want to lower down the education standards; just want to add a little sense to it. (gwil.com)This might be coming from someone who himself is a reform protagonist, but I blindly dont agree to whatever they propose.I see it as a tender for a more reliable set of data, a more intelligent approach to the whole concept.Just free expressions of thought processes in the form of few nicely written articles won’t do any good. A lifestyle wherein we think about something so intensely for two or three days, and sleep on it the third day; you see an opportunity in something in new the fourth day, and you forget the previous ones the same day.Does anybody except the society think of it anymore? Not quite a many.Did any of those refined writers notice anything more than just wors?I dont think so.I happen to see the whole glossary. Real good suggestions except a few:Cupl.Difrence.Singl.Simpl.Therefor.Debateable: Peeple; Wors; Phonnic; Onely; Adicted; Bennefit, Tu,Exceptionally good: Memmory, Munny, Moast, Yung, Yor, Wer, Verry, Wun.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Proper nouns.
If you are the one who believe and often use the defensive phrase: “You can say whichever way you want if a word is a proper noun”; then it would be hard for you to see language studies as an alternate therapy for Alzheimer’s your entire life.‘No rule for proper nouns’ has come up as rule in modern English.
What could be the purpose of introduction of such a rule?Ignorance! It’s a rule for easy and early escape out of a possible embarrassment. We are ignorant of either the actual sound or the sound probabilities. No body would write a name if she is not convinced of the correctness of the arrangement of letters. So does that mean if we can’t read a name right we are wrong on something?What goes comes around. This rule is not a solution to the problem; is a harbinger of a much bigger problem instead, which has a multiplier effect. With this rule we can easily put the blame on others that they didn’t write it right and do nothing about it. But what if others are doing the same thing on the same grounds?And why this rule doesn’t apply to common nouns?May be we can afford to be ignorant, but not of everything. We are not expected to know everything but we are expected to know at least of the common nouns. And we can shirk the idea of pronouncing a proper noun the proper way for a while if we could not recognize sound with the written form. It also makes some sense.
No body is expected to be worldly-wise. The only reason behind this could be that proper nouns does not belong to a particular region; were spelled by different regions. There are innumerable things in the world and everything has got a name. This is just not it; on the top of it different people have named things differently.We can’t expect every body to remember a written image and the corresponding sound if we somehow can’t relate to that arrangement or can’t remember.We have always tried to pronounce words the ways they have been written and the way we learned by applying what had always been considered anything but an exact science; and been ill-defined ever since the introduction of script.
The fact is that a lot many people have been careless with English; of the way wespell words?A very few people could gather the gumption to re-spell.It’s a fact that if a spelling confound a noticeable %age of speakers it is more likely to stay that way, as you had always found it is difficult enough to use your cranial a bit.
But how would we check if we were right?There are a lot many words which owe their existence to original parent words and daddies are sorry to see their kids as they do not sound a bit like daddy words; the progeny doesn’t exhibit any sign of the progenitor; and sometimes daddies even refuse to accept their progeny, like the way they are.
We have always been very particular of the way somebody speaks; and we try to follow precision when we speak; and we are very peculiar about the way somebody pronounces words we use in our daily speech.And we expect everybody who speaks in a particular language to know of the standard (actual) pronunciation and speak the way it is.Say, if somebody pronounces a set of daily use words in a particular fashion different from what we follow and consider as astray, of the standard what we follow, we’ll take every liberty to presume.We’ll make perceptions and thence forth the communication would somehow be guided by the presumption we made.
——————————————————————————————————
There are two philosophies on the assimilation of foreign language words in English.One school of thoughts claims to be a proponent of pure English and very often criticizes the sub-continental influences from South-Asian linguists; and the other is of sub-continental linguists who challenge English hegemony by adding a tinge of their culture in their writings.I appreciate the work produced by the sub-continental linguists hither to and their contribution to the literary world. But I am critical of the sub-continental influence for only one reason; they do nothing to ensure the understandability, retention of original sound of foreign language words. Often the additions do not reflect the real sound.Nobody can rebut the argument that beauty of a language is in its ability to adapt; but there is no virtue in adaptation if it happens for no good. The very purpose of introduction of a foreign word is lost, even if it was not to confuse readers.As I always say: Do a structural compatibility check before you publish a work having sub-continental language word spelled with English alphabetic script.
What could be the purpose of introduction of such a rule?Ignorance! It’s a rule for easy and early escape out of a possible embarrassment. We are ignorant of either the actual sound or the sound probabilities. No body would write a name if she is not convinced of the correctness of the arrangement of letters. So does that mean if we can’t read a name right we are wrong on something?What goes comes around. This rule is not a solution to the problem; is a harbinger of a much bigger problem instead, which has a multiplier effect. With this rule we can easily put the blame on others that they didn’t write it right and do nothing about it. But what if others are doing the same thing on the same grounds?And why this rule doesn’t apply to common nouns?May be we can afford to be ignorant, but not of everything. We are not expected to know everything but we are expected to know at least of the common nouns. And we can shirk the idea of pronouncing a proper noun the proper way for a while if we could not recognize sound with the written form. It also makes some sense.
No body is expected to be worldly-wise. The only reason behind this could be that proper nouns does not belong to a particular region; were spelled by different regions. There are innumerable things in the world and everything has got a name. This is just not it; on the top of it different people have named things differently.We can’t expect every body to remember a written image and the corresponding sound if we somehow can’t relate to that arrangement or can’t remember.We have always tried to pronounce words the ways they have been written and the way we learned by applying what had always been considered anything but an exact science; and been ill-defined ever since the introduction of script.
The fact is that a lot many people have been careless with English; of the way wespell words?A very few people could gather the gumption to re-spell.It’s a fact that if a spelling confound a noticeable %age of speakers it is more likely to stay that way, as you had always found it is difficult enough to use your cranial a bit.
But how would we check if we were right?There are a lot many words which owe their existence to original parent words and daddies are sorry to see their kids as they do not sound a bit like daddy words; the progeny doesn’t exhibit any sign of the progenitor; and sometimes daddies even refuse to accept their progeny, like the way they are.
We have always been very particular of the way somebody speaks; and we try to follow precision when we speak; and we are very peculiar about the way somebody pronounces words we use in our daily speech.And we expect everybody who speaks in a particular language to know of the standard (actual) pronunciation and speak the way it is.Say, if somebody pronounces a set of daily use words in a particular fashion different from what we follow and consider as astray, of the standard what we follow, we’ll take every liberty to presume.We’ll make perceptions and thence forth the communication would somehow be guided by the presumption we made.
——————————————————————————————————
There are two philosophies on the assimilation of foreign language words in English.One school of thoughts claims to be a proponent of pure English and very often criticizes the sub-continental influences from South-Asian linguists; and the other is of sub-continental linguists who challenge English hegemony by adding a tinge of their culture in their writings.I appreciate the work produced by the sub-continental linguists hither to and their contribution to the literary world. But I am critical of the sub-continental influence for only one reason; they do nothing to ensure the understandability, retention of original sound of foreign language words. Often the additions do not reflect the real sound.Nobody can rebut the argument that beauty of a language is in its ability to adapt; but there is no virtue in adaptation if it happens for no good. The very purpose of introduction of a foreign word is lost, even if it was not to confuse readers.As I always say: Do a structural compatibility check before you publish a work having sub-continental language word spelled with English alphabetic script.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Society and bees.
Spelling societies and bees are pitted against each other for reasons well supported by their separate philosophies or business sense.Spelling societies would always campaign against linguistic oddities made business; which is very obvious as they are raking in, and are way ahead in league by addressing Language confounding as business. Society would probably say that the bees are cashing on linguistic oddities, somehow by supporting the language barrier created with time which kept us apart; and driving us away from a uniform usage of script to support the core of the language—-something which made communication between different societies difficult.
