[HN Gopher] Who invented the alphabet? ___________________________________________________________________ Who invented the alphabet? Author : diodorus Score : 61 points Date : 2023-09-29 02:51 UTC (20 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.asor.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.asor.org) | gumby wrote: | The short answer: the equivalent of today's text slang (esp for | languages that use roman letters when using the phone). | | It's a nice idea. | natroniks wrote: | Adding to other resources shared here, archaeologist Denise | Schmandt-Besserat has written about the evolution of writing (not | strictly the alphabet), and much is available online: | https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing... | The roots of writing seems to be in counting/tallying marks, i.e. | accounting. Another great book, "Against the Grain" by James | Scott, describes how both tallying and writing developed hand-in- | hand with the state. | olah_1 wrote: | I know it is not a popular opinion, but I think Hebrew came | before Phoenician. As far as I can tell, the data could point in | either direction. | CogitoCogito wrote: | Why do you think that? | adrian_b wrote: | That seems completely impossible, regardless of the ages of any | surviving inscriptions. | | The reason is that the initial North-West Semitic alphabet had | 27 consonants, whose order is known from the Ugaritic alphabet | derived from it. | | The Phoenicians have merged 5 pairs of consonants (KHA with | HOTA, SHIN with THANNA, DHAL with ZETA, ZU with SADE and AIN | with GHAIN), and they have kept only one letter from each pair, | the result being a simplified alphabet with only 22 consonants. | | There is no doubt that all the other later North-West Semitic | alphabets have been derived from the Phoenician alphabet and | not from any earlier Semitic alphabet, because all of them have | started only with the restricted set of 22 letters, even if | their languages had more consonants than 22, so the Phoenician | letters were too few for writing all the sounds of those | languages. | | Because of this mismatch between the Phoenician alphabet and | the sound inventory of the languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and | Arabic have been forced initially to use a single letter for | multiple sounds, which has been corrected later by inventing | various diacritic signs to distinguish the multiple meanings of | a letter, like in the Hebrew SHIN and SIN (which are | distinguished by adding a dot to the letter, in different | positions). | | If the Hebrew alphabet had been older than the Phoenician, it | would have included more than 22 letters, e.g. by having | distinct letters for SHIN and SIN (whose pronunciations were | different from the modern pronunciations, which have merged SIN | with SAMEKH). | olah_1 wrote: | I am struggling to find information on this initial northwest | Semitic alphabet that you mention. | | Your logic is sound, but I'm just not finding any info that | backs up what you're saying. | 082349872349872 wrote: | my first google result was a wikipedia article | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script that | led to: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19299-revisiting- | proto-sina... (see pp8-9 for letter inventory) fwiw | adrian_b wrote: | The article discussed here shows examples from older | versions of the Semitic alphabet, many hundreds of years | before the appearance of the Ugaritic, Phoenician or Hebrew | alphabets. | | The reconstructed Proto-Semitic language had 29 consonants, | so it is likely that the oldest Semitic alphabet also had | 29 letters. | | However, this cannot be known for sure, because the very | few preserved inscriptions do not contain all the signs of | the alphabet. Ugaritic proves that there were at least 27 | letters. | | At some point in time, the Semitic alphabet has split into | two variants, a North-West variant and a South-West | variant, the latter being used for writing various South- | Arabic languages. | | While the Northern and the Southern variants have diverged | in their graphic forms, the most significant difference is | that they have completely different orders of the letters | in the alphabet. The reason for the two orders is unknown. | Perhaps they have used some mnemonic technique, like | reciting a poem for remembering all the letters, and the | North and the South have chosen different poems. | | The North-West Semitic alphabet is the one having the order | alpha-beta-gamma ..., which has been inherited by many | later Semitic alphabets and by the Greek, Latin and | Cyrillic alphabets, in all their many variants, including | the English alphabet. | | The oldest Semitic alphabet for which all the letters are | known, together with their alphabetic order, is the | Ugaritic alphabet. In Ugaritic, two pairs of Proto-Semitic | consonants have merged, so it has only 27 consonants of the | original 29. Moreover, Ugaritic does not provide any | information about the graphic forms of the older