Sound sheen is very commen in the world languages

[maqsood hasni]

Sound sheen is very commen in the world languages

After a deep, long, sensative thinking and linguistic experiments of books and interviews with the experts on languages that I have mentioned four points in my writings:
a. languages alphabets of exercise are insufficient to meet the streat talking
and some very personal conversations / interviews.

b. This is a serious and hot need of this age that linguistic experts must do their best to invent and create some more alphabet sounds.

c. Crunt alphabets of the languages have more than one sound in speaking
or writing but they are not in record.
d. Languages experts should get sounds from nature, streat talks or children talks. They can easily convert these sounds into symbles for alphabet.

These points are connected. Someone took them serious, but their attempts turtle are not sufficient to meet the needs of this age. With the passage of time due circumtences different lifestyles and preferences have been totally changed. In every moment of life challenges encountered strange horrible and hard events. These are stand before men as a policy and not as qualified engineer. Geting to register for these events available alphabets are not enough. Poets and writers events paining people face a very uncomfortable. They cover and to over come this deficiency through the sounds made compounds. But this attitude is incorrect and so low standered by all means. These compounds always create complications in prononciation.

For example, sheen sound is very commen in the world languages. In eastren, specially sub-continent languages have this sound almost like a part of the sound alphabet. But languages of the west have not this sound like the sound of alphabet. They use more than six compounds for this sound:

1- Ch cliche nietzoche, Fitche, charade, chauvanism
2 - CE croce
3 CI facial precious
4 - Sh shift, sheet, shirt, shawal, shrink
5 - Si asia, malaysia
6 - Ti action, mention essential potential residentional, confidentional

These compounds are also other sounds shine. Reader feel difficulty to pronounce these sounds to made up. What bad or wrong in addtion of a sound on regular bases in alphabet of the world's languages instead of using many many different types of compounds. S is available in the alphabets of the westeren languages. After S shes sound can be adapted. It can be demonstrated by a second s under line or a line could be put on it. It can be read shes. Do see this added sound in English alphabet:

a ay an apple
b bi book
C ce cat
d de dog
e ee egg
f eff fan
g ge/gi girl
h eh hen
i ae inkwell
j jay jug
k kay kite
l el lemon
m em mango
n en nothing
o oo orange
p pe/pi pen
q ku
r ar rail
s es sachool
s shes sirt, screening, seet, sawal, srink, korose, nietzose, Crose, Fasal,
presous, consous, asa, Malaysa, Menson, essensal, potensal,
t te/ti tree
u yo umblrella
V vi van
w dablu whistle, west
x ex xrays
y wae year
z zee (zed Amercian)zoo

Certainly first time s (shes) will be appeared as a stranger, but when it will become part of the alphabet sound, people will not feel strange with.

[Katy North]

I took some linguistic classes back in the day so I will attempt to dive into this one.

I commend you for posting on an english speaking forum... your command of the language is very good. I apologize if I do not read your sentences as they were meant to be written. I am not sure where you are from but by your name I would guess an asian or middle eastern country.

I lived in Japan for a few years, and I noticed that unlike in american, their alphabet correlates very closesly to the sounds they make when they speak. they have a character for "ma", "Tsu" and "a", and most of the time when they speak it is a combination of these sounds... it gives the Japanese a very rhythmic sounding language which I really enjoy.

On the other hand, the English language is more difficult to deal with. You noticed that we have only 26 letters in our alphabet, some have multiple sounds in and of themselves ("C" can sound like either "C" or "S" for example, as in either "Cat" or "Certainly"). In addition, we combine our letters to create multiple sounds.

(For the following, please excuse my linguistic factoids if they are slightly off, it's been a while since I took the classes)
This is because, unlike some languages, English is not a phonetic language, instead, I believe the word is that it is a representative language... the letters represent sounds and meanings, but don't translate accurately into the sounds. This is why, despite its widespread use, English can be very difficult to learn. It's not that English would need more sounds, but that English would need more letters to represent the many diverse sounds we have, some of which we native speakers use without even noticing it. The international Phonetic alphabet makes a decent go at this, but it's not convenient to reteach the millions of people who already speak the English language, so right now it is more the tool of linguists that anything else.

I hope that helps you out, if you have any more questions, ask and I'll try and answer... :D linguistics is fun!