The whole idea of swatting those umpteen numbers of spellings of seldom used words and the study of different ways different regions put letters together to spell sounds with English alphabetic script, is worth a prize money or if it is really some study.It might astound a few of us to see kids spell those big and difficult words just by getting an inkling of the origin of the words. And also might upset us to see kids occupying themselves and their brains in the pursuit of recognition.We may have the liberty to look askance at the whole event only till the time is proved to be an alternative therapy to cure Alzheimer’s; is actually a very good sport to keep your brain healthy.The whole concept as a sport where you have to wrack your brain to get ahead in the league is what I see of the event.And I personally feel that the societies do not wish to cast aspersions on such a coveted title for no strong enough reasons.
They want us to understand the Language better, a social cause. And may be that’s the reason why we could device a reliable reform in 100 years.If there is anybody who should be blamed, it has got to be only and only the society. The very inception of which is social responsibility. Why we could not device a reform when we have world’s best linguists as member? Or do I see business interests coming in the way of a good reform? I may be wrong, but when I see the member list I could not think of anything else. Or may be members are just members.What I personally feel is that the society failed to get to the wick of the problem. They centered it around only the native speakers. English is not just English it’s an amalgamation of different languages, different writing styles, and different sound probabilities.We have to broaden the scope of spelling reform; it should target every possible region in the world. Till the time we don’t think global working on spelling reforms would be a lost cause.
People will not learn by themselves and even if they do they definitely won’t learn alike. Do we see any benefit in keeping it experimental? Language is language, not science. Even if it was science we cannot fiddle with it.Java is a computer language; we cannot mix two scripts on the pretext of developing a program; we invent applications in a language and that’s it. We develop applications separately in different scripts, we don’t mix two scripts. Even if we do, we use an application to help us relate two languages. But we’ve made English language a potpourri of different scripting styles from all over the world.Think of yourself as a computer for a while. You see a written word, you process it and you read it. A written word is a command for your brain and you are programmed to read it as defined by a particular language; you might read a word right with C++, but what if Java doesn’t support the coding.It is not that complicated. You may be under the influence of two scripting styles and till the time difference is not well-defined you will be confused or confuse.
The best way to campaign against bees is to get your act together and device a reform first. Develop language software which has no room for errors so that every brain performs a specific function; understand coding in a particular fashion; read command a specific way to perform a specific function. Minimize the room for probabilities by codifying the script.
The whole idea of swatting those umpteen numbers of spellings of seldom used words and the study of different ways different regions put letters together to spell sounds with English alphabetic script, is worth a prize money or if it is really some study.It might astound a few of us to see kids spell those big and difficult words just by getting an inkling of the origin of the words. And also might upset us to see kids occupying themselves and their brains in the pursuit of recognition.We may have the liberty to look askance at the whole event only till the time is proved to be an alternative therapy to cure Alzheimer’s; is actually a very good sport to keep your brain healthy.The whole concept as a sport where you have to wrack your brain to get ahead in the league is what I see of the event.And I personally feel that the societies do not wish to cast aspersions on such a coveted title for no strong enough reasons.
They want us to understand the Language better, a social cause. And may be that’s the reason why we could device a reliable reform in 100 years.If there is anybody who should be blamed, it has got to be only and only the society. The very inception of which is social responsibility. Why we could not device a reform when we have world’s best linguists as member? Or do I see business interests coming in the way of a good reform? I may be wrong, but when I see the member list I could not think of anything else. Or may be members are just members.What I personally feel is that the society failed to get to the wick of the problem. They centered it around only the native speakers. English is not just English it’s an amalgamation of different languages, different writing styles, and different sound probabilities.We have to broaden the scope of spelling reform; it should target every possible region in the world. Till the time we don’t think global working on spelling reforms would be a lost cause.
People will not learn by themselves and even if they do they definitely won’t learn alike. Do we see any benefit in keeping it experimental? Language is language, not science. Even if it was science we cannot fiddle with it.Java is a computer language; we cannot mix two scripts on the pretext of developing a program; we invent applications in a language and that’s it. We develop applications separately in different scripts, we don’t mix two scripts. Even if we do, we use an application to help us relate two languages. But we’ve made English language a potpourri of different scripting styles from all over the world.Think of yourself as a computer for a while. You see a written word, you process it and you read it. A written word is a command for your brain and you are programmed to read it as defined by a particular language; you might read a word right with C++, but what if Java doesn’t support the coding.It is not that complicated. You may be under the influence of two scripting styles and till the time difference is not well-defined you will be confused or confuse.