Semitic | alphabets, because in it all the letter glyphs have been | replaced with forms that can be written on cuneiform | tablets. | | Even so, the Ugaritic alphabet remains the most complete | source of information about the Semitic alphabets that have | preceded the Phoenician alphabet. | | You can see the 27 letters of the Ugaritic alphabet in the | Unicode, from "U+10380;UGARITIC LETTER ALPA" to | "U+1039A;UGARITIC LETTER TO" (besides these 27 letters | inherited from the older North-West Semitic alphabet, | Ugaritic has created 3 additional special-purpose letters, | appended at the end of the alphabet). | | All this information can be found in the literature about | the older Semitic languages from the second millennium BC, | including Ugaritic, and about Proto-Semitic and comparative | Afro-Asiatic linguistics. | | There is abundant data demonstrating that Hebrew, Aramaic | and Arabic had more than 22 consonants at the time when | they have adopted the inadequate for them Phoenician | alphabet with only 22 consonants. Arabic has retained 28 | consonants until today, so, like Hebrew, it has multiplied | the original 22 letters by combining them with diacritic | signs. | | If any of these languages would have adopted the older | alphabet that was the source of the Ugaritic alphabet, | instead of adopting the simplified Phoenician alphabet, | they would have had distinct letters for their consonants | since the beginning, with no need to invent later new | diacritic signs. | | Hebrew SIN was a lateral fricative, which is a sound that | did not exist in Phoenician. When the Hebrews have adopted | the Phoenician alphabet, they did not have any letter for | writing SIN, so they were forced to write it with the | letter SHIN, which was somewhat close in pronunciation. At | that time SAMEKH was pronounced in a different way, so it | would have been a worse choice. | | If the Hebrews would have invented an alphabet of their | own, or if they would have adopted another Semitic alphabet | variant, and not the Phoenician alphabet, they would not | have needed to use a single letter for multiple sounds. | This was clearly not a satisfactory solution, because later | they have invented the SHIN and SIN dots, to disambiguate | the letter with multiple readings. | someone7x wrote: | Given that neither of them "came first" in the topic of | inventing the alphabet, what does it matter if Hebrew or | Phoenician preceded each other? | User23 wrote: | Funny how the images of early manuscripts look suspiciously like | capchas. | orionblastar wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone | nemo wrote: | The Rosetta Stone is from c. 200 BCE, issued by the Ptolemies | in Egypt, ruling after Alexander had conquered Egypt. The first | examples of writing in an ancient ancestor of our alphabet | writing in Western Semitic are from c. ~1500 BCE where they | were using Egyptian hieroglyphs as a model. People were writing | in descendants of that alphabet for more than a thousand years | when the Rosetta Stone was carved, the Greek script derived | from Phoenician which evolved from West Semitic, while the | hieroglyphs on the same stone were the model for West Semitic | writing a thousand years before. | OnlyMortal wrote: | I was about to write that I was under the impression it came | from ancient Egypt, via the Near East and into Greece. | continuitylimit wrote: | OP's author is a prof. of religious studies and has a book on | Hebrews so possibly his point of view requires the | preeminence of Hebrew alphabet. | | I also found some of the reasoning questionable. The reason | Latin teaching was the job of Greek slaves was precisely | because they were Greeks and Roman nouveau rich were adorning | the education of their children. Who teaches the children of | elite today? Millionaires or smart poor people? The second | questionable idea of his is that "sex" and stuff like that | are not of interest to "elite". This confused thinking | disregarding content for medium also was a rather weak | argument. Maybe the elite were using writing as a private | very exclusive chat app and sending textual selfies. | | Hebrew must be first if you are a religious person who | believes in God speaking Hebrew letters and creating the | world. It just doesn't work if it turns out the Egyptians | created the alphabet. | effnorwood wrote: | [dead] | meepmorp wrote: | The Greeks. They're the first known group to explicitly represent | vowels, unlike the older Egyptian derived systems which only | represented consonants and thus were abjads rather than | alphabets. | adrian_b wrote: | While the Greeks have invented the most significant improvement | of the writing system, after that when some Semitic people have | simplified the Egyptian writing system by eliminating all the | multi-consonant signs, any discussion about the Greek alphabet | cannot omit the fact that they did not invent the alphabet, but | they have only improved the Phoenician alphabet, by reusing | signs corresponding to consonants not used in Greek to