[Wilde woman]

Forgive me, but I don't understand you completely. However, here are some thoughts...


For example, sheen sound is very commen in the world languages. In eastren, specially sub-continent languages have this sound almost like a part of the sound alphabet. But languages of the west have not this sound like the sound of alphabet. They use more than six compounds for this sound:

1- Ch cliche nietzoche, Fitche, charade, chauvanism
2 - CE croce
3 CI facial precious
4 - Sh shift, sheet, shirt, shawal, shrink
5 - Si asia, malaysia
6 - Ti action, mention essential potential residentional, confidentional

It sounds like you are talking about two separate phonemes: the voiced and unvoiced alveolar fricatives ["ch" and "sh" respectively], both of which have different symbols in the IPA.

(By the way, your #2 example - "croce" is not an English word. It's Italian. I'm fairly sure the compound "ce" never is pronounced "ch" or "sh" in English, unless it's borrowed from another language.)

If everyone used the IPA as their written alphabet, we wouldn't have the problems you're describing. But you're talking about representing all sounds consistently and phonetically, which is unnatural in written language.

Essentially, what you're describing are differences between languages in orthography (spelling) - which is not really something that linguistics (or at least phonology) can resolve. Since the visual representation (a letter or character) of a sound oftentimes has no similarity whatsoever to its oral expression, people can conceivably invent many different signs (or visual representations) for the same phoneme. Even the IPA's symbols for phonemes are arbitrary - some are based off the Roman alphabet, while others are taken from Greek, and so on.

For example: If you take any letter, say "s", you could not look at that symbol and know (inherently) how to pronounce it. There's nothing in the shape of the letter to guide your mouth into expressing the sound orally. Hence, in linguistics, we have to describe this sound, rather long-windedly, as the "unvoiced alveolar fricative." And this is true for all letters. (However, my linguistics professors have said in lecture that Korean characters are unique...some of them actually do show you how to position your tongue to pronounce that particular sound.)

This is a huge point in Saussure's work - that the relationship between signifier (in this case, the phoneme) and the signified (the written representation) is arbitrary.


After S shes sound can be adapted. It can be demonstrated by a second s under line or a line could be put on it. It can be read shes.

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you explain more?

Is this what you're talking about? If so, I understand. In my intro linguistics class, I described a similar phenomenon in Italian (how the letter "c" is pronounced differently according to the vowel which follows it). And my instructor rather pompously told me that I'd described a problem in orthography, not linguistics.

[maqsood hasni]

I realized the actul problem .
When I say sheen, kaaf or Chay; people living in sub-continent, Arabic or Persian language speaking, can easily understand that these are their language alphabet sounds. But people of the west or if these sounds are not available in some languages of the world, there people can not easily understand my point of view. Firstly I will try to explain that what is sheen, kaaf or chay. These are the sounds of the alphabet (letters) in Urdu, Punjabi, Barahvi, Balochi, Sindhi, Rajistani, Mivati, Gojra, Haryana, Dakni, Pothohari, Saraeki, Arbitrary, Farsi and many other languages. There forms are as under:
sheen: sh ش It is alphabet sound of subcontinet's language and also in used and
regular alphabet letter of Arabic and persian.
kaaf k, c, ch ک for geting this sound in English often c (cat), k (kite) ch (school)
are used.)
chay: ch چ for taking this sound in English, often the sound made by a compound ch
is used. For example, look over these words:
chest, cheep, peach, change, church
khay: kh خ This sound is pure Arabic sound, but very common in many languages of the
sub-countinet and have much commentary in Persian.
Second point is this that a germen even the English can easily under that in these words:
standcliche nietzoche, Fitche, charade, chauvanism
compound sound ch is providing sound sheen (sh).
While croce (Atalian) there ce is pronounced sheen (sh); Ka ro shay.
Some where ci is also providing sound sheen (sh) for example have a friendly look over these words:
facial precious
Sh, composed sound is very common and very clear gloss sound letter. For reference see these words:
shift, sheet, shirt, shawal, shrink sheep, shall
Some where si is used for letter sheen (sh). In these words si is providing sound sheen (sh):
Asia, Malaysia
In many places composed gloss ti gives the sound sheen (sh):
action, mention, essential, potential residentional confidentional

