Have we made ourselves rigid enough to speak in a way that is not understandable to the rest of the world?
Yes! It’s true.
Who would appreciate if someone read their name wrong? A few would take offence; a few would start giving sound lessons, or even start justifying the spelling; but almost all of us would assume that either they belong to a different world or never heard of your name before; and that’s reason why they say it the way they say it.
Learn the phonemic symbols and start writing your name with phonemic symbols, is what I suggest.
Either learn the widely acceptable way or wear a tag having your name transcribed in phonemic symbols, every time you go out and meet new people. Wear a tag and simply point at the tag or write it; as there is every possibility of you being addressed by a different name altogether.Or you can choose to confuse them and let them make fun of either your name or of themselves. If you are not loyal to your name then how could you expect other to be?
Either say it and help them remember the sound or let them have the liberty to guess.But mind you: never say and show them the way you’ve been writing your name simultaneously.How faithful to your name are you?
It’s a matter of concern not restricted to the world you interact with, but all across the planet called earth. We don’t have to elaborate much because I think that you have seen Grammy, Cannes, or you may have experienced it by yourself at some point in your lives. How people flounder when they see script form of a new name, they haven’t seen before?
It could be a perfect topic to start a conversion in an informal set-up. It will consume 3 to 4 minutes, and you’ll have a fair chance of smoothly drifting to other interesting topics theretofore. It may not affect an informal conversation, but when it comes to business, initial 3-4 minutes matters a lot, especially over the phone.It makes your job lot easier if you can get it right the first time. If you’ve dialed for Collections, sales (outbound) you would know what I m talking about. A noticeable number of hours are spent helping new recruits of BPO industry familiarize with foreign name sounds. But it has been proved to be a total waste of time and efforts spent. And proved us as poor comprehenders /decoders when it comes to foreign names.
What you think would be the reason why people pronounce names wrongly?
Business needs higher language capabilities; would never want you to get in to something, which is astray, or not even the business; or is bad for business. For business economies matter. How can we increase the productivity and reduce turn-round time? Business does not want us to confuse or get confuse.
Either you happen to be a native speaker or not it doesn’t actually matter. Every region has its unique scripting style. Most of the times it seems that you can’t do much about it. You can’t really help it as it’s stuck in our brains for a lot many reasons. It’s all over our speech like a spell.
What would you think be the reason why everybody is given an alias in BPO industry?
What goes comes around. Just think about it.
I would love to share an instance with you. BHEL is the abbreviation for Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited. BHEL has their plant in Garwaal District (India). A lot many locals work with BHEL. You ask them the name of the organization they work for, they would say B-H-E-L; not like the we say VAT (value added tax) and such like abbreviations as a separate word having its own separate identity as a word. They are very peculiar about the way they say it. They would say every letter separately because their interpretation of this written form is a taboo word, which means ‘ass’. And if they had to read it as one word, they’ll read it as ‘*’. I was with my friends. One of them was from Garwaal who obviously knew the meaning of ‘*’. A she friend with wandering eyes saw street side cart selling ‘Bhail pu:ri:’. She asked the ‘ pury’ guy if his ‘*’ is fresh. To my amusement he said, may be this is your first time, but it’s as fresh as it’s always been. Suddenly the friend from Garwaal went to his favorite resort. He was upset. Nobody but I knew the reason. He was upset of the idea of mixing food with something he thought can’t be delicious. He was so upset with the “bhel pury” that he decided not to have it. I knew what was running in his mind, which to some extent was running in my mind too; but the take was different. I could not hold on to my disposition any longer and shared with everybody his mind, and what exactly made him decide not to eat. It was fun.
The idea is that it’s not BHEL, not Bhel-pury, and not even a**, but us. Neither BHEL nor your Bhel would tell what exactly it is. You have to see which one of it you want to eat, or if you really have an appetite for it; in which context it’s used in the sentence. It’s actually something heavier and tasteless than any Bhel can ever be; and that is something which is burned on your brain to keep you from seeing and relish few nicest things in life.