write | the Greek vowels. | | This was a huge advance, but it cannot be named as "inventing | the alphabet". | DonaldFisk wrote: | It depends what you mean by alphabet. In the narrow sense | (consonants AND vowels) Greek was the first language to have | one - Phoenician had an _abjad_ (consonants only), probably | because most words had 3 consonant roots, with vowels varying | with their grammatical role. | Archelaos wrote: | [delayed] | fnovd wrote: | The Japanese. They're the first known group to explicitly | represent Emoji, unlike the older Latin derived systems which | could only represent emotion through character combinations and | thus were lame rather than complete. | gascoigne wrote: | Not sure if /s, but I recently read about emoji history. It | apparently originated from pagers and then "graduated" to | phones. | | https://one-from-nippon.ghost.io/story-of-the-emoji/ | | Doesn't talk about kaomoji though which I think are | supercool. Like this table flip: ( + deg # deg ) + ( + - + | lherron wrote: | Came here looking for "Sergey and Larry". Guess I'm the only one | feeling a little silly on a Friday afternoon. | [deleted] | [deleted] | mistrial9 wrote: | oh definitely - that must explain why I saw a guy with a white | shawl and a black box filled with written prayer, tied to his | forehead today.. counting grains, no doubt! | | to be very clear - the ways of sacred writing are very old, and | not the same as counting grains. | dang wrote: | Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar hell. | That's the last thing we need here. | | We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37708558. | | Edit: we've had to warn you about this specifically once | before, as well as several other past warnings about breaking | the site guidelines. Would you please review | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to | the rules from now on? We have to ban accounts that won't, and | I don't want to ban you. | mistrial9 wrote: | what ? this is not flamewar? I am being completely | misunderstood here.. I am not guilty .. dang - honestly, I | meant to be fully supportive of prayer and I am deeply | wronged in this sequence.. I regularly support religious | topics if you read my writing | | note: I will re-read the guidelines in an abundance of | caution, but I repeat.. I am being misunderstood deeply .. | this is not at all meant as some kind of problem thing to say | dang wrote: | I'm sorry. I obviously misread you. | | Unfortunately, the comment is still a flamewar starter even | if you didn't intend it that way, because it didn't make | your intent clear enough. I wasn't the only person who took | it the wrong way: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37709050. If we had | left it in its original position, there would likely have | been others. | | The burden is on the commenter to disambiguate intent in | such cases (I was just writing about this elsewhere - | perhaps it will help explain: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37709303). And as the | site guidelines say, " _Comments should get more thoughtful | and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive._ | " | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | mistrial9 wrote: | ok - I deeply apologize and since we are detached, I will | also add that I study the Bible myself, and my first wife | was in fact Jewish. Please, really sorry to be in this | awkward moment | dang wrote: | No worries! These things happen. | natroniks wrote: | If you're trying to make a point about sacred writings being | the first texts, you may want to consider Linear B and | cuneiform, some of the oldest texts of the Mediterranean and | which are almost exclusively inventory lists. While we have | things like the epic of Gilgamesh preserved in baked tablets, | this is the exception to the rule. For the vast majority of | these most ancient texts, tabulation was the main use of | writing: how many animals were sacrificed, how many sheaves of | wheat were in storage, how much fruit a plot of land could | produce, etc. As for sacred writings: Many religions were | hesitant to commit their wisdom to writing - one reason why so | much of Greco-Roman religion is unknown to us. The Oral Torah | was supposedly passed on for centuries until the destruction of | the temple and fragmentation of the Jews necessitated the | writing down of this knowledge. Heck, Homeric poetry (the hymns | as well as the epics) was not written down until centuries of | oral development had gone on; not because writing had not been | invented, but because it was not used for literary material. | jcranmer wrote: | Something important to remember is that the transient | documents in the Ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamian days | were scratched into clay (a medium which allows it to be | easily erased and adjusted if necessary, and is plentifully | available in quantity). One consequence is that if you have | these things in a storage building that catches on fire, the | clay is baked into pottery