Englophone
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Have you ever thought that the traditional Roman alphabet (the one we use in English) seemed somewhat shoehorned into the English language? Well, that turns out to be true. So I designed a 38-letter alphabet specifically for English. Join me as we go through the letters one-by-one.
Read about it on my website:
www.keanimusic...
Cheers,
KeaniMusic
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the way he sounds the glottal stop, it's like "ERH-", and h was basically taking as much of his breath out as possible. Love it.
i dont love it because its incorrect
@@grout6924 i know but it's funny
Yeah I'm pretty sure whatever he's doing is more pharyngeal than glottal
I am a fourteeen year old language enthusiast. I gotta say it’s incredible when I see other language enthusiastic kids as well. Dude, this is really good. I can tell you gotta brain 💪 🧠. Good video.
I am 16.75 from Pakistan. Are you from Iran?
@@SignsBehindScience no, my grandpa is from Iran. I was like 11 when I made that Name
I'm 9 and also a language enthusiast!
@@texterthesilly0 when I was 9 I was a Paleobiology enthusiast.
About your definition of affricates and calling vowel pairs affricates: An affricate isn't just two random sounds said together, it specifically refers to a series of a plosive and a fricative with similar place of articulation. creating a motion where you build up and release air into a turbulent flow. Examples:
pf, bv, tθ, dð, ts, dz, tʃ, dʒ, ʈʂ, ɖʐ, tɕ, dʑ, kx, ɡɣ, qχ, ɡʁ. Counterexamples: aɪ, oʊ, ks, and pretty much anythinɡ not listed above
This is true, the correct term would be Diphthong, for the vowels that is
ɢʁ*
I love this. As a native English speaker, I knew virtually none of this about the language. This sheds light on what's really going on with speech and writing.
Thank you! That was my hope with this video so I'm glad it was successful.
There's an entire discipline which studies this stuff. It's called linguistics. When I suggested that some basic linguistic concepts be introduced into spelling and reading instruction in English, as well as into foreign language instruction, I was irrationally shouted down by my professors. That just goes to show that the American education system is designed to keep the students uniformed so that they will have no critical thinking skills and can be treated as cattle and sheep.
Russian letters do change depending on upper or lower case, ESPECIALLY in handwriting.
no in handwriting it doesnt but in CURSIVE HANDWRITING oh body it just becomes mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@@Tablecuppz Russian, written in the Cyrillic alphabet, ABSOLUTELY DOES have 2 cases.
Nice video, however I must point out that the Russian alphabet DOES actually have cases. However they're only really noticable in cursive handwriting and certain fonts.
Hi, I'd love to point out some stuff I've seen from this video that I think could help you a lot in your "Journey" if you're trying to actually doing it.
By the way, I'm not a master related to English Phonemes, Rules inside the language and writting system or etimology itself. So if I'm wrong in any you can just tell me.
With that said:
- 1) 0:07, Efficiency while writting doesn't mean being able to cut letters from here and there. It has 2 ways of looking at it that are:
The Writer/ How long are the letters? How well they connect to each other? How long are the words? Do you need to lift the hand many times? How many strokes?
And the Reader/ How clear are the letters? Are some too close to each-other? How much spaces are in between the letters and the words? Does it sound the same as it's written?
And many more...
Spelling reforms aren't just for "Cutting" but they could also be for adding letters if they don't break any word and still they don't appear in the written text.
For example Silent letters in French and Spanish. In french we have "-e" and "-es" at the end of words and Spanish's "Hh" that most of the time are not pronounced by they serve to make the reader's life much comfortable as they differentiate many stuff with just a simple character. And that if it wasn't there you wouldn't know the difference.
I don't know, stuff like: "Knight" and "Night", "Hour" and "Our"...
- 2) 0:55, Digraphs are Great!
Why would I say such a thing huh? Well... I believe most of the time digraphs became like that due to Etimology or rules related to the language specifically. For example "Ll, ll" in Spanish differentiating "Yy" but now they are almost always pronounced the same.
"ου" in Greek now pronounced "u", the same with Armenian "ու". In German we have stuff like "Sch" pronounced as the English "Sh" because "Sh" is actually pronounced like /st/ like "Fashd", so they differentiated it by putting a "c" in middle as "Sch".
It is true that some languages in their early times were digraphs and then they became a single letter like "Çç" from Portuguese that initially was "cz", "Spanish "Ññ"" that was "nn" or German "ß" that initially was "ſz" (Long s + z).
But all of those examples have to come Naturally as some people just prefer to use what they have instead of using something new. It's something that you need to accept.
- 3) 1:39, "1 character, 1 sound".
Now we have a problem, what do you define... "A Phoneme"? Every single sound that an English speaker use to make up words?
I don't know if you understand that there are Maaaaaaaaaany dialects of English, not only yours (Idiolect as is called) and they all have their own differences.
For example, would you add stuff like /ɐ/, /ɵ/, /ʏː/, /ʉ/, /o̞/, /ɒ/, /ɻ/, /ç/, /x/ or /ɬ/?
How about Allophones? /t̬/, /pʰ/, /tʰ/, /kʰ/, /ɫ/, /ʌ/, /ɾ/, /ɸ/, /β/, /ɦ/, /w/ or /ɤ/?
How about Rothic and Non-Rhotic dialects? /ɚ/ instead of /ə/? /ɪr/ or /ɪə/?
How about vowel's length? In most American's dialects all vowels seem not have the same length meanwhile in other dialects some vowels can be pronounced long and others long. For example check this pronounciation difference between GA and RP in the text "The North Wind and the Sun".
/ðə ˈnoɹθ ˌwɪnd ən ðə ˈsʌn wɚ dɪsˈpjutɪŋ ˈwɪtʃ wəz ðə ˈstɹɑŋɡɚ, wɛn ə ˈtɹævəlɚ ˌkem əˈlɑŋ ˈɹæpt ɪn ə ˈwoɹm ˈklok/
/ðə nɔːθ wɪnd ænd ðə sʌn wɜː dɪˈspjuːtɪŋ wɪʧ wɒz ðə ˈstɹɒŋɡə, wɛn ə ˈtɹævlə keɪm əˈlɒŋ ɹæpt ɪn ə wɔːm kləʊk/
How about Vowel reduction or Weak forms? Like "The" as /ðiː/ or/ðə/, "Can" /kæn/ or /kən/.
What do you say about Syllable and Word stress? It's not the same "Present" than "preSent", "Record" and "reCord".
About the Word stress:
Are you going to eat THAT? (Too big or disgusting).