Native speakers or even the english speaking persons will not feel problem or difficulty to pronounce these so many compound sounds but same position is not with the none-natives or those who are living in the east or for east. They can read these compound sounds very different way other then the nativess. For example:
ch for chay chest
ce for si/ke cource, resource, force
Compound sound sh in sub-continent for roman script is used for sheen (sh). For example:
shak (doubt), sharbat (sweet drink), shadi (marriage, happiness) etc.
si for si sick, silk, sink
ti for ti citi (city), socity/sociti (socity), beauti (beauty), preti (pretty)
For the removal of these severe comlications, I have suggested letter S (shes) which canbe used for sound sheen (sh) insted of using different componds for geting sound sheen (sh).
Compound sound ch has also many complications in pronounciation for none natives. This compound sound needs special attantion and care of language experts. It almost provides five different sounds:
1- chay (ch)
chary che re, ch are
chaser cha sor
2- kaaf (k)
chasm ka zam
chemistry kai mist ri
3- sheen Sh/S
chassepot sha s po
chasseur sha suo
4- h (eh)
chasid ha sid
chasidic ha si dik
5- khay (kh)
munich, mu nikh
boch bokh
zolicha zo li kha
In various languages of east or for east, sh is used in roman/romanji script for sound sheen. For example see these words:
shak (doubt)
sharbat (sweet drink)
shadi (marriage, happiness)
shamil (included)
shola (flame)
si for si sick, silk, sink
ti for ti citi (city), socity/sociti (socity), beauti (beauty)
For removal of these comlications I have suggested letter S (shes) which canbe used for sound sheen (sh)insted of using different componds for geting sound sheen.
Compound sound ch has also many complications in pronounciation. This compound sound needs special attantion and care of language experts. It almost provides five sounds:
1- chay (ch)
chary che re, ch are
chaser cha sor
2- kaaf (k)
chasm ka zam
chemistry kai mist ri
3- sheen Sh/S
chassepot sha s po
chasseur sha suo
4- h (eh)
chasid ha sid
chasidic ha si dik
5- khay (kh)
munich, mu nikh
boch bokh
zolicha zo li kha
Let me know how a native speaker solve these problems ruling? Linguists should be to resolve the case arises because the sounds of these compounds. They must provide letters of the alphabet to the sounds made. So ch, sh, ci, ti, si etc. are not only the sounds made by compounds that have complications. The next time I will try to discuss over some compounds of other sounds.

[Katy North]

hmmm, I'm still a little confused about what you're trying to say... I'll ask some questions and see if I can figure out what you mean from your answers...

Are you suggesting a change in the English language?

Are you suggesting replacing the phoneme "sheen" with a unique character in the English language?

It sounds like you put a lot of thought into your discussion and I really wish I was able to read your posts better.

[WuWei]

I'm not sure I understand all you're saying, but you seem to forget that the evolution of spoken and written language quite often take two separate paths, or the same path at different speed. Attempts to forcefully alter the way a language is written are very difficult unless there's a strong tradition behind them (in France, for example, a national "Academie" has quite often intervened in these matters, to the point that nowadays French is one of the languages in which the difference between spoken and written forms is bigger).

Virtually every language has multiple phonemes associated to single letters in the alphabet, as well as, sometimes, multiple representation for the same phoneme. But this is not due to poor organizational skills, it's simply what happens when history takes its course...

French:
sound /o/

beau [bo]
tôt [to]
faux [fo]

letter "e"

sound /e/: exposition [eksposisjõ]
sound /ε/: mer [mεr]
sound /ã/: vent [vã]
sound /ø/: ce [sø]
sound /ð/: vendredi [vãdRðdi]
no sound: père [pεr]

These are merely examples of something that is extremely common. Italian has this as well (though in italian the pronounciation is much much closer to what is written than, say, in French), as does English.

[maqsood hasni]

Are you suggesting replacing the phoneme "sheen" with a unique character in the English language?
Yes, I suggest letter shes (s) rather than combination sh maybe adjuested in english alphabet because this combination has more than 7 sounds that make confussion in pronunciation, especially for none-natives.