and essentially permanently | preserved for archaeologists to uncover. Texts written on | organic parchment or papyrus are far less durable, as they | tend to decompose unless properly stored. | | This means we probably have an exaggerated abundance of | economic documents due to survivorship bias of the things | they wrote economic data on. | adamlgerber wrote: | odd thing to be snarky about. organized religious practices | coevolved with agricultural societies. I don't think this is | that scandalous? | mistrial9 wrote: | yeah - downvotes.. the comment is meant to be supportive of | prayer and dismissive of accounting.. yet it is apparently | "snarky" .. online forums are a cursed medium? | thewakalix wrote: | If you're unaware of what "snarky" means, I suggest | consulting https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snarky. | codeulike wrote: | _Who Put the Alphabet in Alphabetical Order?_ | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRDY30tiD98 | | A song for children by They Might Be Giants | havblue wrote: | "Remember how easy it was to learn your ABC's? Thank the | Phoenicians - they invented them." -Dame Judi Dench, Spaceship | Earth | dmbaggett wrote: | An authoritative source on this _Inventing the Alphabet_ by | Johnanna Drucker. She covers not only the modern evidence but | also attempts to classify alphabets throughout history, with | particular focus on the Middle Ages. The first half is a bit dry | -- how much do we really care what various scholars in the 16th | Century made up about the history of the alphabet? -- (a lot was | made up), but the second half looks at the modern archaeological | contribution to the study of alphabetic origins and is very | interesting. | | There are also lots of scans of really interesting Medieval | manuscripts cataloging alphabets in the book. | meatmanek wrote: | If you're interested in fascinating deep dives into the history | of a few odd letters, the jan Misali channel on Youtube has a | video on the letter W (which, along the way, covers F and Y) and | another one on the letter C. w: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg2j7mZ9-2Y c: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chpT0TzietQ | [deleted] | narag wrote: | The article makes a difference between "learned scribes" and | "creative people at the margins" forgeting a third possibility: | learned scribes working not for the religious or secular | bureaucracies, but for the merchants. | | A parallelism: programmers have different styles working for an | established corporation and for a startup. The bureaucracy tends | to stand for the old practices, resisting change. The dynamic | environment favours starting from scratch and simplicity. | Merrill wrote: | >>Remarkably, two recent discoveries from around 1500 BCE do | show scribes using the alphabet. But these exceptions prove the | rule, because these scribes used alphabetic writing just as | sloppily or playfully as its other users did. In an obscure | ostrakon from Thebes and a handful of looted cuneiform tablets | we find surprising confirmation that even professional writers | used it unprofessionally. | | Perhaps they were early physicians? | hinkley wrote: | It's interesting how people in this space study twins, and I | wonder sometimes if that isn't more on the nose than we give it | credit for. | | Twins likely created the first languages - who does the first | person genetically capable of speech talk to, except someone | genetically and environmentally identical? Likely had the first | verbal families, and then verbal tribes. Written secret codes | might have started the same way, and ended up either being | tribal or trade secrets. Success leads to imitation. Partial | success leads to theft, or acquisition. | atleastoptimal wrote: | Another semi related thing I've thought about is how the | invention of words comes about. I know most words today have an | origin that can be traced back through text over hundreds of | years, but what about the time way way back, Indo-European era, | was there anything to trace back to? Was it just one or a few | people who realized there as no grunt sound that meant "cold" or | "elbow" so decided one day that that was the grunt sound they | were gonna use and it spread naturally? | [deleted] | wolverine876 wrote: | _... it is clear that a theory of the alphabet as a casual and | playful mode of knowledge explained all of our evidence when I | first tackled this back in 2004, and still (encouragingly) | explains all of the new evidence discovered in the 20 years | since. What we lack is a theory of play as a mode of creativity | and knowledge production in ancient writing, which I suggest as a | new frontier for research on the early history of writing._ | | An interesting theory for much innovation, reborn. How much | creativity comes from play? How many get their start in games - | within games, doing things within the gaming world, either their | play-fort or an online world or their imagination about their | book or their role-playing