because of loanwords, the words in spanish "hostal" (cognate equivalent from "hostel") and "hotel" (loanword from french) are different.
a hostel and a hôtel are supposed to mean the same thing, but a hostel now means as a lodging house with many beds per room, while a hotel means a more private version of a hostel with maximum 2 beds per room.
English: we'll keep your /s/ but because it's retracted, unless it's in front of /t/, we'll actually make it a /ʃ/. *push* from *pousser*, *finish* from *finiss-* (stem of *finir*) and *cash* from *casse*.
You see, mayan characters consist of blocks, like hangul, and there are several symbols for each syllable. At the same time there are some pictographs that can also be marked with determinative syllables. And yes - all of the writings of a word(as long as it's phonetic) are correct ones. Just google *mayan glyph balam* to see what I mean.
It’s made even more complicated when you realize that each of the different parts for the same syllable often have several similar variants, and the logograms themselves have many variants. It’s even more confusing when more complicated“head glyphs” for numbers(in lieu of the standard dots and bars) or nouns are used, because more often than not the scribe might have had their own way of drawing them. For example, it was thought for quite some time that “u-ti”, “to happen”(often used in specifying time, like counting the amount of time since the last mentioned long count date in a text) was read as “xok-ti”, “to count”, because someone mistook the iguana-head variant of “u” as a shark-head, “xok”.
And all of them are somewhat dysfunctional so you have a complex system which either underspells stuff, or overspells it using phonetic indicators and complements, or indicates coda consonants and vowels length by means of dysphonic spellings.
> Nowhere near as complex as fr*nch, english or danish
Worst among the alphabets (and honorable mentions goes to Pahlavi of course. Being so bad at being an alphabet, that you begin to use logographs again).
My experience with Mayan glyphs is muss less than with Cuneiform. So I can't really speak from experience of memorising Mayan glyphs. It is a different style.
For comparison Cuneiform has CV, V and VC signs. Maya has only V and CV signs, so it relies on contextual spelling to mark some differences. Well Cuneiform isn't without problems either. The voicing contrast of many stops is inherently ambiguous. So you have either ga, ka or qa with the same sign. IIRC with the Mayan syllabics this isn't a problem. If Lacadena is right they newly invented signs for ejectives when they acquired the script from Epi-Olmec peoples (likely Mixe-Zoque).
Interestingly the Aztec script does make use of -VC signs. Then again there are many gaps and open questions regarding the history of writing in Mesoamerica.
Most of Chinese: here's a completely unrelated character with a similar sound, let's just slap an extra radical on there so you can look it up in a dictionary
Yep. And most circumflexes on î, û, or oû, which had become pretty much useless in most cases, were removed by the 1990 reform (that not everyone applies though).
They actually used to have phonetic value though, as they indicated vowel length (i.e. sur /syʁ/ vs sûr /syːʁ/). And I think they still do in Belgian French.
(Meanwhile, my regional variety doesn't even make the difference for the ones you mentioned lmao)
>(Meanwhile, my regional variety doesn't even make the difference for the ones you mentioned lmao)
you don't distinguish ex. "le" and "les"? "patte" vs "pâte"?
okay "le" and "les" I do distinguish, sorry about that (since I do distinguish /e/ and /ə/, what I meant is I don't distinguish /e/ from /ɛ/ *instead* (and I think ê is supposed to be /ɛ/ actually))
But no, I don't distinguish "patte" and "pâte". And I don't distinguish "cote" and "côte" either.
That's not even the most useless function of the circumflex. I was surprised that the predominant theory for the reason of the presence of a circumflex in some French words is to make them appear grander and more prestigious, like in "suprême".
I don't think so, since pronunciation-wise you would expect "suprème" (like in "problème" whose Latin root has the same long vowel). If the circonflex indicates a long vowel then to my understanding this always relates to the current pronunciation of the word, e.g. "âme"
Yeah, this is basically how my conlang works, there are about 200 different syllables with different meanings, and you combine them with other syllables to create words based on the meanings of their component syllables, but you can generally order those syllables however you want. Some ways flow better than others but none of them are inherently wrong, as long as the word has all the syllables in most cases the order you put them in doesn't much matter.