Are you going to EAT that? (Is that food?).
Are YOU going to eat that? (Wasn't it for me?).
ARE you going to eat that? (Are you going to eat it or just stare at it?).
And many many more complex examples for this...
- 4) 2:29, the "ABC" position of the letters in the alphabet comes from ancient times from other languages. English had Runes, which had a different combination (It would be somthing like "F, U, TH, O, R...", etc).
And if you ask Why exactly we still use this combination? Well... If you didn't know, most of the first letters and last letters are Also the more and less used letters in the entire language. This can differ, I know, but it's interesting to know that.
++++ The alphabet as it is today Suits the "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" melody that is pretty much impossible to forget for a lot of generations.
And be honest with yourself... Nobody cares about if one letters connect to the other linguistically. But most importantly, how do you teach kids that without sounding bad right now?
- 5) 3:23, Speaking of Graphemes...
Does your alphabet have different ways to write-type a letter? Letter fonts suits different people, different ways to write makes life easier for many and opens originality and the expression of the speakers of that language.
Speaking of which, how do you write the letters mentioned? Do they have Uppercase and Lowercase letters? Do they have descenders and ascenders? Do you only have print letters or you've also done cursive versions too? Have you made a font with them to see how it's written?
Heck... You didn't even post a simple text that shows how your alphabet looks like in paper!!!
That's the most important part of any Spelling or Writting system reform... Knowing if the Native speakers (Or learners) can understand the message easily. If it's not, it doesn't matter how much effort you've put it will not be used or even if it is, people will have a hard time doing so.
I think this message is becoming long enough so...
If you want Specific topics like rules, ways to spell and more just let me know below!
the glottal stop /ʔ/ cannot be voiced because voicing itself requires vibration of the glottis, which wouldn't be possible to do with the glottal stop as it closes the glottis completely
also words cannot describe how much it annoys me that the word diphthong does not contain any diphthongs
@@Designed1honestly, it should be called bivowels. That contains 2 diphthongs
small correction. in old english, eth and thorn were not used exclusively for voiced and voiceless dental fricatives respectively. they were actually weirdly used interchangeably for both, and for a while eth was most widely used but over time it became almost exclusively thorn used.
Hmmm. Thanks for letting me know. I've gotten a few corrections for this video (one being that the Russian alphabet does, in fact, have cases), so I'll pin a comment with those corrections. :D
@@DiegoKeaneMusic Whether the claim made by @lesbianethera is correct or not, you should maintain letters for both the voiced and unvoiced interdental fricatives in your alphabet.
Yup I think that’s because they were allophonic, for example þ was usually pronounced voiced between two letters but didn’t convey any different meaning than if it were pronounced voiceless
@@aLadNamedNathan seconded. i just wanted to explain that that’s not how it was in old english. if i were bringing these letters back today i would wholly support assigning them according to voicedness
I agree however I believe should be replaced by .
Language/music/math nerd here, I am glad to see young enthusiasts here too, as someone who has ADHD and Autism, I dunno if I mastered music but I am certainly mastered math beyond the average fella my age.
Yes, I am 14.
Although I would probably find a way to make the letters dyslexic friendly. Good alphabet, although could use work.
Great video! This is just the kind of thing I like talking about.
I like the idea of English spelling reforms and new writing systems and I’ve made a few myself. At the same time, I wish they were presented more as fun thought experiments rather than practical solutions to writing that will really be implemented.
(Also midway through you said Cyrillic (Russian) doesn’t have upper and lowercases, but it most certainly does, it was just introduced to the later than in the Latin alphabet.)
Anyways, great video!
the russian alphabet (which is called Cyrillic and is used by many other languages like Ukrainian or Mongolian) does have case, and it uses it in basically the same way as the Latin script does
This video is really well done, i look forward to seeing what youve got in the future. One very glaring problem though is that this phonetic alphabet is only phonetic for your accent. Im from the south and my vowel invantory is heavily shifted and i have some different consonants. I pronounce [w] and [wh] distinctly, in many places before [d] a /s/ becomes /z/, many word final consonants becomes glottal stops or are completely dropped such as [d] in wind, some words such as "wash" or "washington" will sound like "worsh" with an /r/ added, ain't in some contexts will gain /h/ initially, and then theres a whole bunch of vowel changes that would merge the spelling of homophones (such as "fill and feel") or just require a different spelling (such as "potato" pronounced "puhtaytuh" or "hollow" pronounced "haller"), not to mention the southern vowel shift. This would either require the writing system to not be phonetic for me (which defeats the purpose of a phonetic writing system), or for there to be no true standard (which defeats the point of a unified writing system). If theres no realistic standard then intelligibility would go down between dialects. For someone in deep Appalachia to talk to someone from cork Ireland over a text medium would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.
Corrections:
• It’s anachronistic to say “I stood in for J, and V stood in for U avd W”. They didn’t make that distinction between /i/ and /j/ and between /u/ and /w/. They sounded very close anyway, so that reading “juvenis” as /iuuenis/ got you 90% of the way to the correct pronunciation, /juwenis/. English used to not distinguish between these letters either up until after Shakespeare, which is why you see spellings like “loue” for “love” in prints from that era.
• þ and ð didn’t have the same voiced-voiceless distinction in Middle English, as in Icelandic.
• /ʔ/ is not phonemic in English. It needs no letter.
• /ks/ is not a true affricate, as /k/ and /s/ do not have the same place of articulation.
• What you call a “vowel affricate” is correctly called a diphthong.
• No, /aj/ (PRICE vowel) does not start with “the /ɒ/ from ‘Bob’ (LOT vowel)”. That vowel has a narrower, more closed oral cavity than /aj/. Your idiolect (personal dialect) may pronounce it that way due to the three-way father-bother and cot-caught merger, but unless your goal was to make an alphabet for yourself, and not all American English speakers, your analysis is not accurate.
• No, /ow/ (GOAT vowel) does not start with “the ‘uh’ in ‘bug’ (STRUT vowel)”. In most accents, it sounds more like /aw/ (MOUTH vowel) or /uw/ (GOOSE vowel). I understand why you made that mistake, though, because the STANDARD SOUTHERN BRITISH ENGLISH transcription says /əʊ/, but unlike your idiolect which has the STRUT-commA merger, /ə/ (commA vowel) doesn’t equal /ʌ/ (STRUT vowel) in British English, Australian English, or New England American English. “You’re unequal” isn’t “You’re an equal”, and “upend” doesn’t equal “append”.
