• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

there is a law inside the alphabet

bruto said:
I am still trying to figure out what the "law" in all this is, other than an apparent recognition that alphabets tend at least to try to reflect the sounds we make when we speak, but what else that law says seems elusive.
Click to expand...
And again the OP hasn't really made it any more explicit that what I gleaned from that graphic that was posted. Apparently he believes vowels may be simplified down to three variations on each of five elementary vowel sounds, and that any attempt by linguists to identify, categorize, and represent any more vowels than that stands in nefarious ignorance of this genius law.
 
Sounds, like colours, are in the eyes and ears of the beholders and behearers (which is not a word, but I am allowed to invent them, since I am part of the linguist cabal), so without a system that relies on how your tongue/teeth/mouth/jaw move, and where in the mouth the sounds are produced, everyone interested in phonetics would have to be a skilled martial artist in order to survive the fisticuffs that every discussion would undoubtedly result in. "Fricative, you say? Ha! Stuff and nonsense! Name your weapon of choice, you scoundrel, and I will meet you at dawn to settle this matter once and for all."
 
My first job in Geneva, I shared an office with a bloke from Quebec, a lady from Liège, and a bloke from Neuchâtel. We all spoke French but any unprepared learner would have had kittens trying to follow the conversation.
 
Helen said:
"Fricative, you say? Ha! Stuff and nonsense! Name your weapon of choice, you scoundrel, and I will meet you at dawn to settle this matter once and for all."
Click to expand...
Uvular scrape! I heard it! It was a uvular scrape! Moses supposes his toeses are roses, but Moses supposes erroneously.

malbui said:
My first job in Geneva, I shared an office with a bloke from Quebec, a lady from Liège, and a bloke from Neuchâtel. We all spoke French but any unprepared learner would have had kittens trying to follow the conversation.
Click to expand...
While vacationing in the Caribbean I watched from afar as a Caiman Islands native conversed effortlessly with a woman from Minnesota. A non English speaker would probably never have recognized both those discourses as English.
 
JayUtah said:
And again the OP hasn't really made it any more explicit that what I gleaned from that graphic that was posted. Apparently he believes vowels may be simplified down to three variations on each of five elementary vowel sounds, and that any attempt by linguists to identify, categorize, and represent any more vowels than that stands in nefarious ignorance of this genius law.
Click to expand...
Ok, that sort of makes sense, but it seems to have little to do with the purpose of an alphabet, insofar as an alphabet is supposed to do the most efficient job of actually allowing people to learn quickly how to write the language they speak. The law, if there is one, might be of some interest to a linquist or a philologist, or a Noam Chomsky trying to figure out underlying grammar, but it doesn't seem very relevant to the question of what we should do in terms of making an alphabet for people to use. I'm thinking, for example, (as it seems others have) of the Cherokee syllabary, which has a multiplicity of characters and looks very complicated to us, yet was, according to accounts, so aptly adapted to the Cherokee language that it was quickly learned and resulted in a high degree of literacy.
 
bruto said:
Ok, that sort of makes sense, but it seems to have little to do with the purpose of an alphabet, insofar as an alphabet is supposed to do the most efficient job of actually allowing people to learn quickly how to write the language they speak.
Click to expand...
Yet attempts to simplify or recast English spelling by imposition always fail. AIUI, we do simplify the orthography (see what I did there?) but it's always organic as with all other aspects of language.
 
malbui said:
And some of them cheat. å claims to be an a, but we all know it isn't.
Click to expand...
It actually doesn't, å is the au in fauteuil, and ö is the eui (there is a difference, but only the merest hint, in how open the vowels are. They seem to be indistinguishable, unless you're familiar with both French and Swedish).

I'm not even sure if the op is actually talking about what i mean when i write the word alphabet, it seems to mostly be about the IPA, and seems to think that it forces people to use more vowels than necessary. I, on the other hand, am in favour of many, many more vowels; more diphthongs and triphthongs to the people, and hey, how about those tetraphthongs? Abused by underuse, is what I say about them!
 
Last edited:
It's disappointing that the OP's professed genius at language doesn't extend to using it to make a coherent point. He does seem to be very distressed that linguists exist and that they use something like the IPA as a tool in their study. I don't think there's much we can say here to remedy that. I wish the OP bon chance, but as others have pointed out: the inability of his "law" to actually describe or predict anything more useful than what we already have in hand is likely to stunt his success.
 
But I do relish the idea that linguists are evil schemers. It makes us sound as if we were international adventurers, with license to force people to use more vowels. This is not an image I have ever had the pleasure of meeting before, and it's very refreshing☺️

Maybe I should introduce the op to Chomsky's transformational generative grammar? I think that would blow his mind (if it isn't already blown. I think it may be)!
 
Helen said:
But I do relish the idea that linguists are evil schemers. It makes us sound as if we were international adventurers, with license to force people to use more vowels. This is not an image I have ever had the pleasure of meeting before, and it's very refreshing☺️
Click to expand...
Licence to Trill.
 
Helen said:
But I do relish the idea that linguists are evil schemers. It makes us sound as if we were international adventurers, with license to force people to use more vowels. This is not an image I have ever had the pleasure of meeting before, and it's very refreshing☺️

Maybe I should introduce the op to Chomsky's transformational generative grammar? I think that would blow his mind (if it isn't already blown. I think it may be)!
Click to expand...
"Nothing is more futile than a temptation resisted"
Screenshot_20260102_183451.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom