MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Alphabet Soup (Linguistics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

PS Scottie, shouldn't you be sending us scurrying to your blog series?
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
I find it interesting that you ended up with 16 consonants.

Sadly, it won't remain at 16. At present I have it at either 17 or 13.

Firstly, I've been looking at the th sound - as in the word these, etc - and have come to the conclusion that it's a unique consonant sound. It's made by sandwiching the tongue between the top and bottom rows of teeth if you sound it out. It bears no relation to how we pronounce a t or a h sound. So I might have to bring back the letter thorn - though annoyingly the word thorn would be spelt forn in my very basic alphabet.

Also, I've realised that some of the consonants in my above list of 16 are duplicate - or near duplicates. There are 4 pairs;

p and b
f and v
t and d
k and g

The first letter in each pair is just the second letter with a "push" of air (I think). The most obvious example is the F and the V. For example we have; Life and lives, Leaf and leaves. The f and v are very, very similar and made in a very similar way in the mouth. If you mouth a v then a f and hold your hand in front of your mouth you'll feel the larger push of air on your hand with the f.

The letter h is just the sound of a breath or a pant. So I was thinking the letter H could signify the "push" of air differentiating the two similar letter. So, for example, p would be written as b + h - bh. It's probably way too clumsy though, so I'll probably end up shelving the idea.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
PS Scottie, shouldn't you be sending us scurrying to your blog series?

There's also a lot of conspiracy theories and other nonsense on that blog, so it's probably not to everyone's taste. For anyone curious though;

http://birkhallsmiscellany.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-twelve-sacred-consonants-part-1.html
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Firstly, I've been looking at the th sound - as in the word these, etc - and have come to the conclusion that it's a unique consonant sound.


As an aside, it is my strong suspicion that this sound was only recently isolated as a unique consonant in English. This is why it required a dipthong. The sound may have been originally present in English (though I suspect it wasn't) but was at most just a variant pronunciation of the sound more commonly associated with the "D" symbol (we can tell it was not the reverse as "th" is a less commonly used sound among unsophisticated English speakers).

None of the original consonants of English required diphthongs, no more than the vowels required umlauts or emphasis marks.

And there is a very simple and obvious reason for this.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
...without a tape recorder to record what each consonant symbol sounds like no one can know for sure if one culture is using a symbol in the same way another is.


A potentially significant observation.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It was about 12 years ago that I first proposed a variant of this thesis. However; that variant seemed to go nowhere. I ultimately abandoned it in embarrassment---largely argued out of it by Mick who insisted---and continues to insist---that natural language is so infinitely complex that it cannot be written phonetically. Simplified, artificial language is required before a phonetic alphabet can be used to represent it. When that simplified alphabet is then applied to a natural language, it effectively simplifies the natural language.

This is a very thoughtful thesis. An excellent idea. It contains some truth. But it is mostly nonsense.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My critics certainly thought so. They believe Latin is a natural language! Imagine Cicero wandering around the savannas of neolithic Africa.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Inventors of Phonetics


In fact, the so-called "latin" alphabet has been used to represent and write languages all over the world. Supplemented by an expanded symphony of notation markings, the basic alphabet has been used to create written forms of languages spoken by Africans and Eskimos. Indeed; it has been used to write even Chinese and Japanese, neither of which has ever been "simplified" by the employment of a phonetic alphabet---yet the system proves adequate. Persons versed in the notation are able to converse with acceptable success in foreign languages even without being able to speak those languages.

And this was my original idea. That the Phoneticians---the inventors of Phonetics---had devised the alphabet as a means of writing not their own language but of writing all languages. As a nation of sea-traders, the Phonecians were in the unique position of having to deal with peoples scattered about the whole of the globe and needed a means of recording contracts and sending messages that was universal.

Character languages were inadequate because they only conveyed messages to literate persons versed in the system's virtually infinite symbolism---and they did not enable travelers to convey any information verbally to illiterate peoples. I imagined, in fact, that messengers could act as conveyors of recorded messages from one illiterate mogul to another illiterate mogul, even when the messenger himself did not understand the spoken tongue. Indeed, the message could be passed from messenger to messenger on its way to its intended destination and still be read aloud when it arrived, so long as the one who delivered the message understood the phonetic system. I demonstrated that this was possible using modern examples of where people have spoken languages from phonetic cues and had their words understood, even when the speakers have not known the the language.

So why did I abandon this thesis?

Ultimately, it was just a clever idea that lacked any evidence. It was all buried in the mists of time, in the origins of the now lost peoples called "The Phonecians", whose natural tongue has not even yet been deciphered. Without something concrete upon which to hang the notion, my faith in it was lost.

But in fact, I was right all along.

I went wrong because, at the time, I was still fooled into thinking that Phoenicians existed.

And now perhaps you can see where I am going.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I know where you're coming from. I think this was all my idea (but no doubt I am as liable to recovered memory syndrome as you are). It is all captured on the Quest site in case anyone can recover that. But, yes, I can guess what's coming next.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

an infinite number of sounds for both vowels and consonants

I think consonants are probably better described as movements of the tongue or mouth that obstruct or punctuate the actual vocalisations or vowel sounds. I think these positions can be mapped or described to a finite number - though there may be infinite mild variations and some may infinitely blend into one another in some sense.