[maqsood hasni]

Languages are by the man and for the man

It's a common and open fact that every language sounds and words are getting effect from local and forigen languages . But each language has its own style, word's culture, language speaking, listening and writing system, grammar, sentence requirements, the speaker's attitude, flexsibility in form of organs, its people's behaviour, needs of socity, the economic situation and the circle and social relations. These facts and and many other references are most effective helper to invent new sounds and words with the help of imported words from other languages. If these sounds and words will follow the rules of that language then these words or sounds will have got room in that language or tounge otherwise they will not have space/place in that language. During this process something new take place in that language. For example:

1 - The worlds can not be written in Roman characters with the za'ay Farsi (ژ).
To resolve this matter, compound/substitute sounds j/g/y/ion will be used
i.e. mijgaan/miya/mijda/television/decsion
2 - Which language is governed other languages spoken words can be converted that
the language sounds available from its own alphabet sounds rather than the
original speech sounds. For ready reference please see these examples:
(ذ , ز , ض, ظ (Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Punjabi Saraeki. Pothohari, Gojri etc.) reads:

ذ ذکر zikr
ذریعہ zaria
ز ارزاں arzaan
نماز namaz
ض ضعیف zaeef
عرض arz
ظ ظالم zalim
ظرف zarf
kamisan (wife) camizn insted of camisan
nozomi (Wish) nozomi, insted of nosomi
oozora (Heaven) oozora insted of oosora
3 - Where the sounds are not available there substitute sounds can be used.
For reference check out these examples:

ت تلوار talwaar
تربوز tarbooz
ڑ آڑو aaru/aadu
ریڑی rairi/raidi
4 - Words get associated with that language. See these examples:
a. advice advice laina, advice karna, advice hona etc.
bound bound karna, bound hona, bound nikalna etc.
care care karna, care hona, care daina etc.
b. vote votroon, votaan, votraan, votain etc.
sport spotraan, spotoon, spotain etc.
c. mintue mint'mar

5 - Sigular plural and sexual identity are lost:
* word media is used sigular in Urdu, Punjabi saraeki, Gojra, Barahvi, Gujrati,
Pothohari, Pakhto etc.
* these words: hoor, ahwal, asami, oqaat are prural in Arabic but are used singular in
many languages of the sub-continent.
* Firdoos is a Persian word. It is fimine in Punjab, but oposist sex in Sarhad.

6 - In the new language the words often fail to remain their meanings. ie. sex animal
glass, jaloos, etc. have not used in their orignal meaning in Urdu, Punjabi etc.
As these examples I can present here hundreds. These six examples are enough to demonstrate that words and sounds can not keep their forms and meanings in orignal in other languages. Like many other languages, English have taken hundreds of words and sounds from other languages. English words and sounds have not taken themself to remain in the orignal sounds, forms or meanings. After migration in this language we can not identify their oriban. If the new language to meet the sustitute sounds then what need to deliver through composed migirated sounds?!
Hundreds words started by ch and provide sound kaaf (k). I think this is not fair because ch is composed at a time many sounds. For example:
ch sh ش sheen shes s nietzoche cliche, Fitch, charade, chauvanism
Khay ch خ kh Munch, Zelicha (qibti)
Chay ch چ chest, chair, Chester
ch kaaf K ک chemical kemi kl
chemist ke mist
chiasma ki az'ma
chiasmus ki az'mas
chimeric ka merik
chlorophyl klo ra fil
chrismal kriz'ml
christ krist
chrome krom
chronic karonik
chromite kromit
chroma kroma
These words get start by compound ch and are providing sound k. These words are almost came from the greek. Here my goal is depending on three things:

1 - The English alphabet has its own registered alphabet letter k. What it need to
start these words by ch. While this thing was decided that English is a language
with its own identity. Because to start migrate words with their original style rules and
linguistics established. The compound ch that give sound k (kaaf) canbe written by
letter k.

2- chrismal kriz'ml
chiasmus ki az'mas
reason rezan
season seazan
treason treazan
prose proz
rose roz
pose poz
nose noz
hose hoz
lose loz
resume rezum
resist rezist
cosy cozi
misery mizeri

In many words sound s is giving sound z what need to write it with s why not with z? Many words are available in English, which are providing their orignal sound s (س-seen). Please see these words:

Dose dos
Loose loos
Noose noos
Goose goos
3 - The third point is that some words end with e and this aditional e has no function
in a word. For example look at these words:
resume, Dose, loose, prose, pink, pose, nose, hose, lose, chromium, chromite
I think after removing this extra e, no bad effect can be seen at any stage.