• “Ah as in b???t” is the WORST possible example word you could have used for what you mean, because “baht” (Thai currency unit), “bot” (robot), and “bought” (did buy) are all English words pronounced with different vowels (PALM, LOT, and THOUGHT).
Review:
• You should put an alphabet table on your website if you have a website anyway. Right now, it just links back to this video.
• Au contraire, mon ami, what makes the Shavian alphabet work great is that it isn’t just a modification to the Latin alphabet. It clearly signals to the reader that 𐑞𐑦𐑕 𐑦𐑟 𐑩 𐑛𐑦𐑓𐑼𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑕𐑐𐑧𐑤𐑦𐑙 𐑕𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑥 (this is a different spelling system), raðer ðan a grup of mispeliŋz. Also, for someone criticizing Shavian’s near total removal from Latin, your vowel symbols are unintuitive and foreign, and use existing symbols from other alphabets in ways that aren’t logically expected (Delta, Sigma, Gamma, and Pi as vowels? Ew)
• “ʃ” has a capital letter used in some African languages. It looks like the Greek Sigma (Σ).
• The vowels are definitely the biggest mess here. Comparing them to Shavian vowels, they are:
⟂ - 𐑦
+ - 𐑰
E - 𐑧
Δ - 𐑱
A - 𐑨
i - 𐑲
Ə - 𐑩? 𐑳?
Π - 𐑭? 𐑪? 𐑷?
O - 𐑴
Φ - 𐑫
U - 𐑵
Γ - 𐑭?
σ - “aw as in pour”???
I don’t think your idiolect even uses σ. In addition, you should more clearly define how to spell the rhotic vowels: “are”, “ore”, “air”, “er” in “her”, “arr” in “array”, and “ear”.
Eth and Thorn didn't have a voiced and voiceless distinction in Old English, not in middle english. By Middle English they had become phonemic but by then both letters were dropped, just a small detail to point out.
This would really benefit from chapters/segments/whatever YT calls them now, to quickly jump between parts of a video
Thank you, I have thought about that and will be getting around to it soon :D
The glottal plosive is unvoiced, hope this helps!
Is the voiced one impossible ?
Yes @@user-EndyOrSometih
This is a bit late, however, c in old english (English from 1000 years ago, before English got a bunch of French words) made the 'ch' sound. Also, I propose changing the name of 'w' to wynn, the old english name for a symbol that made the w sound, just to simplify the name.
I ned to see more of these videos!
This is so interesting and I appreciate all the work you put into this. Great job!
Thank you!
As someone who taught English abroad to people learning it as a second language, I have to admit that English spelling and its total disconnect from pronunciation or coherent rules was one of the most frustrating things for students. I'd love to see writing reforms that phoneticize the alphabet, even if it meant re-learning to spell. I see that a few commenters have already pointed out the trouble with that, though--many dialects of English exist and phonetic spelling would no longer necessarily be intelligible between dialects in the way that English spelling is, now.
Also, have you ever studied or looked into the Korean writing system, Hangul? I think you would find it of interest, as a deliberately designed 'alphabet' or writing system that uses phonetic points of articulation and methods of producing each sound in the language to logically connect and standardize the way that those phonemes are written. It makes Hangul one of the world's easiest writing systems to learn and remember, even if Korean as a language isn't nearly so easy for most native English speakers to learn.
I love the slides you designed, it's very very cool!! Nice work on Englophone
Thank you! :D
Very professional and well done :) 👍No wonder it took a while to make.
Thank you!
@@DiegoKeaneMusic You are welcome :) [Note: Did you see my most recent message I Emailed you?]
@@Spiked_Energy_19 No not yet. Let me check real quick
@@Spiked_Energy_19 I just checked, I'm so sorry to hear that a tragedy happened to one of your friends.
@@DiegoKeaneMusic Thank you :) I really appreciate that :)
I think there should be a voiced h sound included for words like loch
ch is not a voiced h-
x should stay but to represent the same sound it does in the ipa
Amazing! I really look the scenery.
Thank you!
Very amazing video!
Thank you!
The symbol you made for the /tʃ/ sound looks too similar to G. It could be a problem for dyslexic people.
I would just turn it into a tri-graph. Tsh, for voiceless, dzh for voiced, remove t/d then you got the other sounds.
you're a brilliant kid
Technically speaking the glottal stop is unvoiced. Also, don’t try to put too much effort when saying it. It’s the consonant that takes the least effort to pronounce.
Could you provide an IPA transcription for the vowels? I can't really tell what phonemes most of them represent.
Are cot /ɒ/ and caught /ɔ/ merged? What about father /ɑ/ and bother /ɒ/? I can't really tell, because the transcription isn't IPA.
How does the Russian alphabet not have upper case and lower case? Sure, it does, although most letters look the same in either case. Yet out of 5 letters that start the Russian alphabet, three have pairs which look differently in upper and lower case: АаБбВвГгДдЕе…
what is the hate with comic sans???
Can you sing the englophone alphabet?
Hey, nice video. So, how do you propose I write "a poor lady", given that American and British accents use different vowels in "poor" there might or might not be an intrusive "r" after "poor" and which form of the article "a" I should write (weak or strong)?
Thank you! Not familiar with the terminology of "weak" vs "strong" form, but there are two basic ways you could write "a poor lady":
The "proper" way: spelling it exactly as the official pronunciation:
Δ PσR LΔD+
(or Pσ, if you're saying it with a British accent)
The "casual" way: transcribing it like how it is said out loud. This way has more variations than the other one, because of dialects, but for example you could say:
ə PσR LΔD+ (again, you could drop the R in "PσR" if you're saying it with a British accent)
In this example phrase, the only difference in the spelling is pronouncing "a" as Δ versus ə, but in other sentences there are other differences that can arise.
TLDR: There are two ways of spelling in Englophone: the "proper" way (spelling it exactly how it is pronounced in the dictionary), and the "casual" way (spelling it exactly as it was said). In this example phrase, the only difference in the spelling is pronouncing "a" as Δ versus ə, but other differences can be found in other phrases.
@@DiegoKeaneMusic I see, I'm sorry, about talking about intrusive "r" I was convinced I wrote "a poor animal", which is transcribed as /(eɪ/e)pɔː(r)ˈæn.ɪ.məl/ in British i.e. 2 variants (not counting the article) and there's one American using /pʊr/ for poor. And to my knowledge these variants are "proper", the transcriptions are from the Cambridge dictionary.
All in all, what I wanted to add is some additional variety, but I get your idea that accent makes an impact on the way we write in your alphabet.