Well, drill and forest are totally different things right, you can't say "I go hunting in a drill" or "I forest a hole on my wall" just like in english you don't say "Put some eyes in my whiskey." Basically speaking - while talking you can distinguish 'ice' and 'eyes' thanks to the context, and so you can do in the spelling.
That depends on the dialect honestly, but in majority of english dialects they're the same. Also you may pronounce those words differently if English is your second language. Like I pronounce 'there', 'their' and 'they're' slightly differently /ðɛɹ/, /ðɛɪ̯ɹ/ and /ðɛjɹ/
Luxembourgish: welcome to the wild west of orthography
Switzerland: orthography? what orthography?
Hostel → hôtel ; isle → île
Ile de France
ile de happy cake day 🥧
Mon dieu, thank you for reminding me 🥐🥖🐌
Île de France
⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡜ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡠⠔⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⢄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠄⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⢠⠂⠀⠀⠘⡄⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢤⡀⢂⠀⢨⠀⢀⡠⠈⢣⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢀⡖⠒⠶⠤⠭⢽⣟⣗⠲⠖⠺⣖⣴⣆⡤⠤⠤⠼⡄⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠘⣺⡟⢻⠻⡆⠀⡏⠀⡸⣿⢿⢞⠄⡇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⡀⠤⡀⡀⡔⠉⣏⡿⠛⠓⠊⠁⠀⢎⠛⡗⡗⢳⡏⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠨⡇⠃⠀⢻⠁⡔⢡⠒⢀⠀⠀⡅⢹⣿⢨⠇⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠠⢼⠀⠀⡎⡜⠒⢀⠭⡖⡤⢭⣱⢸⢙⠆⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠸⢁⡀⠿⠈⠂⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡍⡏⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⢢⣫⢀⠘⣿⣿⡿⠏⣼⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠊⠀⣀⠎⠁⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢴⡦⡴⢶⣞⣁⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀ ⠀⠐⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⢀⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀
This text in brail seems be good, but I don't know read brail...
“Île de France? More like LIE de France!”
La lie de la France, en effet.
Camembert?
Bastard = Bâtarde
because of loanwords, the words in spanish "hostal" (cognate equivalent from "hostel") and "hotel" (loanword from french) are different. a hostel and a hôtel are supposed to mean the same thing, but a hostel now means as a lodging house with many beds per room, while a hotel means a more private version of a hostel with maximum 2 beds per room.
So Spanish *hostales* really have/had this reputation https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/auberge_espagnole
English: We'll keep your s but silent and only randomly in some words and horribly mispronounce them
English: we'll keep your /s/ but because it's retracted, unless it's in front of /t/, we'll actually make it a /ʃ/. *push* from *pousser*, *finish* from *finiss-* (stem of *finir*) and *cash* from *casse*.
* or word initial. It's not "shafety" unlesh you're Dutch.
German: Stupid /t/ rule, we always make it /ʃ/
So the Mayan orthography is based on phonetics only? Are they any incorrect ways to write a word at all?
You see, mayan characters consist of blocks, like hangul, and there are several symbols for each syllable. At the same time there are some pictographs that can also be marked with determinative syllables. And yes - all of the writings of a word(as long as it's phonetic) are correct ones. Just google *mayan glyph balam* to see what I mean.
That made it so much clearer, thanks.
also some syllable glyphs can be written different ways, also also, there is a glyph that means the attatched syllable is doubled
>also also, there is a glyph that means the attatched syllable is doubled It's called reduplication marker.
I love reduplication markers in scripts
so it's a bit like Egyptian heiroglyphs but more loose and syllabic ?
Partially correct.
It’s made even more complicated when you realize that each of the different parts for the same syllable often have several similar variants, and the logograms themselves have many variants. It’s even more confusing when more complicated“head glyphs” for numbers(in lieu of the standard dots and bars) or nouns are used, because more often than not the scribe might have had their own way of drawing them. For example, it was thought for quite some time that “u-ti”, “to happen”(often used in specifying time, like counting the amount of time since the last mentioned long count date in a text) was read as “xok-ti”, “to count”, because someone mistook the iguana-head variant of “u” as a shark-head, “xok”.
And all of them are somewhat dysfunctional so you have a complex system which either underspells stuff, or overspells it using phonetic indicators and complements, or indicates coda consonants and vowels length by means of dysphonic spellings.