BHEL as word is an inkling to yet another aspect of sub-scripting styles. There are a few letter sounds, which are close to English letter sounds but not quite those sounds. “BH” combination is used to get “*” sound in South-East Asia. We will discuss such like combinations; chances and possibilities of getting worldwide recognition later.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Saturday, December 15, 2007
CASE AGAINST SPELLING REFORM.
1. Public apathy and prejudice.
People are reluctant to switch to another system of writing considering the difficulties faced while learning the current spelling system.The learned populace still faces difficulties with script though. People write which a lot many people dont understand or different people understand differently, something the writer didn’t mean.See beyond words give you a new perspective towards script. It clearly doesn’t suggest in anyway that you have to take the same sort of trouble again, as learning new scripting style could be equally gruesome as learning the present orthography.It helps you relate to the present orthography better. Doesn’t suggest to forget what we’ve learned hither to; suggests you to accept the remedial script which is already a part of the present orthography. All we have to do is to regularize specific approaches to gage a specific sound forms. It’s system of writing where we pick the best of different scripting styles. A system where we dont have to remember the appearance of every words and sound separately; a system with which it’s easy to get to the sound form if we see the visual form and the otherwise.
2. There is a fear of adaptability to a new strange writing style.
See beyond words brings out which already exists in our present writing style, is not strange at all. It gives you the best possible permutation and helps you recognize it. Present suggestions to channelize the English writing style and brings out the benefits of a universally followed writing style. It attempts distinguish sub-scripting styles with that of English.Does not recommend a total make over.
3. Spelling reform is an attempt to lower down the education system.
Sir William Darling: “I am of the opinion that it [spelling reform] is an attempt to step down our education standard, because reading English is a little difficult in as much as it requires concentration and thought, and well-intentioned persons should not make it easier.”
Low education standard—–Do we need to learn every other scripting style if we just want to learn English? What standard to we talk about? English scripting style is not at all standard. We have Indian script, Spanish, German, French, etc.This is nothing less than being dual standard. First we allow different scripts to percolate and be a part of English and then we distort original word forms.I dont understand why we do to other language entries which we would never encouraged otherwise.We accept mutilated word forms as per the Standard English pronunciation and writing style, and latter we somehow change the very identity of the word.By doing this we not only damaging individual word forms, we are also corrupting English script.We can maintain standards if we do a structural compatibility check with all new foreign entries as per a well defined English scripting style.And concentration of thoughts is much require with some more intensive studies with human welfare perspective, like healthcare, medicine, engineering, etc., not with language for God sake.Language is for free flow of ideas.
4. Implementation.
This is the only argument which seems quite genuine to me. Simplified spelling society has an implementation plan to take reform forward.But before that we have to decide on the reform itself.The best approach would be to decide on a reform first—–create a need—–educate people of the benefits——create a commendable work first.Implementation is secondary. If there has to be a body for the implementation, it definitely need not be SSC. It had never been the objective of the organization. And if they come forward to implement it too, nothing would be better than that.
5. Printers won’t welcome reform.
The argument, that it would create confusion for typesetters and slow down their work is nothing but under-mining the capabilities of the typesetters.This argument is not a valid argument in Digital era; with computer aided phototypesetting and high resolution imaging printers dont have to rely on the spelling skills of type-setters. And even if some printers use Linotype machines, a reformed text would test the operators on the very nature of their job, not on their spelling skills.
6. With reformed spelling we would’ve to reprint all of the books.
No at all! This could invariably be one of the criteria to select suitable reform. The perfect reform would be the one which suggests smooth switch from old to new orthography. Even if we have to reprint some books, that would solely be on demand basis and boost economy. To ensure smooth sailing we can easily add suggestions as to help people read and learn the new writing style in every book printed with new orthography for nascent years.
7. Foreign words won’t be easily recognized by foreigners.
At least they are recognizing the fact that native speakers of different languages dont understand the English versions in sound form.That means that we also recognize the fact that original word sound changes when a word is assimilated to English language.Why should the sound change?The very purpose of script is to reflect the sound form. If the script form doesn’t reflect the core word sound, there got to be something wrong.The argument that foreigners may not be understand words when they hear it, but at least will have no difficulty in recognizing them when they are written down. This argument clearly defies the very concept of language, the purpose of a language. Are they suggesting that we you can’t understand what they say or either ways, we should exchange slips.I dont understand why they cry for only spellings, when they can’t retain the original sounds. May be original word sounds are very hard to trace and the only easily assessable thing is what we cry about. If we have to be so particular about something, then why only spellings, why not sounds this time?First of all we have to differentiate foreign languages on the basis of respective alphabetic scripts. The argument that French won’t recognize the reformed spelling of French words in English doesn’t have any solid grounds. There is also a population which didn’t use English alphabetic script to write words like Urdu, Hindi, Chinese, etc., but have started using it with the popularity of English. And those French origin words or any other language word would be as alien as the words from those many different languages with a total different sound to letter relationship. Words from a region like India, China, Pakistan would definitely French for even French.
8. Reform would complicate grammar rules.
English grammar rules like making plural forms by adding ’s’ or ‘es’; verb forms by adding ’s’ and ‘es’; past tense with the addition of ‘ed’.There is discontent over the change of grammar rules based on pronunciation. Is this just because a few proposals which suggested to make it more phonetic.See beyond words identifies it as an advantage to English and does not suggest nouziz for noses, cabz for cabs, boiz for boys, or walkd for walked, etc.,.Rather provides sound ascertaining techniques.
9. Phonetic spelling would be disservice to scientists.
An argument that scientific terms are written forms and they dont have pronunciation.May be that’s the reason why I couldn’t ever figure out a doctor’s prescription. They are always confused over “how to spell”, and what they write is far from what we understand as a written word.May be the spelling of drugs are quite difficult to remember, so they write a few recognizable letter and for the rest of it you have to guess.But I had this habit of asking every time of the pronunciation, so as to remember which medicine to take at what time.
What I understand is that today we have different brand names for a specific medicine or a specific combination. It’s quite easy to remember those few names, easily understandable and written. But they’re still confused.A phonetic spelling is not a disservice to anybody; the only disservice if any is when we distort names be it of scientific, historic or religious importance or anything for that matter. Forget about scientific terms for a while; I presume that a scientist wouldn’t like if somebody recognize him or their invention as just a spelling and that too distorted many a times. We are humans for Good sake! Scientists are not Tomatoes or Potatoes. We don’t have the liberty to treat them alike, so as to say “po-Tat-o or po-taa-to, or to-Mat-o or to-Maat-o.
10. No reform is good enough for
11. Argument that the language ain’t static, it changes with time.The argument that the spoken language changed a lot from King Alfred, to Chaucer’s, to Shakespeare’s, to what we speak today has not evidence at all. We did not have human voice recording technology before Edison’s “Mary had a little lamb”, 1877(ref: Steve Schoenherr). The only evidence we have is of orthography change. English writing style changed a lot.How does a language change?a. Language changes when two language mix.b. Changes with the introduction of new language words.This is actually good for a language. Language bank increases; people get to know new things, new processes, new ways of doing things. This is good for everybody. People come together share thing, learn things.The only change that’s not good for any language is, when people start damaging the integrity of individual words. They start playing with the language; interpret word sound wrongly or differently; mis-spell, mis-pronounce. See beyond words suggests not just a new writing system but also a learning system for everybody. Want it to be follow universally. Want to free English from the influence of different sub-scripting style to affect different languages and speakers.
11. Argument that English is not uniformly pronounced across the world.The very purpose of “See beyond script” is to provide a tool to read, write, speak and communicate easily. The number of English speakers outside nations with English as first language is much more as compared to the latter. There are as many different way of speaking as different languages in the world. Everybody speaks English differently.The argument that a reform won’t be of no help to a Yorkshire boy, for whom ‘wheat’ and ‘red’ have same vowel sound is nothing but petty fogging, as the majority of English speakers is in India, Pakistan, china, etc., specifically in India than any other country in the whole world. The count is way too high. And I personally feel that no country can beat it, considering the population growth rate and the economic predictions. So do we want to help a few Yorkshire boys or a big population which has a unique way of pronouncing words, a totally different ways of ascertaining the phonemic value attached to a word, and a unique style of arranging letters to represent a sound form? Why English words borrowed from Hindi language do not indicate the actual pronunciation to the rest of the world? We should take a hint from this. Do we want to streamline things or, give good enough reasons for a huge ignorant population to coin new word forms which don’t suggest anything close to the actual pronunciation? Or utter sound that’s not close to actual pronunciation?And these disparities would further increase if we don’t act now.
12. The argument that all homophones would be spelled same if a reform is introduced.That all of the homophones would come under same spelling and all homographs would have different spelling.a. Homophones.A reform would necessarily suggest same spelling form homophones. The existence of homophones could be trace to two basic root causes:1. Different ways of arrangement of letters to give a specific sound value.2. Different perceptions over the sound value attached to particular set of letters.www.bifroest.demon.co.uk has a list of 441 homophones.A question could arise that why do we need different ways to represent a specific sound?There is no harm if we more than one way of arranging letters to give a specific sound, unless it’s contradictory.For Example: ‘ai’ digraph is used to represent soft ‘a’ sound; also a soft open syllable like ‘pane’.The argument that we still have two or three ways to decipher a sound, then what’s the use of a reform, and would that be called standardization?We already have lot many heteronyms (same spelling same sound, but different meanings) in English; also the meaning and application of words changes with time. This is the beauty of English. This will not add to the difficulties faced while learning English.The meaning changes with the context.Homograph is a perfect example of ‘take a guess’, while it’s not the case with homophone. But you are sure of the application and the sound value attached with homophones. You can learn different applications of words with time.Perfect example of a homograph: The digraph ‘ei’. ‘EI’ exhibit different sound value in different words. It could be soft ‘a’ sound, soft ‘e’ sound, soft pure ‘i’ sound (refer to page no.____), solid ‘e’ sound. A source of confusion.
See beyond words attempt to codify words; recognize a specific sound value from a letter if arranged in a particular fashion. All we have to do is to remember them. Nothing less, nothing more.Considering this we definitely need a uniform orthography.
People are reluctant to switch to another system of writing considering the difficulties faced while learning the current spelling system.The learned populace still faces difficulties with script though. People write which a lot many people dont understand or different people understand differently, something the writer didn’t mean.See beyond words give you a new perspective towards script. It clearly doesn’t suggest in anyway that you have to take the same sort of trouble again, as learning new scripting style could be equally gruesome as learning the present orthography.It helps you relate to the present orthography better. Doesn’t suggest to forget what we’ve learned hither to; suggests you to accept the remedial script which is already a part of the present orthography. All we have to do is to regularize specific approaches to gage a specific sound forms. It’s system of writing where we pick the best of different scripting styles. A system where we dont have to remember the appearance of every words and sound separately; a system with which it’s easy to get to the sound form if we see the visual form and the otherwise.
2. There is a fear of adaptability to a new strange writing style.
See beyond words brings out which already exists in our present writing style, is not strange at all. It gives you the best possible permutation and helps you recognize it. Present suggestions to channelize the English writing style and brings out the benefits of a universally followed writing style. It attempts distinguish sub-scripting styles with that of English.Does not recommend a total make over.
3. Spelling reform is an attempt to lower down the education system.
Sir William Darling: “I am of the opinion that it [spelling reform] is an attempt to step down our education standard, because reading English is a little difficult in as much as it requires concentration and thought, and well-intentioned persons should not make it easier.”
Low education standard—–Do we need to learn every other scripting style if we just want to learn English? What standard to we talk about? English scripting style is not at all standard. We have Indian script, Spanish, German, French, etc.This is nothing less than being dual standard. First we allow different scripts to percolate and be a part of English and then we distort original word forms.I dont understand why we do to other language entries which we would never encouraged otherwise.We accept mutilated word forms as per the Standard English pronunciation and writing style, and latter we somehow change the very identity of the word.By doing this we not only damaging individual word forms, we are also corrupting English script.We can maintain standards if we do a structural compatibility check with all new foreign entries as per a well defined English scripting style.And concentration of thoughts is much require with some more intensive studies with human welfare perspective, like healthcare, medicine, engineering, etc., not with language for God sake.Language is for free flow of ideas.