@@ДенисЛогвинов-з6е Yeah. In my alphabet, there may be some ambiguity because of differing spellings, but context will typically clear it up. (Kind of how we rely on context when dealing with homophones.)
In many accents, "pore", "pour" and "poor" sound the same but in my accent, "pore" is different. Who decides on the "correct" pronunciation?
How would you write the Scots pronunciation of the "ch" sound as in "loch"?
@@THECORBYLOON The writer decides depending on the context.
About the "ch" sound like in "loch", I specifically thought about that but since it's not very common in the English language, I decided to leave it out. (Maybe it will be included in next year's video.)
You could represent it with an "x", though.
Russian alphabet do be having cases. Аа, Бб are the most different ones in my font, but in handwriting basically all are different
This aside, thanks for an amazing video! Incredible job
An example at the end would have realy helped!
Why don't + and not x?
Some vowels in english are long forms of previous vowels, a diacritic when a vowel is long like most writtings are a good thing to get rid of unnecessary symbols, but I do think english do need over 30 symbols to compactly display english, but now that much symbols to making writting englsh too conusing between different countries that speach english to kill readbility between them, adding more diacritics would make your alphabet more easy to learn, but imo it should be not that much to not tun int diacritic hell like vietnamese
wonderful
Thank you!
Hey dude! I really enjoyed your video and the effort you put in to try and make a potential spelling reform, I think that if you keep up your research and stick at it you'll become even more knowledgeable in things like this and linguistics and whatnot. I think something you might enjoy learning about might be the full history of the Latin alphabet, especially from it's early proto-sinaitic ancestors, get this, all of our vowel graphemes were actually used for consonants in the beginning! Our letter A for example was once used for the aforementioned glottal stop. If you were to revisit this project I just have a few constructive recommendations. Try to keep the etymology of words in mind to some extent. Homophones, or words with the same pronunciations from different etymological backgrounds, is wildly prevalent in English. Often times we can just distinguish what they mean from context in speech, but it is still convenient in writing to keep some distinction. Also try to use more historical graphemes when possible or give using diacritics a shot, those can keep the grapheme count down while distinguishing different sounds from others at the same time. Or here is another idea, maybe make a transcription system where the units that represent sound can be divided into place of articulation and manner of articulation and you craft the graphemes in similar manner to how a system like hangul works. Also read up on the IPA, or the international phonetic alphabet (not the beer you seem a little young for that), it is super helpful for yourself and others! Overall fantastic video, you definitely executed a manner of professionalism and drive for the subject and I exhort you to keep up the good work! 🙂also sorry this so long xD, I just hope you find some of it useful thats all🙂
The cyrillic (Russian) alphabet does have cases, they are just more often more similar than in the latin alphabet but your example of the letter A is the same in cyrillic.
Oh thanks for the information! I guess I just did not look hard enough 👍
@@DiegoKeaneMusic No worries, we are all here to learn. Just keep open minded and curious.
I learned Russian in university for one semester and was happy for the letters that are familiar =)
@@twipameyer1210 Yeah :-)
13:20 those are dipthongs not affricates because theyre vowels
there is another nasal that you missed /ɲ/, like in onion the [ni] or canyon [ny] (palatal nasal)
4:44 also g didnt exist (and k, y, & z were only used for greek transcription)
This reminds me of the Shavian alphabet.
Yeah. Actually this video was inspired by a video I saw about the Shavian alphabet. :D
There are five liquids, l, w, y, r, and ll as in tall, where you use the front of your tongue and the back at the same time. You missed it, and the system is less efficient.
I created my own known as "Senkonetics" (Native: Sꜫnkɘnꜫtiks).
These are the letters which are the same as in English:
Aa Bb Dd Ff Gg Hh Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Pp Rr Ss Tt Vv Ww Yy Zz
These are the letters which were repurposed:
Cc (ʧ) Ee (e) Oo (ɔ) Qq (ɔɪ̯) Uu (u) Xx (x as in the ch in loch)
These are the extra letters:
Åå for /eɪ̯/
Ʌʌ for /ʌ/
Ɐɐ for /ɑ~ɒ/
Ꜷꜷ for /aʊ̯/
Ðð for /ð/
Ꜫꜫ for /ɛ/
Ǝɘ for /ə/
Ӡӡ for /ɝ~ɚ/
Ɂɂ for /ʔ/
Ƽƽ for /i/
Ɨɨ for /ɑɪ̯/
Ŋŋ for /ŋ/
Øø for /əʊ̯~ɔʊ̯~oʊ̯/
Ʃʃ for /ʃ/
Θϑ for /θ/
Ʉʉ for /ʊ/
Ωϖ for /ʍ/ (Ex: Wɨn/Wine vs. Ωɨn/Whine)
Ȝȝ for /ʒ/
I really like this reform, but, I think it’s possible to do more with adding less letters
My spelling reform:
C is now repurposed as /tʃ/
X is now repurposed as /ʃ/
Q is now standalone, always making the /kʷ/ sound, even without a U
/ŋ/ is represented by ŋ
/θ/ is now represented with thorn (þ)
/ð/ is now represented with eth (ð)
/ʒ/ is now represented by a z with a caron (ž)
VOWELS:
a for /æ/
e for /ɛ/
i for /ɪ/
o for /ɑ/
u for /ʊ/
ey for /eɪ/
ay for /aɪ/
ow for /oʊ/
aw for /aʊ/
oy for /oɪ/
ii for /iː/
uu for /uː/
ë for /ə/
That is all
Ay iit beybiz
@@UglirusDeidad yëmii
12:20 I think it is called an aproximent
Approximant, yes.
How is Ф pronounced "uh"?
I pronounce it "th"
Example:Greek word(thermometer)
Фermometro
9:43 this is not exactly true. while yes, you could make out those words he showed, the letters in them have been selectively swapped around to keep the words recognizable. if it was truly random, you'd get stuff more like "bhduosrie", "intpamrot", "figrlae" that are much harder to make out.
epic sauce
Thanks! :D
im making an alphabet system myself. who knows, maybe ill make a video on my alphabet system myself.