game. | | Remember SV companies used to encourage play, with rooms designed | for it? (Do they still?) | hilbert42 wrote: | A fascinating subject, and there's an extension of it about which | I've been curious for years, it's why English doesn't use | diacritics or accents on alphabetical characters as do many | European languages--French, German, etc. For instance, in French | the letter _' e'_ can take four forms--without accent, grave _e,_ | acute /aigu _e,_ circumflex _e._ This makes the letter much more | flexible and greatly assists with pronunciation. | | So why doesn't English use them? It's clear the language needs | them with words such as _through, thorough_ and _thought_ which | are confusing enough for native speakers let alone those learning | English as a second language. And how about inconsistencies such | as the verb _to lead_ and the metal Pb _lead,_ or other strange | _' gh'_ words such as _cough?_ | | Similarly, proper nouns such as _Wycombe, Warwick,_ etc. defy | logic when it comes to pronunciation and would greatly benefit | from diacritical marks. | | I've never considered myself a particularly good speller and I | reckon I would have benefited from diacritics had English used | them. | Merrill wrote: | It would be nice if word processors had a feature to translate | documents to International Phonetic Alphabet. Your second | paragraph would be: | | s@U waI d^znt 'INGglIS ju:z dem? Its klI@ d@ 'laeNGgwIdZ ni:dz | dem wId we:dz s^tS aez thru:, 'th^r@ aend tho:t wItS a: | k@n'fju:zING I'n^f fo: 'neItIv 'spi:k@z let @'l@Un d@Uz | 'le:nING 'INGglIS aez @ 'sek@nd 'laeNGgwIdZ. aend haU @'baUt | ,Ink@n'sIstnsiz s^tS aez d@ ve:b tu: li:d aend d@ 'metl Pb | li:d, o:r '^d@ streIndZ 'gh' we:dz s^tS aez kaf? | adamrezich wrote: | I think I can speak for many many people who casually read | Wikipedia articles by asking: how does one go about | practically learning the IPA, so as to be able to read (not | even write) something like that? every time I come across a | Wikipedia article that uses IPA to explain pronunciation, | it's wholly inscrutable gibberish, completely useless if | there isn't a listen-to-someone-saying-it button. | akavi wrote: | Just like you learn anything else. Flash cards, pure | repeated exposure, reading about the symbols long enough | that you have a framework to fit them into, etc. | meepmorp wrote: | Transcription practice really helped me associate IPA | with speech sounds. | RandallBrown wrote: | Usually those pronunciations are also links to the IPA | helper page. I've used it to figure out pronunciations in | the past. | akavi wrote: | Non-rhotic accent, eh? Estuary English? | | "'th^r@"'s was interesting to me, I'd render "thorough" in my | ideolect (Southern-inflected General American) "th^row". Is | your pronunciation "standard" in British English (or whatever | the prestige variant where you're from is)? | | Also, I think you meant "d@ 'metl Pb led" | goalieca wrote: | English has so many accents that spelling would still have to | be memorized to be used as a universal writing system. | jcranmer wrote: | English spelling becomes a lot more rational [1] when you | understand that you are spelling words largely according to | Middle English. Sound changes that occur after that are largely | not reflected in English spelling. | | As for why English doesn't use diacritics, well, my hypothesis | is that Middle English just didn't need them. Per the Wikipedia | article on Middle English phonology, there's 5 short vowels + | unstressed vowel + 7 long vowels + diphthonging with /j/ or | /w/. With just 5 short vowels, it's possible to write every one | with the 5 basic vowels of Latin script, and the long vowels | and diphthongs can be written with paired vowels, using | different vowels for the extra long vowel sounds (cf. ee versus | ea)--no need for diacritics, even if it is a little clumsy. | | The Great Vowel Shift came along and fucked up all the long | vowels, and separate changes caused "a" to break into 2-3 | sounds (crowding into the "o" sound, as well), leaving us with | clearly multiple sounds for the same short "a" and "long" vowel | spellings that bare little to no resemblance to their | corresponding pronunciations. Some of the sounds (in | particular, ee and ea) merged into one sound as part of the | Great Vowel Shift, too. | | [1] The other thing that ruins English spelling is a proclivity | to borrow foreign words with foreign pronunciation and foreign | spellings (even if it's not written in Latin script!), so to | some extent, you have to play a guessing game as to etymology | to work out spelling. But ignoring those cases, you can | actually pretty reliably work out the pronunciation of most | English words by effectively applying the (mostly regular) | phonological changes from Middle English. | marktani wrote: | very interesting! | | can you share a couple examples of words borrowed with | foreign, non-Latin script? I'm having trouble imagining how | this could look like | jcranmer wrote: | Words like 'manga' or 'anime' come from Japanese (written | in kanji) or Greek words like onomatopoeia (Greek is a | different alphabet from Latin) are ones that come to mind. | Zach_the_Lizard wrote: | Algebra, from Arabic | nh23423fefe wrote: | But people don't read letter by letter to recognize a word. The | vast majority of readers are fluent and are seeing a word for | the 1000th time. Optimizing for foreign learners instead of | native adults seems wrong. | | Words vary in pronunciation across time and across regions and | dialects. I would assume those words "used to" (which doesn't | sound like it has a 'd') sound like they were written. So what | would you do, rewrite the dictionary every couple centuries for | zero gain? | bojan wrote: | Maybe one of the reasons the pronunciation varies across time | and regions is exactly because the pronunciation rules aren't | really standardized, so people can get creative. | | I wonder if the languages with strict pronunciation rules | tend to change less. In my native language we tend to get new | words of course, but if I read a text from 100 years ago I | will be able to pronounce every word correctly, even if the | word is now archaic and fallen out of use. I might get the | accent wrong, and indeed accents do vary across regions, and | sometimes even between neighboring towns. | nh23423fefe wrote: | That reason doesn't make sense, because pronunciation has | always varied across time and most people were illiterate | in the past. the written word, is not the normative form of | a language. words aren't made of letters, and letters | aren't made of sounds. | idoubtit wrote: | I don't have a definite answer on why some writing systems | decide to use diacritics why other don't. I'm not sure there is | a single reason for English. | | But I think a bit of historical context would help. Many | European languages derive from Latin, and most other were | influenced and borrowed its alphabet. Latin didn't have | diacritics, despite having pronunciation accents. E.g. "mania" | could mean "mania" (madness) or "mania" (a kind of spirit). | With time, many short vowels disappeared or changed, e.g. | "orphanus" became "orphenin" then "orphelin" in French. I | suppose that, for languages that are mostly an evolution of | Latin, introducing diacritics was a way to mark words that were | different from Latin words. It was even more useful because | Latin was the written standard (a moving standard across | centuries). | | By the way, French and English are languages were you can't be | sure of the pronunciation of a word you've never seen. Some | studies have shown that other languages are much more efficient | to read and write. For instance, Spanish readers barely slow | down when reading a text that contains rare words, while | English readers stumble. I remember stumbling when I first | encountered "antienne" in my native language, or "recipe" and | "gaol" in English. | seszett wrote: | > _French and English are languages were you can 't be sure | of the pronunciation of a word you've never seen._ | | English yes of course, but French pronunciation is very | regular and only a few loanwords don't follow the rules. | "Antienne" is regular and pronounced the same way all other | -tienne words are as far as I know (like, say, Etienne). The | most difficult rules to master though are those that take | into account the origin of a word (Latin, Greek or a Germanic | language), especially for how to pronounce "ch", but these | are essentially loanwords. | | The reverse is not true though, there are many different | potential ways to write a word that produce the same | pronunciation. | cryptonector wrote: | The rules of pronunciation in French are... hard to | describe. Maybe it's because French is a natal language for | me. I mean, how do you explain oeuf vs. oeufs? No, French | has lots of particularities to it, just not as many as | English. Spelling in French is definitely a lot more | regular than in English, but the rules of spelling in | French have lots of exceptions anyways (e.g., all words | that start with 'af' have a double 'f' except [long list of | words like afrique]). | Quekid5 wrote: | > I mean, how do you explain oeuf vs. oeufs? | | Just like 'hour' and 'our' in English I assume. They just | happened to sound exactly alike for different(?) reasons. | | EDIT: Probably similar reasons, actually? The "h" here | participates in in a vowel sound (effectively silencing | it) and the 's' suffix is _often_ (but not always!) | silent in French? | | Spelling is a tension between going purely for sounding | things out (e.g IPA) and being able to find commonality | with other pronunciations (dialects spoken by neighboring | peoples), etc. It's going to get ad hoc because people. | detourdog wrote: | I have always loved the Jean Shepherd line: | | Its as if the french don't even know how to spell their | own language. | | This is from an perspective english. I want to also add | that english developed as part of a frontier colony. | goalieca wrote: | Where I'm from, the f in plural oeufs is