Of course this argument can not easily diagest and a book written logic that are different from the language of the street.
My opion is that this place to get all the writings in the books of the street and all the writings are on the road but not above or below ground.
Literature is by the man and for the man.
Languages are by the man and for the man.

[WuWei]

What you are basically suggesting is to artificially drag the written standard of a language to the same level of its oral standards. It can't be done. Written and spoken language have differents diachronic developments.

Written language DOES tend to slowly change towards the current standards of spoken language, but it takes A LOT of time. There is no institution to decide this, at least not for the English languague. It's just history taking its course, as I said before. That is why spelling thru instead of through will become increasingly acceptable, but spelling kristmas probably won't.

Also, you have to consider that the less common a word is, the harder it is to modify its spelling. Intellectual words which are rarely used in spoken language tend to me MUCH more conservative than common words. That is why the words which come from greek will probably take a lot of time to change their spelling, if they ever do. Chiasmus is simply not common enough to be altered in everyday use. "Thru" is.

[OrphanPip]

Not to mention dialectical differences in the English language.

Like the different in pronunciation of vowels before the letter "r" between Canadians and Americans. e.g. for sorrow, Canadian "soro" and American "saro."

It would be impossible to create a phonetic English alphabet that addressed all English language dialects.

[Madame X]

Not to mention dialectical differences in the English language.

Like the different in pronunciation of vowels before the letter "r" between Canadians and Americans. e.g. for sorrow, Canadian "soro" and American "saro."

It would be impossible to create a phonetic English alphabet that addressed all English language dialects.

Nonetheless, both Benjamin Franklin and George Bernard Shaw (through a decree in his will at least), among others, made valiant attempts to rectify this messy concatenation of Latinate letters known as English. Through, Bendhamin Franklinz fonetik alfabet (http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/phonetic.htm), and Shavian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian), respectively. Although I’m not sure how necessary such proposed reforms are since a great many -even educated- native speakers seem to prefer their own particular orthographic arrangements when writing anyway. Just look at your average email. :frown2:

[Wilde woman]

What you are basically suggesting is to artificially drag the written standard of a language to the same level of its oral standards. It can't be done. Written and spoken language have differents diachronic developments.

Agreed.

You simply cannot change a language to accommodate the needs of one segment of the speaking population. Even France, with its ultra-conservative Academie Francaise, has not completely succeeded in keeping its language "pure", because there is no such thing. Through its contact with English-speaking countries, French (like many other languages) has become increasingly Anglicanized.

Maybe the changes you describe will occur in English if the US and England have increasingly open contact with Middle Eastern countries. But it is highly unlikely because English simply does not have some of the phonemes you describe. It's not natural for English speakers to voice those sounds. So even if English-speaking countries have extended exposure to Middle Eastern languages, it is more likely than not that the language will reject assimilating those phonemes which don't occur naturally in English.

It's not unheard-of for people to try systematically to change their languages. But language has a mind of its own and it is always a crapshoot to see whether or not the majority of language speakers will accept a a new word, much less a new spelling of an established word.

I read something recently from Umberto Eco which illustrates this point perfectly. He speaks about the development of the Italian language and different parties' efforts (and failure) to forcefully and systematically effect change in the language:


By definition language goes its own way; no decree from on high, emanating either from politicians or from the academy, can stop its progress and divert it towards situations that they claim are for the best. The Fascists tried to make Italians say mescita instead of bar, coda di gallo instead of cocktail, rete instead of goal, auto pubblica instead of taxi, and our language paid no attention. Then it suggested a lexical monstrosity, an unacceptable archaism like autista instead of chauffeur, and the language accepted it. Maybe because it avoided a sound unknown to Italian. It kept taxi, but gradually, at least in the spoken language, turned this into tassi.

He continues his discussion by talking about at least one person who was successful in transforming the Italian language - Dante - but cautions that even his vernacular took centuries to really take hold. Since then, other attempts (the Fascists' and the futurists') to change the Italian lexicon have either failed or have had only piecemeal success. The point is, you cannot predict, much less control, how a language evolves.