And here is my new alphabet:
A a - /ɑ/
Æ æ - /æ/
Ä ä - /aʊ/
E e - /e/
Ë ë - /eı/
I i - /ı/
Ï ï - /i/
I̤ i̤ - /aı/
Œ œ - /o/
O o - /o:/, /oʊ/
O̤ o̤ - /ɔ/
Ö Ö - /ɔɪ/
U u - /u/
Ü ü - /ə/, /ʌ/
Ṳ ṳ - /ʊ/
B b - /b/
P p - /p/
J j - /ʤ/
C c - /ʧ/
D d - /d/
T t - /t/
G g - /g/
K k - /k/
Z̈ z̈ - /ʒ/
S̈ s̈ - /ʃ/
V v - /v/
F f - /f/
H h - /h/
Z z - /z/
S s - /s/
Ð ð - /ð/
Þ þ - /θ/
L l - /l/
R r - /ɹ/
Q q - /kw/
W w - /w/
Y y - /j/
M m - /m/
N n - /n/
Ŋ ŋ - /ŋ/
In this alphabet, there is no standardization in the spelling of words. The spelling is based on how you naturally say the word.
good!
400th subscriber
I have soooo many problems wiþ ðis video, however at least for ðe time beiŋ i'll only briŋ up what I believe to be ðe þree most egreigous:
why is /θ/ not its right ðere and was in Eŋlish for literal ages
why is /ſ/ or /tſ/ not or
and last but certainly ðe worst Liquids are only " and like sounds" , ðe term you were lookiŋ for was Aproximant.
(I don't mind answeriŋ questions, if anybody has ðem)
Imagine screaming in this language
"AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"
ПППППППП
The problem with a fully phonetic alphabet is, it creates more confusion rather than less. People with different accents will pronounce words differently. So if you make a fully phonetic alphabet every speaker would write words differently.
What would be done about words like "wheat" or "whistle" which has the "wh" diagraph which is only pronounced by Southern speakers. Cockney English doesn't pronounce "H"s at the start of words.
Would they all spell words differently, if so that would make the written word very unuseful.
I don't say this to discourage. I think English spelling is very... unorganized and improperly taught in schools. What I want to do is point you in a direction which I think will serve you much better. As, you are right, English does need a spelling reform.
But the solution is not to throw everything out, we need to work with what we have. Improving it is pragmatically our only solution.
So my next few points will be why I think a fully phonetic is realistically impossible, the advantages and necessity of abstracted spelling, possible reforms I would make, and what I think you should research next. And if you read through this all thank you very much, I enjoy the subject of spelling very much.
So, why do I think it is impossible to have a fully phonetic alphabet?
First, dialectical differences. A languages will have different dialects which pronounce the same word differently. If a phonetic alphabet is to be used, every single dialect would need to have a different system, with different symbols. This would make writing simpler, but it would make reading extremely complicated.
Second, language evolution. If a phonetic alphabet is used, than as the language's sounds change it would become very difficult to read anything from 100 years ago. It also would make telling homophones apart impossible, which is very important for speeding up comprehension speed.
Third, words from other languages shouldn't represent the English pronunciation. Strangely spelt words have a reason to be spelt like that. For instance, when FIFA was held in Qatar people wanted to know how to pronounce the city name. But people wanted to pronounce the word how Arabic speakers say it. A phonetic alphabet would not be useful here. It is more useful for the every language to have a way to represent their language in the Latin, rather than how a native speaker would pronounce it.
Fourth, It would make the relationship between words more complicated. It would make irregular verbs more difficult to learn, take the pair "may" and "might". With they pair you can see the "y" and "gh" would have been a "g" in Old English. So they would have been "mag" and "migt. If they were phonetically spelt they would loose the connection and it would be more difficult to learn.
What are the advantages of nonphonemic spelling?
First, it allows different accents to read the same words, but pronounce them differently.
Secondly, words in other languages which are pronounced differently share a spelling. Words are shared between languages and if we spelled them differently it would make it more difficult to learn other languages. Take the English word "date" this word is said as /dajt/, however if you look at French the word is spelt the same "date" but the pronunciation is different /da:t/. If we spell words how they are sound the languages will be less similar.
Third, non English languages need a common way to be written. Street signs in other countries are written with the Latin alphabet. If each language has it's own system to write that language, then it will be difficult to read those signs because country would use a different system.
Fourth, increased meaning of a word. If we spell words as they sound then we loose the meaning of words. Take "cupboard" and "women". If they were spelt like they sound, would look like a nonsense words. But because of the spelling you now know they're meanings, a board that holds cups, and a type of man (man as in everyone) that is a female.
Fifth, reappearance of lost sounds. The words "often" and "soften" lost their "T", people stopped saying the sound in most all accents of English. But because it was written, younger generations have started pronouncing the "T" reconnecting the words to their origin of "oft" and "soft".
With all this is mind, what do I think is the problem with English spelling and what would I change?
My problem with English spelling is it tries to capture the etymological history of words, but it fails to accurately do so. Take a word I've used quite often in this comment, the word "impossible". It come from the Latin "in-", meaning not, and "possibilis" meaning possible. If we are to be historically accurate it should be spelt "inpossible" meaning not possible. However because of sound changes the nasal vowel "N" changed to a "M" because it comes before a "P".
I will now make my case for the letter C. Often people say the letter C is pointless, why does it exist if K and S do. Well there is a very good reason for it to exist. It informs you of a words history. Take the word "Centaur", this is a Greek word which we got from Latin. In English "centaur" is said with a "S" sound, but in Russian it is "кентавр" (kentavr). This is why historical spelling is so important, it lets you understand the evolution of words so people can learn languages faster, and make our societies more interconnected.
My current problem with today's education system is they don't explain spelling well, and English is inconsistent about historical spelling. I was always told to "sound out" words, and could get into crying fits because I couldn't figure out the system.
This is a problem, the advice "sound it out" might work in kindergarten, but words get more complicated and harder to spell. But for some reason we stop teaching spelling after elementary school. And English, for some reason, uses C very liberally. Why is "cat", "can", and "come" spelt with a C, they're not of Latin or Greek origin.
In my major, economics, there is a phrase "it's not a net zero game". What this phrase means is, if we work together we can make a better world than if we stayed apart. English spelling is difficult, and the historical spelling makes learning English much more complicated. But, if every country works together we can make every spelling systems intertwined, and have one complicated project rather than hundreds of separate ones. And if we do this, our spelling systems will link up to PIE roots, which I think is cool.
Just some brought suggestions for spelling changes now. Add the two letters "ᚦ" and "Đ" for "th" and "dh" but only for words of Germanic origin, Greek words would keep the digraph "th", because they represent a "Θ" from Greek, which would sound like /tʰ/ in Ancient Greek.
Change Y at the end of words to be "ie" it said as E. This would make words like "goodliness" and "philosophical" easier to spell because they come from the words "goodly" and "philosophy" which would now be spelt "goodlie" and "philosophie". So instead of changing the Y to an I and adding on a suffix, you're swapping out the silent E ending with a different ending. This change would only happen in words that historically had the "ie" ending. So words like "city", from French "cité", and "busy", from Germanic "bisīg", would not have their ending changed to "ie".