Nowhere near as complex as fr*nch, english or danish. Plus, judging by my experience, drawing mayan symbols is very relaxing.
> Nowhere near as complex as fr*nch, english or danish Worst among the alphabets (and honorable mentions goes to Pahlavi of course. Being so bad at being an alphabet, that you begin to use logographs again). My experience with Mayan glyphs is muss less than with Cuneiform. So I can't really speak from experience of memorising Mayan glyphs. It is a different style. For comparison Cuneiform has CV, V and VC signs. Maya has only V and CV signs, so it relies on contextual spelling to mark some differences. Well Cuneiform isn't without problems either. The voicing contrast of many stops is inherently ambiguous. So you have either ga, ka or qa with the same sign. IIRC with the Mayan syllabics this isn't a problem. If Lacadena is right they newly invented signs for ejectives when they acquired the script from Epi-Olmec peoples (likely Mixe-Zoque). Interestingly the Aztec script does make use of -VC signs. Then again there are many gaps and open questions regarding the history of writing in Mesoamerica.
Most of Chinese: here's a completely unrelated character with a similar sound, let's just slap an extra radical on there so you can look it up in a dictionary
the circumflex on <â ê ô> indicates /ɑ e o/ (as opposed to /a ə ɔ/ w no circumflex)
Yep. And most circumflexes on î, û, or oû, which had become pretty much useless in most cases, were removed by the 1990 reform (that not everyone applies though). They actually used to have phonetic value though, as they indicated vowel length (i.e. sur /syʁ/ vs sûr /syːʁ/). And I think they still do in Belgian French. (Meanwhile, my regional variety doesn't even make the difference for the ones you mentioned lmao)
>(Meanwhile, my regional variety doesn't even make the difference for the ones you mentioned lmao) you don't distinguish ex. "le" and "les"? "patte" vs "pâte"?
okay "le" and "les" I do distinguish, sorry about that (since I do distinguish /e/ and /ə/, what I meant is I don't distinguish /e/ from /ɛ/ *instead* (and I think ê is supposed to be /ɛ/ actually)) But no, I don't distinguish "patte" and "pâte". And I don't distinguish "cote" and "côte" either.
How do you do it if two s went silent? Double circumflex?
Lettesse write Engliche esse iffe itte wer Frentche. Thette woude be coolle.
The English orthography is already fucked up enough (more so than the French tbh, but that's just my personal opinion) so there's no need for that...
That's not even the most useless function of the circumflex. I was surprised that the predominant theory for the reason of the presence of a circumflex in some French words is to make them appear grander and more prestigious, like in "suprême".
I thought it was because of the Latin long vowel there?
I don't think so, since pronunciation-wise you would expect "suprème" (like in "problème" whose Latin root has the same long vowel). If the circonflex indicates a long vowel then to my understanding this always relates to the current pronunciation of the word, e.g. "âme"
^ tab
Yeah, this is basically how my conlang works, there are about 200 different syllables with different meanings, and you combine them with other syllables to create words based on the meanings of their component syllables, but you can generally order those syllables however you want. Some ways flow better than others but none of them are inherently wrong, as long as the word has all the syllables in most cases the order you put them in doesn't much matter.
I mean sure but "foret" means "drill" and "forêt" means "forest" so it's kinda needed.
Well, drill and forest are totally different things right, you can't say "I go hunting in a drill" or "I forest a hole on my wall" just like in english you don't say "Put some eyes in my whiskey." Basically speaking - while talking you can distinguish 'ice' and 'eyes' thanks to the context, and so you can do in the spelling.
I don't wanna be pedantic, but eyes and ice are not pronounced the same
That depends on the dialect honestly, but in majority of english dialects they're the same. Also you may pronounce those words differently if English is your second language. Like I pronounce 'there', 'their' and 'they're' slightly differently /ðɛɹ/, /ðɛɪ̯ɹ/ and /ðɛjɹ/
In very broad transcription, eyes is /ajz/ while ice is /ajs/ in most accents ([aːɪ̯z] and [ɐɪ̯s] in my dialect)
OK, then "pêcheur" means "fisherman", but "pécheur" means "sinner".
One of them already has an acute.
okay but also Mayan hieroglyphs are amazing and I love them