I'll get off my soapbox now. Anyone for a "coda di gallo"? :lol::lol::lol:

[WuWei]

As an italian native speaker, I can assure you that not one person in any given town in Italy would understand "coda di gallo" :biggrin5:

The sometimes ridiculous attempts at altering the language made by the Fascists have been made fun of over and over and they're a pretty good example of how you simply cannot tamper with the stuff people say everyday.

But, while we are at it, it's also interesting to say that some of the linguists who worked at this bizarre project were nothing short of geniuses and sometimes came up with pretty inventive solutions that stuck with the language (a spectacular example is the word "tramezzino" which replaced "sandwich" in everyday use and has become absolutely common ever since).

Gabriele D'Annunzio himself was not surprisingly involved in this and is responsible for some of the most creative words which were introduced into italian at the time.

A lot of italian intellectuals were in favor of this "italianizations", since a movement called "Purism" had existed in linguistics for centuries, advocating a ban on all foreign words. If you're interested in that debate, there's a wonderful essay by Melchiorre Cesarotti (poet, translator and essayist in the late 18th century) about it.

[Annamariah]

Haha. If only all languages were like Finnish (written phonemically), then there would be no use for this discussion. Even the differences in our dialects can be spelled out - a text written in "literary language" (as opposed to colloquial language - Finnish has a standard "literary language" that is used in formal situations) is read aloud pretty much the same by everyone. Our dialects differ from each other mostly in vocabulary and inflecting words, not in pronunciation per se.

[OrphanPip]

Sometimes the government can succeed in forcing the use of a couple words.

Here in Quebec they managed in a few years to cast out the anglicizations computer and email to replace them with ordinateur and courriel.

The regis du langue francaise has legal power to enforce word use in Quebec though :frown2: You can be fined for using English on signs.

[Annamariah]

Sometimes the government can succeed in forcing the use of a couple words.

Here in Quebec they managed in a few years to cast out the anglicizations computer and email to replace them with ordinateur and courriel.

The regis du langue francaise has legal power to enforce word use in Quebec though :frown2: You can be fined for using English on signs.

We always have all the signs and such written in both Finnish and Swedish unless the native speakers of either language form a very small minority. I guess that's what you get from having more than one official language :)

[OrphanPip]

We always have all the signs and such written in both Finnish and Swedish unless the native speakers of either language form a very small minority. I guess that's what you get from having more than one official language :)

English speakers are like 12% of the population in Montreal, so English is common with French on signs. However, the law says the English has to be in a smaller font than the French. (Of course, English alone on a sign is a big no no)

Also, federal government buildings have both languages on signs.

The Quebec government just likes to be pissy about the French language.

[Annamariah]

English speakers are like 12% of the population in Montreal, so English is common with French on signs. However, the law says the English has to be in a smaller font than the French. (Of course, English alone on a sign is a big no no)

Also, federal government buildings have both languages on signs.

The Quebec government just likes to be pissy about the French language.

Here in road signs and such Finnish and Swedish are written with the same font size, the major language first and minor then (which is in most cases Finnish first, except for certain places, mostly south-west Finland, where there is a majority of Swedish-speaking Finns).

Here it's still obligatory to learn both Finnish and Swedish at school and Swedish skills are required for many jobs (you can't get a work from the state or the municipality without adequate Swedish skills) even if you don't ever really need to speak Swedish in that job...

There is always a debate about whether we should get rid of "forced Swedish" in Finland (basically meaning that children could opt for reading other languages instead of Swedish at school, for example Russian would actually be more useful in eastern Finland).

But yeah, off topic... Sorry :blush:

[Wilde woman]

As an italian native speaker, I can assure you that not one person in any given town in Italy would understand "coda di gallo" :biggrin5:

I figured, though I still find the Fascists' attempts to change it hilarious.


But, while we are at it, it's also interesting to say that some of the linguists who worked at this bizarre project were nothing short of geniuses and sometimes came up with pretty inventive solutions that stuck with the language (a spectacular example is the word "tramezzino" which replaced "sandwich" in everyday use and has become absolutely common ever since).

Interesting. I thought that "tramezzino" was simply a traditional Italian word. Who invented it?


If you're interested in that debate, there's a wonderful essay by Melchiorre Cesarotti (poet, translator and essayist in the late 18th century) about it.

I would indeed be interested in reading it. Could you PM me about it?


If only all languages were like Finnish (written phonemically), then there would be no use for this discussion.