silent. Also, | note the correct spelling of oeuf | wongarsu wrote: | > The reverse is not true though, there are many different | potential ways to write a word that produce the same | pronunciation. | | For any "real" language it's probably impossible to have a | 1-1 mapping in both directions. | | French tries really hard to embed everything required for | pronunciation in the spelling, but because of dialects and | phonetic drift that leads to some pronunciations having | multiple viable spellings. | | German seems more concerned with the other direction: for | each pronunciation (in high German) there is one obvious | way to spell it (barring some baggage around c/k/ck and | s/ss/ss, but even that has rules that can be applied to | mostly clear it up). The other direction also mostly works, | the spelling-pronunciation mapping is fairly obvious even | if you don't know the word, but it is more ambiguous than | French (no way to differentiate e e e or e; and e is mostly | inferred). | | English somehow seems to neither try to maintain a | consistent spelling-pronunciation mapping nor a | pronunciation-spelling mapping, nor a tradeoff between the | two. At least unless you know the origin of the word and | are aware of pertinent linguistic history of the last ~200 | years, or develop a good heuristic understanding for those. | Probably because of the amount of coordination required to | maintain a decent mapping in either direction. Both France | and Germany have influential central control on spelling. | Sharlin wrote: | > For any "real" language it's probably impossible to | have a 1-1 mapping in both directions. | | As far as I know, Finnish is very very close to 100% | phonetic: one letter, one phoneme, with some slight | exceptions and some wiggle room when it comes to | dialectical variation and loanwords, especially those | with nonnative phonemes like /b/ or /g/. The velar nasal | NG is the biggest exception, featuring in "nk" and "ng" | (like in many other languages) and the rules aren't | entirely straightforward. Another exception is that in | spoken language a glottal stop or gemination can appear | at some morpheme boundaries but isn't reflected in | written text. | masklinn wrote: | It's also that french and german have somewhat purer | linguistic roots, english started as a west germanic | language, got admixtures of old norse, followed by | massive injections of french and latin (roughly a quarter | of the modern vocabulary, each), and uncontrolled | pronunciation shifts. | | Written old english was quite regular and phonetically | sound. It also had a fair number of diacritics (after | latinisation). | | > For any "real" language it's probably impossible to | have a 1-1 mapping in both directions. | | I understand korean is rather good in that perspective, | but also that it has a relatively simple phonology and | the korean script is constructed, it was designed from | scratch for korean. | | Interestingly and not dissimilar to TFA's assertions, for | a very long time it was only used by the common class and | disdained by the aristocracy, 19th century nationalism | and separation from china led to its revival. | litoE wrote: | "The New Yorker" magazine uses umlauts to mark the different | pronunciations of doubled vowels. The write "cooperate" to | distinguish the way you pronounce its double o from the sound | of the double o in "chicken coop". | gumby wrote: | If you think of english spelling as highly conservative (it is) | and only casually connected to pronunciation (an overstatement, | but true) the spelling isn't so bad. The conservatism preserves | meaning which is lost in languages like German where spelling | is periodically "reformed", severing spelling from a word's | historical semantics. | | You could just as well consider words like "debt", "lead" or | "Wycombe" to be kanjis, and nobody complains about their | disconnect from pronunciation. | cryptonector wrote: | IIRC Benjamin Franklin tried to make use of diacritics in his | (U.S.) newspaper, and it didn't fly. | | English could use a spelling simplification, but it's not going | to happen -- it's too late and there's too much inertia in the | current way of doing things. | | Also, FYI, the circumflex in e in French isn't there to change | how e is pronounced but to denote that after the e there used | to be an s that has been dropped, and that's how it always is | for the circumflex accent in French. Sure, etre is not | pronounced the same as it would be were it written as etre, but | I think that's accidental and not really the essence of the | circumflex accent in French. | dragonwriter wrote: | > English could use a spelling simplification, but it's not | going to happen | | Sure it is, continuously and gradually. | | > Also, FYI, the circumflex in e in French isn't there to | change how e is pronounced but to denote that after the e | there used to be an s that has been dropped, and that's how | it always is for the circumflex accent in French. Sure, etre | is not pronounced the same as it would be were