4. Implementation.
This is the only argument which seems quite genuine to me. Simplified spelling society has an implementation plan to take reform forward.But before that we have to decide on the reform itself.The best approach would be to decide on a reform first—–create a need—–educate people of the benefits——create a commendable work first.Implementation is secondary. If there has to be a body for the implementation, it definitely need not be SSC. It had never been the objective of the organization. And if they come forward to implement it too, nothing would be better than that.
5. Printers won’t welcome reform.
The argument, that it would create confusion for typesetters and slow down their work is nothing but under-mining the capabilities of the typesetters.This argument is not a valid argument in Digital era; with computer aided phototypesetting and high resolution imaging printers dont have to rely on the spelling skills of type-setters. And even if some printers use Linotype machines, a reformed text would test the operators on the very nature of their job, not on their spelling skills.
6. With reformed spelling we would’ve to reprint all of the books.
No at all! This could invariably be one of the criteria to select suitable reform. The perfect reform would be the one which suggests smooth switch from old to new orthography. Even if we have to reprint some books, that would solely be on demand basis and boost economy. To ensure smooth sailing we can easily add suggestions as to help people read and learn the new writing style in every book printed with new orthography for nascent years.
7. Foreign words won’t be easily recognized by foreigners.
At least they are recognizing the fact that native speakers of different languages dont understand the English versions in sound form.That means that we also recognize the fact that original word sound changes when a word is assimilated to English language.Why should the sound change?The very purpose of script is to reflect the sound form. If the script form doesn’t reflect the core word sound, there got to be something wrong.The argument that foreigners may not be understand words when they hear it, but at least will have no difficulty in recognizing them when they are written down. This argument clearly defies the very concept of language, the purpose of a language. Are they suggesting that we you can’t understand what they say or either ways, we should exchange slips.I dont understand why they cry for only spellings, when they can’t retain the original sounds. May be original word sounds are very hard to trace and the only easily assessable thing is what we cry about. If we have to be so particular about something, then why only spellings, why not sounds this time?First of all we have to differentiate foreign languages on the basis of respective alphabetic scripts. The argument that French won’t recognize the reformed spelling of French words in English doesn’t have any solid grounds. There is also a population which didn’t use English alphabetic script to write words like Urdu, Hindi, Chinese, etc., but have started using it with the popularity of English. And those French origin words or any other language word would be as alien as the words from those many different languages with a total different sound to letter relationship. Words from a region like India, China, Pakistan would definitely French for even French.
8. Reform would complicate grammar rules.
English grammar rules like making plural forms by adding ’s’ or ‘es’; verb forms by adding ’s’ and ‘es’; past tense with the addition of ‘ed’.There is discontent over the change of grammar rules based on pronunciation. Is this just because a few proposals which suggested to make it more phonetic.See beyond words identifies it as an advantage to English and does not suggest nouziz for noses, cabz for cabs, boiz for boys, or walkd for walked, etc.,.Rather provides sound ascertaining techniques.
9. Phonetic spelling would be disservice to scientists.
An argument that scientific terms are written forms and they dont have pronunciation.May be that’s the reason why I couldn’t ever figure out a doctor’s prescription. They are always confused over “how to spell”, and what they write is far from what we understand as a written word.May be the spelling of drugs are quite difficult to remember, so they write a few recognizable letter and for the rest of it you have to guess.But I had this habit of asking every time of the pronunciation, so as to remember which medicine to take at what time.
What I understand is that today we have different brand names for a specific medicine or a specific combination. It’s quite easy to remember those few names, easily understandable and written. But they’re still confused.A phonetic spelling is not a disservice to anybody; the only disservice if any is when we distort names be it of scientific, historic or religious importance or anything for that matter. Forget about scientific terms for a while; I presume that a scientist wouldn’t like if somebody recognize him or their invention as just a spelling and that too distorted many a times. We are humans for Good sake! Scientists are not Tomatoes or Potatoes. We don’t have the liberty to treat them alike, so as to say “po-Tat-o or po-taa-to, or to-Mat-o or to-Maat-o.
10. No reform is good enough for
11. Argument that the language ain’t static, it changes with time.The argument that the spoken language changed a lot from King Alfred, to Chaucer’s, to Shakespeare’s, to what we speak today has not evidence at all. We did not have human voice recording technology before Edison’s “Mary had a little lamb”, 1877(ref: Steve Schoenherr). The only evidence we have is of orthography change. English writing style changed a lot.How does a language change?a. Language changes when two language mix.b. Changes with the introduction of new language words.This is actually good for a language. Language bank increases; people get to know new things, new processes, new ways of doing things. This is good for everybody. People come together share thing, learn things.The only change that’s not good for any language is, when people start damaging the integrity of individual words. They start playing with the language; interpret word sound wrongly or differently; mis-spell, mis-pronounce. See beyond words suggests not just a new writing system but also a learning system for everybody. Want it to be follow universally. Want to free English from the influence of different sub-scripting style to affect different languages and speakers.
11. Argument that English is not uniformly pronounced across the world.The very purpose of “See beyond script” is to provide a tool to read, write, speak and communicate easily. The number of English speakers outside nations with English as first language is much more as compared to the latter. There are as many different way of speaking as different languages in the world. Everybody speaks English differently.The argument that a reform won’t be of no help to a Yorkshire boy, for whom ‘wheat’ and ‘red’ have same vowel sound is nothing but petty fogging, as the majority of English speakers is in India, Pakistan, china, etc., specifically in India than any other country in the whole world. The count is way too high. And I personally feel that no country can beat it, considering the population growth rate and the economic predictions. So do we want to help a few Yorkshire boys or a big population which has a unique way of pronouncing words, a totally different ways of ascertaining the phonemic value attached to a word, and a unique style of arranging letters to represent a sound form? Why English words borrowed from Hindi language do not indicate the actual pronunciation to the rest of the world? We should take a hint from this. Do we want to streamline things or, give good enough reasons for a huge ignorant population to coin new word forms which don’t suggest anything close to the actual pronunciation? Or utter sound that’s not close to actual pronunciation?And these disparities would further increase if we don’t act now.
12. The argument that all homophones would be spelled same if a reform is introduced.That all of the homophones would come under same spelling and all homographs would have different spelling.a. Homophones.A reform would necessarily suggest same spelling form homophones. The existence of homophones could be trace to two basic root causes:1. Different ways of arrangement of letters to give a specific sound value.2. Different perceptions over the sound value attached to particular set of letters.www.bifroest.demon.co.uk has a list of 441 homophones.A question could arise that why do we need different ways to represent a specific sound?There is no harm if we more than one way of arranging letters to give a specific sound, unless it’s contradictory.For Example: ‘ai’ digraph is used to represent soft ‘a’ sound; also a soft open syllable like ‘pane’.The argument that we still have two or three ways to decipher a sound, then what’s the use of a reform, and would that be called standardization?We already have lot many heteronyms (same spelling same sound, but different meanings) in English; also the meaning and application of words changes with time. This is the beauty of English. This will not add to the difficulties faced while learning English.The meaning changes with the context.Homograph is a perfect example of ‘take a guess’, while it’s not the case with homophone. But you are sure of the application and the sound value attached with homophones. You can learn different applications of words with time.Perfect example of a homograph: The digraph ‘ei’. ‘EI’ exhibit different sound value in different words. It could be soft ‘a’ sound, soft ‘e’ sound, soft pure ‘i’ sound (refer to page no.____), solid ‘e’ sound. A source of confusion.
See beyond words attempt to codify words; recognize a specific sound value from a letter if arranged in a particular fashion. All we have to do is to remember them. Nothing less, nothing more.Considering this we definitely need a uniform orthography.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Masha Bell.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)