The best way to campaign against bees is to get your act together and device a reform first. Develop language software which has no room for errors so that every brain performs a specific function; understand coding in a particular fashion; read command a specific way to perform a specific function. Minimize the room for probabilities by codifying the script.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Speech habits hinder acceptance.
Proposal by commission on integration and cohesion to bar foreign origin British nationals from entering UK, on a plea to improve racial harmony, seems quite right in time.
For how long we need to procrastinate paradigm?
The proposal seems not to further on racial differences, but to have a check on it, to help you understand the true meaning of communication, to help you understand the importance of the right pronunciation of words, help people learn to respect sounds.
But how?
The whole concept seems so problematic for most of the South- Asians to actually make them do something about it. As they don’t know exactly which way to go, and they end up going nowhere.
Only hindrance is the understanding of physical arrangement of letters.
Most of the South- Asians have wrongly attached sound files with corresponding physical arrangements in their brains. Blame it on the education system. They pick mutilated sound files when they speak. English spelling structure is the easiest than the rest of the languages worldwide. They know words, their application, and every other possible thing, but not the right pronunciation. Mutilated sound files are hard wired in their brains.
Accent is not that much difficult to acquire, is like a rhythm to a song. But the mutilated word sounds kills their speech. They not only speak English language words like the way they do, they also write their native language words in English alphabetic script with the same perceptual understanding. The perceptual difference of the rhythm won’t make much of a difference if the lyrics are understandable. We have to get our basics right.
But the other side of the story is quite amazing. Instead of learning the right way, most of the South- Asians find it hard to suppress sniggers while listening to an American or Britt accent. Especially when an American or Britt read a typical Southeast Asian name spelled by South- Asians in English alphabetic script.
For how long we need to procrastinate paradigm?
The proposal seems not to further on racial differences, but to have a check on it, to help you understand the true meaning of communication, to help you understand the importance of the right pronunciation of words, help people learn to respect sounds.
But how?
The whole concept seems so problematic for most of the South- Asians to actually make them do something about it. As they don’t know exactly which way to go, and they end up going nowhere.
Only hindrance is the understanding of physical arrangement of letters.
Most of the South- Asians have wrongly attached sound files with corresponding physical arrangements in their brains. Blame it on the education system. They pick mutilated sound files when they speak. English spelling structure is the easiest than the rest of the languages worldwide. They know words, their application, and every other possible thing, but not the right pronunciation. Mutilated sound files are hard wired in their brains.
Accent is not that much difficult to acquire, is like a rhythm to a song. But the mutilated word sounds kills their speech. They not only speak English language words like the way they do, they also write their native language words in English alphabetic script with the same perceptual understanding. The perceptual difference of the rhythm won’t make much of a difference if the lyrics are understandable. We have to get our basics right.
But the other side of the story is quite amazing. Instead of learning the right way, most of the South- Asians find it hard to suppress sniggers while listening to an American or Britt accent. Especially when an American or Britt read a typical Southeast Asian name spelled by South- Asians in English alphabetic script.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, April 16, 2007
English kaleidoscope.
Language lobbyists fight back English language hegemony.
Recently in France some language lobbyists and traders have made a forum, and they are asking the government to ban English in France.
Is this the right way we should go about it?
Was this the last resort? Did we try other possible measures?
Sometimes it makes me think it’s possible, even easy,
May be it is! SRC, 2nd SRC, may be 3rd, and lot many nascent reorganizations round the corner.
But do we have any other option left?
Language is more liquid than we human are, but the catch is, you should know how to give it a shape. You cannot beat it; you cannot force it on anybody just like that. Say, if today some government cede to the pressure of language lobbyists, to an unwarranted plea of growth of their own regional language, to bar English, there is every possibility that after 5- 10 years you will find that region lagging behind in human race of development. This is what many states in India have realized. This is a bare truth. If you want to grow! Get out of the pigeonholes and learn to fly.