I don't think this is truly the problem; most "pure" languages (before any contact with foreign languages) have a pretty consistent orthography. It's when different languages begin influencing each other, introducing foreign sounds into new languages, that we begin to see consistent differences between written letters and their pronunciation. What maqsood hasni is suggesting is for English to adopt sounds that are "unnatural" to it.

So, the real "problem" is that no single language has every single phoneme which is possible for the human mouth to enunciate...much less a consistent alphabet to represent them.

[WuWei]

Interesting. I thought that "tramezzino" was simply a traditional Italian word. Who invented it?



I would indeed be interested in reading it. Could you PM me about it?


D'annunzio himself invented it, like many others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramezzino). Interestingly enough, the word "tramezzo" in italian is only used in architecture, meaning a non-load-bearing wall. "Tramezzino" simply evokes the idea of a small layer (in this case, of food) which is inserted between ("mezzo") two "load-bearing" slices of bread. Quite an inventive solution!

The essay is "Saggio su la filosofia delle lingue" by Melchiorre Cesarotti. A good deal of it discusses the introduction of foreign words in a language, doing so in a strikingly modern way.

In an age in which Purists were stubbornly pleading for a return to the supposed purity of Italian, and "renovators" optimistically fostered a language which could borrow words from French, English and German, he took a rather smart approach in analyzing the problem: he proposed a distinction between the "genio grammaticale" of a language (which is not only its grammar and structure, but also syntax and the way thoughts are developed and presented) and the "genio retorico", which can change and is altered over time with the evolution of the words used and the way they are used. Borrowings from other languages only affect the "genio retorico", so they don't alter the nature of the language, as long they're not used to replace words which already are in the language and which are still used.

I don't really know if you can buy this book anywhere, I think it has been reprinted, but it's got to be pretty hard to find. My advice is to look for it in a library of Italian Studies, but I can't really guarantee they're going to have it (I myself read it at the library of the Italian Department at La Sapienza).

By the way, Melchiorre Cesarotti is an extraordinary figure, a really underestimated intellectual. He taught rhetoric, Greek and Hebrew at the University of Padova, wrote a good deal of essays, translated Homer and Voltaire. What he is mostly remembered for, though, is the translation of Macpherson's Ossian, which he popularized in Italy and France (Napoleon himself read and loved this version, not the original).

[Annamariah]

I don't think this is truly the problem; most "pure" languages (before any contact with foreign languages) have a pretty consistent orthography. It's when different languages begin influencing each other, introducing foreign sounds into new languages, that we begin to see consistent differences between written letters and their pronunciation. What maqsood hasni is suggesting is for English to adopt sounds that are "unnatural" to it.

So, the real "problem" is that no single language has every single phoneme which is possible for the human mouth to enunciate...much less a consistent alphabet to represent them.

Well yeah, to be honest, I wasn't completely sure what the point of the first message was :blush:

But about the influence of foreign language - I guess it depends on the language. For example English doesn't have any authority that would say what is correct and what is not, like French does. In Finland we have "kielitoimisto", "language office" that pretty much sets the rules for Finnish. Most of loanwords that have become part of the Finnish language have been "domesticated" - the orthography has been changed to fit the Finnish language, and the pronunciation only includes phonems we have in Finnish. So for example "radio" is written the same way as in English, but pronounced the way it is written. "Market" would become "marketti" (most Finnish words end with a vowel) and pronounced the way it is written.

And sure no language has enough alphabet for all the phonems in the world, but that's what we have IPA signs for :)

[Wilde woman]

Interestingly enough, the word "tramezzo" in italian is only used in architecture, meaning a non-load-bearing wall. "Tramezzino" simply evokes the idea of a small layer (in this case, of food) which is inserted between ("mezzo") two "load-bearing" slices of bread. Quite an inventive solution!

Very clever!


he took a rather smart approach in analyzing the problem: he proposed a distinction between the "genio grammaticale" of a language (which is not only its grammar and structure, but also syntax and the way thoughts are developed and presented) and the "genio retorico", which can change and is altered over time with the evolution of the words used and the way they are used. Borrowings from other languages only affect the "genio retorico", so they don't alter the nature of the language, as long they're not used to replace words which already are in the language and which are still used.