A way to indicate stress in English. Take words like "incite" vs "insight", they have different syllables stressed. Here the Acute accent would be used like in Spanish or Italian, so "incíte" and "ínight". Or the difference between "pérfect" and "perféct". One a verb the other a adjective. It's "the pérfect item" vs " I perfécted it". They are said differently, and it would be helpful to have a way to indicate that.
Remove silent letters where it is extremely illogical. Like in "one", or "have", or "seethe". It makes no sense why they have an E at the end, it is both inconsistent with English spelling rules and nonhistoric as non of these words are from French.
I also like the way the English alphabet is organized, as it align us with the Greek alphabet. And the Greek alphabet is aligned with the Arabic and Hebrew alphabet. Take the first few letter of each Alphabet:
Greek: Α (alpha), Β(beta), Γ(gamma)
Hebrew: א (alef), בּ (bet), גּ (ɡimel)
Arabic: ا (alif), ب (ba), ج (jim)
It shows the ancient connection between everyone, and I like that.
My final suggestion to you is to research two things: evolution of sound changes in languages (particularly French and German), and diacritics used for the languages that use the Latin alphabet. Because diacritics are something I could see being implemented into English. English doesn't use them, unless you count Ñ, É, and Ü (but no one really uses them). And that's a real shame they're very useful.
So that's what I think would be very useful. Developing diacritics for English. Because there is a better version of English that can be discovered.
It would also be useful to develop a consistent broad transcription. as broad transcription should not use IPA characters when intended to be used by normal people. Because most people don't know how to read IPA characters, so it's very unuseful for complex words to be written with the IPA.
Anyway if anything I said was unclear ask about it, and thanks again if you read this whole comment.
Nice video, I love how clear, structured and clean looking it was. I think you have a lot of potential to get big on UA-cam. What I‘m missing is some examples of how things would be written in englophone though to get a feeling for how it would look and how it would impact readability. As is, the video mostly explored English phonology instead of an improved writing system for it, which is what englophone is supposed to be. Still interesting though! Just a b idea for the next video maybe :)
WHO IS THAT
that is me
@@DiegoKeaneMusic okay
She sells sea shells by the sea shore
ßi sels si ßels bai ça si ßor
😂😂😂
no, “ß (eszett)” is a german letter.
Gamma for the ah sound makes no sense.
why haven't I heard this language before?!
13:43 I forgot that island isn't pronounced "is land"
3:06
My prediction of C,Q,X sounds
C(ch) chain(written as ceyn)
Q(th) weather(written as weqr)
British(RP):weqa
X(ng) singer(written as sixr)
British(RP):sixa
Still 26 letters
Schwas are unwritten in GA
"schwas are unwritten"
"sixa"
Also I feel like adding sounds to letters that had no previous relation to them, might cause people to forget them and read the words the way they would in normal English, causing irregularity.
Removing c,x,q and not reusing them is not the most intuitive, also cyrillic has lowercase especially distingiushable in cursive, early cyrillic didn't tho
Wanted to say initially, congrats on actually making something and learning from the process. However, as a linguist with a specific interest in phonology and writing systems, there were a lot of things that rubbed me the wrong way. If your goal was to 'reform' the English spelling system you're fighting an extremely uphill battle from the start. English is the most widely spoken language in the world. It has numerous dialects and creating something that suits even just a few is pretty tough. But I'm assuming you've focused mostly on your own dialect.
Firstly, introducing new letters and getting rid of old ones seems pointless to me. Using C, X, or Q for [tʃ] would've worked fine instead of being a G with a palatal hook (which really looks far more like [ʤ]). Also the voiced dental fricative shows up in not that many words and (to my knowledge) doesn't form a minimal pair with its voiceless equivalent so having one letter for both would have been sufficient enough.
Secondly (and the most confounding thing to me), is having a letter for the glottal stop. [ʔ] is not phonemic in any dialect of English, at most being allophonic with the [t] phoneme in some British dialects. The only time most people would ever use this is in "uh-oh", which in my opinion the hyphen does a fine enough job for already. In any case an entire letter for one (quite infrequent) word just bloats the whole system a little.
Thirdly, the vowels. Vowels are probably the most complicated part of English phonology so I don't blame you for getting this one wrong. Me personally, I would just bite the bullet and use digraphs for diphthongs (two vowels). Also anyone even slightly familiar with using the Greek or Cyrillic alphabets would cry trying to read a passage with this system. Try to stray away from using consonant letters for vowels.
There are more nitpicky problems I have with the vowels and how you've organised them but I won't go into that, I would suggest taking a deeper look at the IPA vowel chart though.
But again big ups for actually creating something here, I can definitely feel the passion you have for this topic.
Also sidenote Latin didn't have [ʤ], and Julius (or IVLIVS) would've been a fine name to spell in Ancient Rome.
I made an alphabet in Comic Sans which is a weird mix of Greek and English
For "th" sound I used Delta
For "sh" sound I used Psi
Who writes "dishwasher" as dipswapser😂😂😂 r/grssk
What-
Lough(an Irish loch) is pronounced/lok/,so ough = ok in here
Lough is also pronounced as /lɒx/. It depends on your dialect.
interesting
15:53 SIGMA MEAL SKIBIDI SLICERS YAAAAY
sorry :|
It looks like Armenian(almost)
🤓
2:31 The alphabet is ordered by most common letters to most rare
Vhy doesn’t the Roman Alphabet have I, V and V?
The alphabet ordered based on the original alphabet order used by the Etruscans. Which is the alphabet that most modern alphabets in europe are descended from, including the roman one. It went smth like "a b c d e v z h th i ka l m n sh o p sh ku r s t u x ph y kh ef ch li uu ess", which is already similar to the order of our modern alphabet, if you take it through greek, phoenician, and into roman, you get our modern alphabet.
If the alphabet WAS ordered from common to rare (in english), it would be something like this: etaoinshrdlcumwfgypbvkjxqz which is pretty neat considering that 'h' 'x' and 'z' all stay in the same possition. But it's a coincidence.
it is not
this video is very inaccurate
Elaborate how?
Ah yes, the inevitable journey every aspiring linguist/conlanger must go through in their youth: Disregard the inconsistent aspects of natural language as nonsensical and impractical only to later in life recognise those imperfections as what makes language truly beautiful. It happens to all of us
One thing is Natural language and the other the Writting system they use.