The best way to hedge against English language seemingly invincible hegemony would be to put a check on the Anglicization of words (sounds) from individual regions, than running away from reality by declaring a war against the English language dominance. Such an attempt would not be more than a lost cause.
The best approach would be of being an existentialist and start experimenting, discover new things that could help human kind, and then insist the dissemination in your own language or make your area the fulcrum of international trade. That’s the only possible way. No fuss, simple, most effective, but it also calls for determination.
Language is a help, to give form to what we want to say, what we want to talk about. Today, we want to talk about knowledge, technology, something new to talk about. Who would like to sing the same old song (same lyrics, same rhythm) over and over again?
Everybody wants to know something new, something we never heard before, never experienced, nobody want to be a lone wolf, mind you, lone wolves rarely talk.
Knowledge is what is appreciated, we want appreciation (definition varies); it is very human to expect appreciation. Almost everybody does.
So, nurture your need for appreciation. Stop being a dead beat, invent something good, we’ll talk about it, and there is every possibility we might learn your language by the course of time. That means, don’t just invent one thing, do as much as you can, we’ll appreciate the efforts, and seriously try to follow you, your work, and your language.
Why do we have to find the closest escape, swarming and crying wolf wolf?
If you cannot avoid being mushy-mushy, first kill the wolf with strong indigenous knowledge base, and justify crying.
Change the focus to what is more important for human kind: development of human kind, nothing else. Quest for knowledge will always take precedence. Make your language is a language of knowledge, so that everyone can follow it. Do it for the sake of the overall development, not just language.
Growth of our language is in our hands. Growth of a language is an obverse to the growth of knowledge. You can never move up the rung nor would the language ever have a foothold, if you choose to sing the same old song. Make sure that your language shows a wider picture, a promising one rather. Dearth of words of modern application creates gap. Fill the gap, make your own language kaleidoscope and show the world some real good pictures, and make them an addict.
Get your say edgewise, show that you are real good, and grow with that. Developing economies have a better chance to do that. Try to do something real good, invent something, if we want your language to grow and spoken worldwide.
Like the way we experienced, French monopoly, German monopoly (physics, chemistry), Greece (mathematics), et. al. That suggests either we take control by physical force or by intellectual force. Application of physical force; don’t even think about it. You try to drop one nuke; you will see 3-4 coming before you could actually hit the button. So, we are left only with the Hobson’s choice of doing it with the Intellectual Force. Use it and see the change.
Recently in France some language lobbyists and traders have made a forum, and they are asking the government to ban English in France.
Is this the right way we should go about it?
Was this the last resort? Did we try other possible measures?
Sometimes it makes me think it’s possible, even easy,
May be it is! SRC, 2nd SRC, may be 3rd, and lot many nascent reorganizations round the corner.
But do we have any other option left?
Language is more liquid than we human are, but the catch is, you should know how to give it a shape. You cannot beat it; you cannot force it on anybody just like that. Say, if today some government cede to the pressure of language lobbyists, to an unwarranted plea of growth of their own regional language, to bar English, there is every possibility that after 5- 10 years you will find that region lagging behind in human race of development. This is what many states in India have realized. This is a bare truth. If you want to grow! Get out of the pigeonholes and learn to fly.
The best way to hedge against English language seemingly invincible hegemony would be to put a check on the Anglicization of words (sounds) from individual regions, than running away from reality by declaring a war against the English language dominance. Such an attempt would not be more than a lost cause.
The best approach would be of being an existentialist and start experimenting, discover new things that could help human kind, and then insist the dissemination in your own language or make your area the fulcrum of international trade. That’s the only possible way. No fuss, simple, most effective, but it also calls for determination.
Language is a help, to give form to what we want to say, what we want to talk about. Today, we want to talk about knowledge, technology, something new to talk about. Who would like to sing the same old song (same lyrics, same rhythm) over and over again?
Everybody wants to know something new, something we never heard before, never experienced, nobody want to be a lone wolf, mind you, lone wolves rarely talk.