it written as | etre, but I think that's accidental and not really the | essence of the circumflex accent in French. | | IIRC, and its been a long time since I studied French or made | use of anything but the the most basic bits, for each vowel | there is a consistent (in the general case, but there may be | exceptions) pronunciation change associated with the now- | elided "s", so the circumflex serves both historical and | phonetic purposes. | cryptonector wrote: | > Sure it is, continuously and gradually. | | There has been no success to any attempts to regularize the | spelling of English in... what, over a century now? Is the | New Yorker still the only major publication insisting on | using umlauts? :) | | I'm not saying that English won't evolve, mind you, only | that English spelling will evolve [a lot] more slowly than | the rest of the language. | | > IIRC, and its been a long time since I studied French or | made use of anything but the the most basic bits, for each | vowel there is a consistent (in the general case, but there | may be exceptions) pronunciation change associated with the | now-elided "s", so the circumflex serves both historical | and phonetic purposes. | | Wikipedia says it alters the sound of a, e, and o. But I | would pronounce chateau and chateau substantially the same. | I would pronounce fantome slightly differently from | fantome. Etre and etre, on the other hand, would have | substantially different pronunciations. | The_Colonel wrote: | German is frustrating for its underuse of diacritics - e.g. | tetragraph "tsch" representing a single sound, similar for | "sch". In Czech, these are c and s respectively. Polish has | similar issues, resulting in the infamous "spilled letters" | orthography. | gsich wrote: | 'Q' could be used for that in German. Rename all other words. | notaustinpowers wrote: | It's hard to know for absolutely certain, but a lot of it might | be because diacritics would just make English even harder to | read/write. By the invention of printing, English was a very | confusing mess of the germanic and romantic languages and there | was no absolute agreement on pronunciation. Plus, we were in | the middle of the great vowel shift, so slapping diacritics on | letters would have been a fools errand since they wouldn't | sound like that diacritic says they do. English's lax | pronunciation, linguistic changes during the middle ages, and | strong romantic language influence, would make it even more | confusing to create solid rules on diacritic usage, especially | as many people would still be illiterate, and English was an | "easier" language than the very complex Latin. | NeoTar wrote: | It's a fascinating subject. | | I think a lot of the English peculiarities with spelling come | from it adopting other vocabulary without enforcing a change to | English orthography onto it, so we end up with a crazy mix of | Germanic, French, Latin, Greek and other language spelling | conventions. Also English speakers were perhaps more willing to | coin Latin/Greek terms for new objects than other languages - | contrast 'television' from Greek and Latin in English, with | Fernseher (literally far-looker) in German. | | With respect to dialectical marks, I'm not sure why English in | general doesn't use them (although some might argue we do if we | spell words cafe or naive), but they don't seem to be | 'fashionable' in related languages - Dutch doesn't seem to use | them either, and in German they feel somewhat optional - a, o | and u can be replaced with ae, oe and ue respectively (e.g. | where the accented forms aren't available) and ss can be | replaced with ss. Indeed correct alphabetical sorting of German | demands this. | euroderf wrote: | > contrast 'television' from Greek and Latin in English | | I recall reading somewhere that back in the day, there were | complaints that this new word coinage "television" would | never catch on specifically because it mixed Greek and Latin. | jl6 wrote: | > dialectical marks | | Of course dialectical Marx is something else entirely. | wahern wrote: | I wonder how personalized are autocompletions on Android | and iPhone. How strongly could we infer, if at all, that | someone had used the term dialectical before? Are | autocompletions personalized enough that they might suggest | dialectical over diacritic because someone had used (or | received!) words like Hegel or capitalism? (Or maybe we | could merely only infer someone's phone is using a European | English word probability database as in European discourse | dialectics might be even more common than diacritics. ;) | lainga wrote: | Don't quote me on this, but I vaguely recall an explanation | years ago, that the one-two punch of Norman French and the | Great Vowel Shift arriving were enough for spelling and | pronounciation to permanently decouple in English speakers' | minds | Obscurity4340 wrote: | I wonder if the dot above 'i's and 'j's are in some sense a | diacritic or like "1/2 of one" ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-29 23:00 UTC)