All languages by definition have inconsistencies and stuff that shouldn't be there, but language evolution makes magic in terms of features that as you're saying changes completely how people see and speak a language.
The problem is that the writting system advocates for making the writer and reader of a certain language not have any issue with it. That is being consisnt of what's said and what's written, how easy or not is to write/read or if it represents the culture and way of living for those native speakers.
For example: "Center" is way more consistent than "Centre", "Wednesday" is harder to write than "Wenzday" and "Инглиш" doesn't represent the culture and overall personality of English speakers + is harder to type and understand.
Making a language's writting system easier doesn't mean it removes that "beauty" inside the language or the etimology (Not like people actually mind those like "Colonel" now being pronounced completely different like /ˈkɝː.nl/-/ˈkɜː.nəl/).
You know... most languages have Spelling reforms, writting system changes and overall changes that overtime became significant. That doesn't make them less suitable for them as people could easily just not use it and it becames obsolete. But not even trying is lazy though I understand the English language doesn't need right now a real Boom of changes and new rules.
@@m4rloncha Yes it was incorrect of me to conflate language with writing, but I think the argument still stands, even if to a lesser extent. As you yourself said it: "инглиш" doesn't represent the anglosphere's culture, so where do we draw the line between what is or isn't a culturally insensitive reform? I'd argue some of the changes proposed in this video, like replacing digraphs for single letters and distinguishing between [θ] and [ð], could be technically classified as minimizing inconsistency, but they remove inconsistency in places where there was no ambiguity to begin with; and I think this lack of distinction between what is inconsistent and what is ambiguous to be what I find so "naive" about his reform.
I'm not trying to trash on the kid btw, I think it was really cool for him to even try doing this in the first place, I just think he lacks a certain appreciation for irregularity in a way that I find particularly relatable
@@chao3948 "Where do we draw the line between what's or not culturally insensitive?".
Well, let's take the example of Runes.
Runes where by Centuries the writting system the English speakers used to communicate. Do they represent Right now the English people? Pretty much not.
Then what does? The Latin Alphabet.
By centuries it has barely ever changed and people know it well enough so that's the base.
"θ" and "ð" though they are consistent in their pronounciation in their respective languages it doesn't for the English community, specially Thorn "Þ þ".
And sadly I can't agree with you with "-they remove inconsistency in places where there was no ambiguity to begin with".
"Th, th" can appear at the beginning of a word, in between or at the end.
Like: "Three" and "They", "Healthy" and "Brother" and "Mouth" and "With".
Heck, even words with both sounds at the same time! Like: "Rotherhithe" /ˈɹɒðəhaɪθ/.
Oooor some other people pronounce it like /ˈɹɒðɚhʌɪð/ or... Well, the possibilities are endless!
Using the "But you only have to search someone who knows how's the word pronounced" card isn't efficient at all and everyone knows it.
The easier to know how a word is pronounced the easier it will be for both Native speakers and Non-native speakers to learn new words.
I'm not saying that people should use a single character for that, but maybe add rules for when it's written like "th" or not for each situation. Maybe even add "dh" or a combination of those letters like: "ⴛ".
Even, sometimes "Th" was written like "Y" so people could use it in situations that are rarely used.
There are a lot of options...
And yeah, I'm not specifically speaking about the reform shown in the video because... A reform should actually look more than just "Changing the letters".
It's about how they look, how they are written, how they compare to others, do people understand it? How well? How much you need to learn to be able to master? Exceptions, new rules related, Cons and Pros of using it, etc...
I have made a comment posting some of this stuff to him if you want to read it.
@@chao3948I disagree with you on that particular point because there is ambiguity when it comes to the digraph "th". Because one it makes two different sounds, and second there are words like lighthouse and names like Thomas that contain it but they don't contain the fricative pronunciation. Plus many loanwords in English also are spelled that way but the pronunciation is not that of a fricative like in "Thailand".
If you are a native speaker of English, differentiating the voiced and voiceless pronunciation of "th" isn't really that necessary. But it is for foreign learners and would add Orthographic depth, your entire comment is about how these exceptions and irregularities add to a languages depth but this could also add depth thats also in a way that wouldn't add ambiguity (in my opinion). You could disagree of course, you make a great point but in my opinion that specific case is definitely ambiguous
so true, but instead of changing these familiar letters, the better option if any thing, would be to change the spelling, since other languages *do* do that.
linguistics channel with only 160 subs ran by a kid? hell yea
Thank you! Usually I make music and computer animations, but I also am into phonetics and linguistics, yeah :D
Do you have any recommendations for good linguistics channels? Here are mine:
Ben Llywelyn
Dave Huxtable
Dr Geoff Lindsey
imshawn getoffmylawn
Jackson Crawford
JuLingo
K Klein
Langfocus
Language Simp
languagejones
Learn Hittite
Ling Thusiasm
NativLang
polyMATHY
RobWords
Simon Roper
Xidnaf
@@inarticulateutterlymonolingual human1011
@@inarticulateutterlymonolinguallingolizard
Truthfully, there is no way to “fix” the English alphabet, as it is already prominent everywhere across the world. Changing even the most minute detail could rank up in the billions to change, and although I agree with all of your points, English is an unfixable language. Although, that doesn’t mean that the pronunciation of the words can’t change, and in many years, English could even become truly phonetic due to this possibility.
Im 13 and I LOVE languages, goeie avie!
Love this video- only thing i would say is about the liquids, you said they are “half consonant half vowels”, which they kinda are. /w/ and /j/ (IPA) are sometimes called glides or semivowels (corresponding to /u/ and /i/). Liquids are defined as a kind of middle ground between fricative and vowels. /w/ and /j/ are the only ones that i could map to vowels, but im sure /ɹ/ and /l/ can too. Great video! Enjoyed a lot of:)
What accent tho?
Presumably, 21st-Century General American English, since the speaker seems to have both the cot-caught merger and the STRUT-commA merger and seems to be unaware of it.
Let me be honest here, all people find english hard to learn because of how messed up it is, i would personally say this is NOT because of the consonants, the real problem here is the vowels and how scuffed they are.
Obviously the consonants are messed up too but the vowels are so cursed that you don't notice it at first. Look at it.
a e i o u - the five vowels we use.
/æ/ /ε/ /ɪ/ /ɒ/ /ʌ/ - those five vowels in their ipa form
/i/ /u/ ʊ/ /ə/ /ɔ/ /ɑ/ - the six other vowel sounds we also use that don't even have letters
Note: i britihs so i uez /ɒ/ for 'o'.
I did try to make my own "better" english, and this is what I came up with (note: it's cursed).
a /æ/
e /ε/
i /ɪ/
o ɒ/
u /u/ - changed to make the 'oo' sound
y /ʌ/ - is now a vowel and makes the 'u' sound (some americans confuse this with /ə/ for some reason)
q /ə/ - this is the first cursed addition to this abomination, seriously though why is q so underrated?
ä - /ɑ/ - U M L A U T V O W E L S
ë - /j/ - not a vowel, replaces the letter 'y' because 'y' is a vowel now.
ï - /i/ - EEEEEEEEEEEE
ö - /ɔ/ - in britihs, this letor make "or" sound
ü - /ʊ/ - b"oo"k
I would go more in depth about this abomination of a thing, but the vowel things get complicated, so if you want to learn more about this... thing... visit here:
nitbit.dev/ingliks/
(this project took over two whole years to forge so i hope this abomination of a language is good in any way shape or form).
I am a nine year old who also likes alphabets but makes animations, You deserve my sub and you're smart
Which one do you use? Plz or pls
Interesting material presented clearly, intelligently, and articulately, with snappy editing, helpful visuals, and some good laughs. This scholar is one to watch.
Thank you!
I appreciate the fact that you put effort into adding symbols that jive with the current English letters/symbols.
Agreed, I think this is key.
Thank you! Yeah, the thing with the Shavian alphabet is that it's just hard to read for an English speaker. The Roman-esque symbols are still somewhat difficult to read, but they are easier.
@@mikegeorge360 Yeah :)
Wow! I did not realize your Alphabet video was so close to completion! I can't wait to see this and I hope the Algorithm is generous with this one :)
Yeah! I was working on editing it (almost) all day yesterday. I only have 4 shorts to edit (they are all 20-40 seconds though) and then this project is done! I'm so excited to work on KeaniMusic some more! :-)
@@DiegoKeaneMusic Oh yeah :) I have been very excited for KeaniMusic ever since I saw the trailer :)
@@Spiked_Energy_19 Yeah! It's gonna be awesome :-)
oh my high quality content!
id use C for /tʃ/, Þ for /θ/, A for /α/, I for /ı/, İ for /i/, U (U wiþout stem) for /ʊ/, Ա (U wiþ stem) for /u/, AI for /aı/, Ɔ for /ɔ/, Æ for /æ/, E for /eı/, Δ for /ɒ/, and Ɛ for /ε/
also, for ðe marginal sounds /x/ and /ʍ/, id use X and Ƕ. also, bug uses /ʌ/, not /ə/.
for /ʌ/ id use Λ.
My new alphabet:Phonography
Phonography=Phones+Graphs
It has over 30 letters
Example:the letter "ai" looks like a Я
Яs krim???(ice cream)
diego: "the russian alphabet doesn't have cases"
the rest of russian: *no cases?*
A new alphabet has to work with computer systems with minimal modification. This means that you should draw from existing symbols, which there are plenty to choose from. Preferably from the WGL4-ish set, which doesn't include IPA. You can look at other European languages for diacritics they use for "sh" and "ch" and others. You might also want to show the letters in more detailed designs with serifs. Perhaps both versions.
There is nothing to be gained from reordering an alphabet. The order doesn't matter when you read text. But many computer systems include sorting rules. They are already beyond complex with special cases for other languages. We don't need more to give the Unicode Consortium more jobs.
An organic evolution might add or remove one or two letters at a time.
Russian does have some lowercase. There are even more differences in italic script. For example, the letter "Бб" or Ддg (g in italic). Some detail might remain hidden if you only look at simplified sans-serif design where Russian Ell and Greek Lam(b)da look the same. Ascenders and descenders of lowercase letters give words a recognizable shape. If you go with IPA for "sh", then you need to design a new uppercase version (it looks like a lowercase f).
The Plus sign is a non-starter. We don't need a "curtain hook" or anything to represent a pause.
Two vowels form a "diphthong" not an affricate.
Russian alphabet does have cases, there just... different
Cell
Sell
I AM IN PAIN IF YOU DO NOT ADD DIACRITICTS IT WILL BECOME SOMETHING LIKE THIS
Sell
Sell
*TL;DR:* 3:42 lists the entirety of the adapted Latin alphabet/English spelling reform "Englophone". All consonants except the postalveolar affricates Ģ* (/ʧ/) and J (/ʤ/) and are taken from the IPA. The vowels, described in detail at 14:38, are more liberal, though, and it is more necessary to list them: A=/æ/, Ə=/ə/, Π=/ɒ/, ⊥=/ɪ/, +=/i/, E=/ɛ/, Δ=/eɪ/, Φ=/ʊ/, O=/oʊ/, U=/u/, İ=/aɪ/, σ=/ɔ/, Γ=/ɑ/
The full alphabet is: BPDTGKJĢɁVFZSƷʃÐϴLRMNŊAƏΠ⊥+EΔΦOUİσΓ
*Ģ is an approximation for the untypable symbol used. I would have preferred the Cyrillic letter Ч.
Why not just straight-up use the C for /ʧ/?
mediocre reform at most, but i respect the effort
Oh wow
5:22 Þ and Ð didn't make two different sounds (English only had /θ/ at the time). Þ was used at the start of words (or start of a part of a compound word) and Ð was used anywhere else (also, /θ/ and /ð/ are barely distinct in English, most speakers think of them as the same sound)
That sounds like how Modern Icelandic uses them. Old English well... that was quite the mixture. Like Æðelþryð could be written like that but also with all þorns or all eðs. So it's definitely a good idea to separate these in Modern English.
@@weepingscorpion8739 I don't think the distinction is that important in Modern English; the only minimal pairs are thigh-thy, thistle-this'll and (depending on how you pronounce "either") either-ether
@@aer0a Ðat still seems important enough to me. It may even become even more important in ðe future, so I wouldn't brush over it like ðat.
I made a new letter "thee"
Design:Ф
no, use þ.
My picks:
Plosives
Ch(Ч)
PBTDKGЧJ'
Glottal stop=apostrophe
Fricatives
FVSZCЖФH
Ф=th and dh(both at once)
Ж=zh
C=sh
With(with,wiф)
This(dhis,фis)
Liquid nasals
LRWYMNИ
I used И for ng
Vowels
AE(aye)IO(awe)U(same as Italian)
Schwa=Ъ
Ai=Я
Au=Э
Oi=Ю
Eu=Г
Boy(bю)
Weather(weфъ)
Clown(klэn)
Europa(гropa)
Eye(я)
Sky(skя)
Play(plè)
Snow(snò)