Knowledge is what is appreciated, we want appreciation (definition varies); it is very human to expect appreciation. Almost everybody does.
So, nurture your need for appreciation. Stop being a dead beat, invent something good, we’ll talk about it, and there is every possibility we might learn your language by the course of time. That means, don’t just invent one thing, do as much as you can, we’ll appreciate the efforts, and seriously try to follow you, your work, and your language.
Why do we have to find the closest escape, swarming and crying wolf wolf?
If you cannot avoid being mushy-mushy, first kill the wolf with strong indigenous knowledge base, and justify crying.
Change the focus to what is more important for human kind: development of human kind, nothing else. Quest for knowledge will always take precedence. Make your language is a language of knowledge, so that everyone can follow it. Do it for the sake of the overall development, not just language.
Growth of our language is in our hands. Growth of a language is an obverse to the growth of knowledge. You can never move up the rung nor would the language ever have a foothold, if you choose to sing the same old song. Make sure that your language shows a wider picture, a promising one rather. Dearth of words of modern application creates gap. Fill the gap, make your own language kaleidoscope and show the world some real good pictures, and make them an addict.
Get your say edgewise, show that you are real good, and grow with that. Developing economies have a better chance to do that. Try to do something real good, invent something, if we want your language to grow and spoken worldwide.
Like the way we experienced, French monopoly, German monopoly (physics, chemistry), Greece (mathematics), et. al. That suggests either we take control by physical force or by intellectual force. Application of physical force; don’t even think about it. You try to drop one nuke; you will see 3-4 coming before you could actually hit the button. So, we are left only with the Hobson’s choice of doing it with the Intellectual Force. Use it and see the change.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Numero-astro-and what not.
When I started working on the perplexities of structural behavior of letters, I thought that I m the only person in India who wants to change the spelling of his name. But to my surprise, Suniel Shetty, Veveik Oberoi, Reteish, Retiesh, and many others have already done it. Suniel was Sunil, Veveik was Vivek.
I am not sure of the purpose of such a monumental change.
Somebody told me, people often change the spelling their name to get lucky. You change your name to get some benefit out of numerology, or it’s just a self- realization after reading a lot many books, meeting lot many people who do not support the spelling, or something else. Or may be the media has done it all by itself, because media had been so liberal to possibly do anything, almost everything. It’s good to see at last we are not that rigid.
But how good? Akshaye, Suniel, Naseeruddin, Seif is Seif,and what not.
Self-awakening: realization of the fact that the spelling does not suggest what we actually are, or may be numerology, or may be Astrology, or something else.
If these all are individual innovative attempts, we can still accept. But not, if the media is trying to advertise that they no longer validate the dispersal of inadvertent follies, and is on the creative spelling spree. Because this is not going to help us much. You first corrupt something, and later on try to correct it in your personal smoke filled kitchens. Another bad food from amateur chefs, who had been dishing out bad food hither to, and the new menu is also not that much promising.
It’s actually good to see that we finally are confused.
But I am not sure of the origin of this confusion, may be they are fascinated by mystic numerals.
Numerals are magical.
We all want to maximize the possibility of our dreams coming true.
Numerology suggests that if things are not working the way they should, its time to do a spell check.
It’s an art. With numerology you can manipulate the destiny of your child. Almost everybody wants their children to do good in life. I won’t be surprised if today I get to know of some healthy mothers expected to give a perfect birth (scissor less), crying out loud before time, not because of labors, and not because of any health related (body) reasons, but of the unhealthy credo.
“Doctor, I want it right now, today, not any other day, otherwise it won’t be of use”. Doctor: “but it not time yet”. Mother: “I don’t need a scum bag”, “I need a scientist”, “If not today, I don’t need it at all”.
Synchronized birth, right time, right date, right year, and may be the right name: one, two, three, et, al.
But now I think that I should study numerology as well. It seems promising, you don’t have to do much, just change the spelling of your name. The extra ‘s’ in my name is just to check if does any good. The formula is very simple, your name and your date of birth is reduced to a digit separately. I seriously do not know how can we get lucky with digits, but every digit (the final digit) corresponds a particular trait, and you can alter it if you can manipulate the final sum.
I wish if I could resurrect, but am no Jesus, but its o.k.
And I simply matched the final sum of the all the digits in my D.O.B with that of my name. I changed the spelling.
And if works for me, I m going to plan for synchronized babies. And then I m going to rule the world.
But I am in quandary as I also got a change to know that sounds also have some magical powers.
I have read in Hindu mythology that warriors used to say something to their arrows, and a regular arrow would transform itself in to a sophisticated missile( something close to a nuke) and the Naam Karan Sanskar( this is how they spell it), similar to christening ceremony, when you are given a name. A branch of astrology, which suggests that your name should start with a particular sound, considering all the astrological calculation.
To sum it up, a belief that sound energy can be transformed in to mechanical energy or some magical power to do wonders for you.
Which one is more powerful?
Shall I follow Numerology or Astrology, or my own creative self?
(This article does not mean to offend anybody)
I am not sure of the purpose of such a monumental change.
Somebody told me, people often change the spelling their name to get lucky. You change your name to get some benefit out of numerology, or it’s just a self- realization after reading a lot many books, meeting lot many people who do not support the spelling, or something else. Or may be the media has done it all by itself, because media had been so liberal to possibly do anything, almost everything. It’s good to see at last we are not that rigid.
But how good? Akshaye, Suniel, Naseeruddin, Seif is Seif,and what not.
Self-awakening: realization of the fact that the spelling does not suggest what we actually are, or may be numerology, or may be Astrology, or something else.
If these all are individual innovative attempts, we can still accept. But not, if the media is trying to advertise that they no longer validate the dispersal of inadvertent follies, and is on the creative spelling spree. Because this is not going to help us much. You first corrupt something, and later on try to correct it in your personal smoke filled kitchens. Another bad food from amateur chefs, who had been dishing out bad food hither to, and the new menu is also not that much promising.
It’s actually good to see that we finally are confused.
But I am not sure of the origin of this confusion, may be they are fascinated by mystic numerals.
Numerals are magical.
We all want to maximize the possibility of our dreams coming true.
Numerology suggests that if things are not working the way they should, its time to do a spell check.
It’s an art. With numerology you can manipulate the destiny of your child. Almost everybody wants their children to do good in life. I won’t be surprised if today I get to know of some healthy mothers expected to give a perfect birth (scissor less), crying out loud before time, not because of labors, and not because of any health related (body) reasons, but of the unhealthy credo.
“Doctor, I want it right now, today, not any other day, otherwise it won’t be of use”. Doctor: “but it not time yet”. Mother: “I don’t need a scum bag”, “I need a scientist”, “If not today, I don’t need it at all”.
Synchronized birth, right time, right date, right year, and may be the right name: one, two, three, et, al.
But now I think that I should study numerology as well. It seems promising, you don’t have to do much, just change the spelling of your name. The extra ‘s’ in my name is just to check if does any good. The formula is very simple, your name and your date of birth is reduced to a digit separately. I seriously do not know how can we get lucky with digits, but every digit (the final digit) corresponds a particular trait, and you can alter it if you can manipulate the final sum.
I wish if I could resurrect, but am no Jesus, but its o.k.
And I simply matched the final sum of the all the digits in my D.O.B with that of my name. I changed the spelling.
And if works for me, I m going to plan for synchronized babies. And then I m going to rule the world.
But I am in quandary as I also got a change to know that sounds also have some magical powers.
I have read in Hindu mythology that warriors used to say something to their arrows, and a regular arrow would transform itself in to a sophisticated missile( something close to a nuke) and the Naam Karan Sanskar( this is how they spell it), similar to christening ceremony, when you are given a name. A branch of astrology, which suggests that your name should start with a particular sound, considering all the astrological calculation.
To sum it up, a belief that sound energy can be transformed in to mechanical energy or some magical power to do wonders for you.
Which one is more powerful?
Shall I follow Numerology or Astrology, or my own creative self?
(This article does not mean to offend anybody)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)