For example, the letter L is just made by moving the tongue up and down. It doesn't really matter too much if you bring it up to the roof of your mouth, the top teeth, or the top lip. It's all broadly the same. It's interesting too that many of the words we have for lifting things up or down begin with L - lift, lay, loll, lull, lie, lever, lower. It's always a bit dangerous reading too much into the meaning of words, but I do think there's a mechanical rooting to a lot of our language.

The T/D consonant is made by pressing the tongue behind the front teeth. Interestingly, the words we have for describing them are teeth with a T, and dentures with a D.

The N is made by pushing the tongue against the roof of the mouth beneath the nose.

The S or hiss is just teeth closed (or very nearly closed), mouth open.

Like H, which is just the sound of breath or panting, I think W is also a special case. It's just the fast transition between two vowel sounds. I think linguists over-complicate things. For example, if you're singing an "aaaah" vowel with a wide open mouth, then you quickly change to an "ooooh" vowel with a small rounded mouth, then the W is just the bit in the middle. This is why when someone opens their mouth in shock we have the expression "Wow!".
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The V/F is just biting the bottom lip.

The B/P is just pushing the lips together, then "popping" them apart again.

The G/K is just pressing your tongue to the back of your mouth.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I know where you're coming from. I think this was all my idea (but no doubt I am as liable to recovered memory syndrome as you are). It is all captured on the Quest site in case anyone can recover that. But, yes, I can guess what's coming next.


You vociferously argued against all of this previously. So well in fact that I abandoned it all.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
As an aside, it is my strong suspicion that this sound was only recently isolated as a unique consonant in English. This is why it required a dipthong. The sound may have been originally present in English (though I suspect it wasn't) but was at most just a variant pronunciation of the sound more commonly associated with the "D" symbol (we can tell it was not the reverse as "th" is a less commonly used sound among unsophisticated English speakers).

This makes sense. The "th" pronunciation requires extra effort on the part of the speaker. As a child I was always getting pulled up for saying d' and not th. I was too lazy to make the effort and couldn't see what difference it made.

I regret it slightly now though, as I think the "th" pronunciation sounds more attractive and authoritative. I think the extra stress required to speak that way makes it clearer, and easier for people who don't speak your dialect to understand you. I suspect the use of the "th" slows down your speech to some extent and breaks up your sentences. Especially considering how common words like the, this, that, these, etc are.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Inventors of Phonetics


A phonetic alphabet designed to to write any language would presumably contain a sufficient library of core symbols in which to write the languages with which the inventors were in immediate contact. That library might be expected to expand over time as more languages and sounds were encountered by the users of the system. To prevent the base symbols from growing too numerous, variant forms of those base symbols might be devised--perhaps by mirroring or by combining symbols or by adding various slashes and dots where stresses deviated from expected patterns.

The earliest languages for which the system was used would have the least variation and would rely most upon the core symbols (the core symbols can be identified by their being used over and over again even when necessarily accompanied by more variants).

The earliest language represented would, of course, have been the language of the inventors of the system. We can identify the language of the inventors---and thus identify the inventors---simply by finding the simplest rendering of the system---the one that relies exclusively upon the core set of symbols. If the Phoenicians invented Phonics then Phoenician would be the language most simply and naturally represented by the core system.

So what does Phoenician look like?

Well you know that.

You're reading it now.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It appears that all of you are having some trouble following the earth-shattering implications of this blindingly obvious observation. Allow me to hold your hand as we walk forward together.

The Inventors of Phonetics


The English Language was the very first written, fully-phonetic language. Not only was English the first phonetic language, every other written language that employs its characters was written by English-speakers. The French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish; the list goes on and on---all of these written languages were devised by English speakers and then adopted as-written by the natives of the countries named.

Frenchmen did not devise written French using a Latin alphabet. Englishmen devised written French with an English Alphabet, supplemented by umlauts and a few special characters. Germans did not devise written German using a Latin alphabet. Englishmen devised written German with an English Alphabet, supplemented by umlauts and a few special characters. Italians did not devise written Italian using a Latin alphabet. Englishmen devised written Italian with an English Alphabet, supplemented by umlauts and a few special characters. And so on and so forth.

In every case, the written form of each foreign language was defined by English-Speakers who then taught the natives the written form. That written form was adopted wholesale, along with the special characters and special markings which indicated where and how pronunciation of character symbols deviated from standard English.

Had the French, the Germans, the Italians, and other peoples, created their own phonetic languages, those languages would have contained no special characters. The creators of those languages would have done what the English did initially: Create a base set of characters perfectly adequate to the tongue they intended to encode.

They did not do that because the entire idea of phonetic language was completely novel. The concept of phonetic language came to them together with the ready-made written form of their own language.

The same thing happened when the British encountered the natives of the New World. English writers created written forms of dozens of native languages, then handed those written languages over to the natives who continue to use them to this day (where the languages did not die out completely). This exchange is recorded in history so it is uncontroversial. The same process that gifted the peoples of Europe with literacy has long been forgotten.

Nevertheless, this is the tale that is encoded in the world's alphabets--or at least those of Europe. It is recorded there most plainly.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Jump to:  
Page 6 of 7

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group