I briefly searched my university library's collections and it doesn't look like they have it. :frown2: I wonder if I can find it somewhere online? Regardless, I find Cesarotti's distinction very interesting. As a native English speaker, I would guess I've only seen "genio retorico" because it seems that English has incorporated loanwords from a number of foreign languages, but these borrowings have not altered the actual grammar of English.

My co-worker, who is Assyrian, has mentioned that her native language borrowed extensively from French, so that even the grammatical structure of the language has similarities to French grammar. I'm guessing that could possibly be an example of "genio grammaticale".


In Finland we have "kielitoimisto", "language office" that pretty much sets the rules for Finnish. Most of loanwords that have become part of the Finnish language have been "domesticated" - the orthography has been changed to fit the Finnish language, and the pronunciation only includes phonems we have in Finnish.

I wasn't aware that Finland has a language office too! I'm such a stupid American that I'd only heard of the French Academie. As for "domesticating" loanwords, I think that is quite natural. Japanese has quite an interesting way of doing it; they invented a whole alphabet (katakana) for loanwords, which is distinct from their usual two alphabets. I believe that the sounds in katakana overlap somewhat with the regular alphabet, but is used primarily to transcribe foreign words into Japanese - so it sounds to me like one way of domesticating loanwords, even those with sounds foreign to Japanese.

[WuWei]

Very clever!



I briefly searched my university library's collections and it doesn't look like they have it. :frown2: I wonder if I can find it somewhere online? Regardless, I find Cesarotti's distinction very interesting. As a native English speaker, I would guess I've only seen "genio retorico" because it seems that English has incorporated loanwords from a number of foreign languages, but these borrowings have not altered the actual grammar of English.

My co-worker, who is Assyrian, has mentioned that her native language borrowed extensively from French, so that even the grammatical structure of the language has similarities to French grammar. I'm guessing that could possibly be an example of "genio grammaticale".



I did a quick search online: the book has been re-printed in 2001 in Italy, but it seems to be out of print now (http://www.unilibro.it/find_buy/Scheda/libreria/autore-perolino_ugo/sku-1935821/melchiorre_cesarotti_saggio_sulla_filosofia_delle_ lingue_.htm). Surprisingly enough, Googlebooks has it and archive.org has it as well, so you can read the full text here http://www.archive.org/details/saggisullafilos00denigoog


The idea is that as long as the "genio grammaticale" doesn't change, that language can very well stay "pure" in spite of all the loanwords one may pour into it. The italian language has a specific way of communicating, a syntax, a style, a grammar, and those can't be altered simply adding an English word here and there.

[Maximilianus]

But about the influence of foreign language - I guess it depends on the language. For example English doesn't have any authority that would say what is correct and what is not, like French does. In Finland we have "kielitoimisto", "language office" that pretty much sets the rules for Finnish. Most of loanwords that have become part of the Finnish language have been "domesticated" - the orthography has been changed to fit the Finnish language, and the pronunciation only includes phonemes we have in Finnish. So for example "radio" is written the same way as in English, but pronounced the way it is written. "Market" would become "marketti" (most Finnish words end with a vowel) and pronounced the way it is written.

And sure no language has enough alphabet for all the phonemes in the world, but that's what we have IPA signs for :)


I wasn't aware that Finland has a language office too! I'm such a stupid American that I'd only heard of the French Academie.
In Spanish we have The Royal Spanish Academy, which has been setting the rules for many centuries since it was founded in 1713. However, no one ever listens to them anymore as it used to be in days of yore, though they keep doing whatever they can... against loanwords and against loan grammar that have been practically murdering the original structures of the language. Of course, it's all people's fault for being so tongue-wayward.

[Annamariah]

I wasn't aware that Finland has a language office too! I'm such a stupid American that I'd only heard of the French Academie. As for "domesticating" loanwords, I think that is quite natural. Japanese has quite an interesting way of doing it; they invented a whole alphabet (katakana) for loanwords, which is distinct from their usual two alphabets. I believe that the sounds in katakana overlap somewhat with the regular alphabet, but is used primarily to transcribe foreign words into Japanese - so it sounds to me like one way of domesticating loanwords, even those with sounds foreign to Japanese.

Well, not many people know much about Finland, it being such a small country, so that hardly makes you stupid :D

I've heard of that Japanese way, but to me a third set of alphabet sounds rather complicated, so I prefer the Finnish way :lol: