CONTENTS OF THE WHOLE FOLDER
In the first part:
Introduction
[ What is said, some brief explanations. (2016) ]
An Illiterate World (idea about worldwide alphabet)
[ This is serious paper about the necessity in our time, in the time of Internet, of one universal worldwide alphabet, with analysis of multiple languages, with establishing of the major types of sounds but for all languages, with concrete proposition for the needed letters, with examples in four languages, then variation of the keyboard, also with examples, and with small generalizing conclusion. This problem is very important but nobody tries to solve it and that is why the author makes his unique proposition. On one hand this isn't matter for general public, but on the other hand I have used the given here classification of sounds in my "Bulgarian Lessons" that are in the folder for the Arabs etc., so that some rough acquaintance is necessary also for such readers; besides I don't use other sites for my scientific works. (2003, 2013) ]
Reflections About The Numbers (popular etymology and more)
[ This is popular booklet about the names of all digits and of more important numbers in different languages, about their graphical images, and about all possible ideas hidden behind them. The questions are sufficiently complicated and lost in the darkness of the centuries, as is said, they maybe are partially explained somewhere, but the author has come to them alone. These are things interesting for everybody, they, in principle, are not difficult, but as far as they require mathematical knowledge and profound etymological researches they are known practically to nobody (well, say, some 2-3 % of people guess about something, but surely not about all things). So that this is also serious scientific paper, only popularly written. (2012) ]
Myrski's English Transliteration
[ This material is only in English. It proposes one author's method for transliteration of all English words using only the Latin characters, which idea is later extended for all other languages, where in focus are taken German, Russian, Bulgarian, Italian, and French; there is given example based on a small paragraph in those languages. This idea is very actual and the paper provides an alternative approach to the "Illiterate World"). (2015) ]
In the second part:
Computer Program For Splitting Of Words Of Different Languages
[ This is what is said, one old and realized by me idea for splitting of words of different languages without any dictionaries, and simultaneously, which worked decently good, yet was for DOS operating system used long time ago. The quintessence was to recognize consonants and vowels and to apply some natural rules (formalized by me) used in many languages. (2014) ]
Computer Program For Compressing Of Files Of Different Types
[ Also what is said, one old and realized by me, but again in DOS, idea for compressing of files of any types till the allowed by their very nature limit. The quintessence is in analyzing of occurrences of all characters, performing of statistical analysis for the frequency of their occurrences, and making of new character tables, changing the size of the very bytes, and iteratively. There were drawbacks, but there may still be advantages. (2014) ]
Ideas About Browsers Searching In The Internet
[ This time these are only my ideas about bettering of searching in the Internet, because there are many necessary possibilities that are missing. (2014) ]
What Other PIR Ideas Are There Outside The PIR?
[ Here is made a review of a heap of various PIR, i.e. scientific and original, ideas and propositions, in all works of the author, outside this folder. This is as if a guide in this regard. (2014) ]
In the third part:
Just Injustice
[ In this paper (that can be found in one more place) the author intends to throw some "kicks" against the judicial system as a whole, with its inherent flaws, and after this to make two formal propositions: for unified establishing of the damages and for personal modification of the punishments. (2001) ]
An Idea About New Kind Of Bank Deposits
[ Here is given one personal idea about new kind of bank deposits. (2014) ]
An Idea About New Advertisement In Supermarkets
[ Here is given one personal idea about new kind of ads in the supermarkets, and in other services. (2014) ]
Idea About New Calendar
[ This is what is said, one simple idea about new decimal calendar(and exists in one more place). (2012) ]
INTRODUCTION
I think some introductory remarks are necessary here because this is not a book but a folder with quite motley materials, and they are surely not fiction, and the name is not only "Feast" but also PIR. About the name it is easy, the initials PIR in Russian — and I usually publish in Internet everything initially in Russian, even not in my mother Bulgarian language — means "feast" but the initials are almost the same in English if are taken for "Propositions, Ideas, Realizations" (or, then, Researches).
Then the things are quite different because having been left with the coming of our democracy without constant work, and being, after all, scientific worker, I have chosen different fields where to spent interestingly my time and to try and apply any ideas which emerged in my head. This means chiefly that the ideas are set to me by nobody, the results can be questionable, but they, surely, are non-traditional and some of them are even urgent. Initially and mostly these are linguistic themes, like about worldwide alphabet, about many ideas hidden behind the numbers, then in the recent time emerged my English (and not only) Latin transliteration (and there are a pair or other relatively related materials about Bulgarian language, which, however, for the moment are placed in another — or rather in two, in different languages and with different approaches — folder).
But there are other ideas, there is proposed a new decimal calendar; there is quite serious idea for jurisprudence about unification of damages and guilt in lawsuits, together with personal modification of punishments. Then quite recently emerged three programmer ideas, where the two of them discuss very old programs by me, for DOS, for splitting of the words in every (in Latin and Cyrillic) possible language, as also for compressing of files of any (I just like the universality and the related with it word "any") type, which programs worked pretty good and can be transferred in another operating environment, and one new is about bettering of browsers' searching in Internet. You see, with coming to my 65th year I decided that there is no sense in keeping valuable ideas or realizations for myself, and chose, even without payment and however amateurish they may seem, to publish them. Then there are two, maybe winning (but for about an year there is no answer to them) business ideas, about bank deposits, and a kind of advertising in the supermarkets, yet not of the products, but of the very shops.
There may be expected to emerge (if I will live long enough) a pair of other linguistic materials, about a kind of bettering or correction of the English language; maybe also something else, it depends.
Ah, and because I am not traditional fiction writer but rather popularizer of many simple (well, relatively — I mean, without higher mathematics) ideas, I try to open the eyes of people (who, willingly or not but like not this, they like chiefly to be deluded), so because of this I have almost in every of my books or journalistic papers a PIR-idea, sometimes a heap of such ideas, and in order to provide the reader with some kind of guide through my creative works, where what can be found in them, I have included in the end the last material about other PIR ideas outside this folder.
This is all. If you like my ideas then read them and try to implement some of them in reality, they are worth of this, at leas I think so. But if you don't like them then don't worry, such people like you are highly necessary to build the background on which such clever heads like my can stand out and be noticed, so that I am only thankful to you. Ha-ha.
March 2016, Sofia, Bulgaria
AN ILLITERATE WORLD
Subject:
The next paper discusses the problem with common transliteration for all world languages. This is a draft, of course, for such general problems could not be decided by one person nowadays, but the ideas involved may be used and extended by some group of linguists with fluent knowledge of a dozen widely used languages, including also, say: French, Greek, Arabic, Chines, etc. Then it should be discussed and propagated trying to convince people of the need for this, and if some world authority with not only suggestive power but capable to enforce things will be engaged, then, possibly, the problem will be solved. Because it must be solved in one-two centuries, anyway.
0. Introduction
Well, this is not what the author really means, or he means it strictly formal, wanting to say that in the whole world there are not well accepted common letters in use, i.e. there is not one and the same alphabet used throughout the globe. And this is a hindrance in communications between different nations, of course, which was not so imposing some thousand, or even hundred of years before, but nowadays it is, because, especially through the Internet, the whole world is turning to one single country. And, strangely enough, there are no special problems for bettering of the situation, because we are not speaking about one language for all the peoples, but just for usage of one and the same characters by all.
Still, the problem exists, not only because we are used to make problems where the point is just in rejecting of some old habits, but because there are a great variety of vowels and consonants and not enough characters in the alphabet. This is true, though it is nothing unavoidable, and some combinations of characters can be used, and they have been used from ancient times. The point is that such combinations, and reading rules at all, are not common in the whole world. But well, was it not so with the common measure units, or with the right/left movement on the streets, or with the laws in different countries, etc? But, by the by, the problems were (or are being) solved, because they must to! Similarly, the author thinks, the problem with the common worldwide literation will also be solved sometimes in the near future. And if it shall and will, then why not to make some suggestions about how to do this better?
But let us add some more preliminary remarks. With a common alphabet there will be, in fact, no foreign words, and reading of all written texts will be as easy as reading one's own words, and will easily be done by computer, too, but without any dictionary. Of course reading does not mean understanding but it is a way to this, because our world is tiny and the word's roots are simply cruising around the globe; and it is not a good thing when one could not properly pronounce simple foreign words and names, of places or people (and between "Odyssey" and "Ulysses" surely exists "some" difference). But there is no need to plead for the importance of proper alphabet, because that is the reason why there exist so many of them. And just because they are different we need to use here sometimes other letters, so that for an adequate reading of the paper one must have loaded Symbol font (for some symbols) and Greek letters, and some Cyrillic ones. Let us, also, accept some abbreviations for often used names of languages by their first three letters, namely: Lat for Latin, Ger for German, then: Rus — Russian,: Bul — Bulgarian, Cyr — Cyrillic, Eng — English, Fre — French, Ita — Italian, Spa — Spanish, Gre — Greek, Tur — Turkish, Ara — Arabic, Heb — Hebrew, Chi — Chinese, etc. And now, let us proceed with
1. The Set Goals.
Our proposition is made with intention to reach the following goals:
a. The letters used have to be not more than 32 (choosing this number because it is a power of two, and is widely used in different computer character sets), and if they can be less, then this will be even better. And these letters have to be near to the Latin alphabet as possible, though some chars from Gre or Cyr alphabets may also be used. For some of the letters must be found better graphical images (retaining their meaning), because they continue to be confused with one another, e.g.: "o-0", "I-l", "m-n" and "u-n" in writing, etc. And some of the letters has to be discarded as rarely used or simply as redundant chars, or their meaning has to be changed, e.g.: "x", "q", "w", "y", "j", "h", etc. All in all, 32 chars have to be enough, because in ancient languages there were even less (22 in old Heb, 24 in Gre, and 26 in Lat alphabets, but the Ita use only 21 chars, others are now only for foreign words), and there are not more used in contemporary languages, too (in Bul 30 and in Rus 32, but 3 of them are combinations; in Ger again 30, because they have 4 additional chars for "ä", "ö", "ü", and "ß", where the last one from the year 2000 is rarely used, but they may do very well with the standard Lat chars; in Fre there are many additions above the letters but the basic char set is Lat; and so on). Anyway, if we want to be more precise, then the chars have to be not more then 64 including capital letters (because there might be some letters or special signs for which capital representation might not exist — see below).
b. There should be three types of letters, namely: vowels (let's write V. for short), consonants (C.), and modifiers (M.), and their functions must not be mixed! By using modifiers all possible vowels and consonants have to be represented by at most two chars (with the exception of some triphthongs, but they are building, in fact, two syllables, hence this even isn't an exception in the proper sense). This will make easier the splitting of the words, too, because the modifiers are united with the modified letter and cannot be split from it (no matter they affect V. or C.), also consequent Vs should not be split because they might form diph- or triph- thongs, but all consequent Cs can be split; as for the splitting V-C and C-V this should be allowed only when the C. is a single one, and in this case splitting before the C. is preferred. There is something more concerning the Ms, and let us assume from now on to understand under letter just Vs or Cs, and under char or symbol any char in the char set. So when the Ms are not letters in the proper meaning of the word then they can be written as something above the previous char (but not under it, for to make it possible to use underlining) — a point, two points, a wave, etc., what is widely used method — and this alternative writing will make it easier to read and to guess the pronunciation. Designing all in a simple way there will be no principal problems to make all (or a part of the) Ms, though they will be present on the keyboard, not to appear as separate symbols on the screens of computers, or even on pieces of paper written through contemporary typewriters, but to be just put above the previous letter (though in this paper we will keep to the writing of them as separate chars, because otherwise, designing our own chars, there will be some problems with spreading of the material as a file).
c. The letters have to be read as they are written, if not modified, and if modified then the Ms have to be recognized looking only one char forward. There can be some minor differences in pronouncing of some specific for a given language sounds, but there must not be any efforts to use a third, etc, letter(s) to guess about the pronunciation, or to write chars that are not pronounced at all (like the dumb "e", or doubling of Cs), and have never been pronounced, for they have a meaning of Ms. This means that in languages where one thing is said and another is written there all words have to be transliterated going from what is pronounced and not written (because it will be more difficult to force that people to read how they write — say in French or English — for, if it were easier, why they read many Lat words otherwise, being capable to write them how they want to say them?). This will make easier the automated (computerized) pronouncing without any dictionary.
So, these are the most important postulates, but there are many-many other things in different languages and grammars, which should be unified, too, though we will not discuss this further here. What we mean, however, is e.g.: Ger way of counting from 21 to 99 (and Rus way for making some differences between numbers ending on 1, from 2 to 4, and above 4; something similar in Fre on the base of 20, or Ita before and after 16); Ger way of such honoring of the nouns for to write them all with capital letters (what we reject in our new alphabet by default); transitive and intransitive verbs (with "haben" or "sein" in Ger); different cases for movement and staying (or the peculiar Rus differences when moving with one's own legs and when using some transport — "ходить" and "ехать"); existence of strong or irregular verbs; courteous forms for second person singular (especially in Ger); unreasonably long words in Ger (or bad rules for splitting in English); bad Fre "habit" not only to write one thing and read another, but to write almost always one letter more than is read; all possible differences in geographical and other names in different languages; et cetera.
2. The Proposition
Now, the author proposes the following alphabet, which will be thereafter explained in more details:
Vowels: i, e, ә (like in "her"), a, o, u — 6;
Consonants: b, p, v, f, d, t, m, n (=н), r, l (=л), g, k, x, z, c, s, ζ (=zh=ж), q (=ch=ч), w (=sh=ш) — 19;
Modifiers: "·", "¨", "º", "ˉ", "ˇ", "ˆ", "~"; "`", "´" (="h"), "|" — 7+3 = 10.
All in all this gives 35 chars, but the letters (Vs and Cs) are only 25 (though one may as well count them as 26, because "j" is missing from the letters as redundant, but will be included on the keyboard, to what we shall come later), and as to the 10 Ms, we not only have included the accent ("`") in the alphabet (what is not the case in any of the existing alphabets), but the most of them are old special characters (so that they exist in the char table). In fact, there are just two entirely new letters (ә and ζ) but "y", and "h" are not letters, so we are quit till now (still counting "j" as a letter key); and for the Ms, which are just symbols without capital representation, we need only 5 keys having 7-8 keys not for letters on the keyboard that may be used and prearranged (as it is done, anyway, in Cyr). In other words, we have really 25+5=30 char keys (or 60 chars with capitals), what is less then 32 (respectively 64).
The new alphabet begins with the Vs (because we have to begin with something), and the Vs are separated from the Cs, because it is much better for analyses in this way, and at the end are the left 10 Ms (where, say, the first 7 are in the lower char table, and the left 3 in the upper part, leaving four more empty places). In order not to confuse "o - 0" we propose to write the number zero as "θ" (or diagonally stricken, as "ø", if one prefers so). It has also to be explicitly said that this is a draft proposition and the author does not intend to give the exact rules for writing of each sound in each of the world languages (though we will explain some major situations in 4-5 languages) — that has to be decided for each of the languages by some authorized native instances and then made worldwide consistent. Now, in some more details.
a. The major vowels in all languages are six (in Bul they are exactly present — и, е, ъ, а, о, у), where only the third one ("ә") may need some more explanations. It might have been represented as an "a" + some M., but we have not unlimited number of Ms, and there exists a variation of this V. as in "but" (usually given like "ˆ"), which has to be given now as "әˉ", and also Rus "ы" as in "мы" (we), which has to be written as "ә·". Besides, if we want to overuse the Ms' idea, then "e" may be observed as modification of "i" (or v.v.), "u" — of "o" (then b-p, v-f, etc.), and we may come to about 13 letters or so, and 12 Ms or so, but this contradicts to all alphabets, and the Ms have to be often overwritten, hence we are going to absurdity, or at least to more difficulties, in this way. So, it is much better to accept "ә" as basic V. and to write "hәr" (for "her", though this word will be corrected later), "bәˉt" (for "but"), and "mә·" (for "мы").
But it turns out that the Russians have unstressed "o", which they say is like their "a" (not in Eng pronunciation, of course), but one may be sure they will fearfully object to the proposition to change it with "a" and write, say, "акно" (window) instead of "окно", or "харашо" (well, good) instead of "хорошо", because in this way there will be no difference between "это" and "эта" and they are of different genders. So how to proceed? Well, they might not be conscious of it, but this sound is just the same as in Eng "but", hence they have to write respectively "әˉkno" and "xәˉrәˉwo" (where "w" is the usual "sh"). For the image of "ә" (and in many other cases) new graphical representations have to be invented, and we propose here "ә" to be written in this way only because it is the usually used symbol for marking of pronunciation of "her" in Eng (and it does not mean Russian "back-e", "э"). And the Vs are ordered in this new way because they go in pairs (i-e, ә-a, o-u), and this pairs follow in direction of extending of our lips further forward.
One important point — about the point over the "i": it should be written without any point (like the Greek "ι", or like Cyr "г" in handwriting), because we use the point as special symbol above other chars, and it is at least strange that just one char has to have a point over it. But the letter "i" has the peculiarity to join with any other vowel (even with oneself like in Rus endings "-ий", or "-ij" in usual Lat, or "-ii·" using our new alphabet) and to become, in fact, "j" (or "y", it depends on the language). And now we come to the old char "j", which in any case is peculiar thing, because it is not a proper V. (for one could not pronounce it alone, as syllable), and it is not a C. (because it combines with Vs forming diph- and triph- thongs), but it is not a proper M., too (because when we say "aj", in usual Lat, we do not mean a modification of "a" but building of a diphthong). So our proposition is to reject "j" at all and make it by the combination "i·", i.e. by the usual "i", with a point over it.
However, because this sound is very often used and present in all languages (ancient, Slavonic, and Western ones, at least), then it is better if "j" (i.e. "i" with a point) still exists on the keyboard, but when typing it is to be represented as "i·". But there is another peculiarity with this sound and it is that it may precede another V. (or join with the next V.), as in Eng "yes" or Ger "Johann(es)", or it may also succeed a V. (or join with the previous V.), as in Eng "my" or Ger "mein" (pronounced as 'majn'), or Eng "I". The first idea of the author was not to make this difference and to write "i·es" and "I·o´annes" (the meaning of "´" will be explained later), as well as "mai·" or "mai·n" or "ai·" respectively, but on a further observation it turned out that it will be better to introduce another M., namely "º", which has to tell us to join "j" with the succeeding V., what will give "iºes" and "Iºo´annes"; and when we want to join it with the preceding V. then to use "·" as above ("mai·" etc.).
So, in this way we have two Ms just for making "j", hence let us from now on write "j" only when we mean joining with the next V. ("º", as in "yes"), and write "y" when we join with the previous V. ("·", as in "my"). This may sound not very well motivated, but when "j" or "y" is between two Vs the things become more complicated and using only one M. some other tricks have to be used for to guess with which one it has to be joined — like in Rus "-ая", i.e. "-aja", which we will write now as "-aiºa"; or take Fre "mayonnaise", for which we in Bul think it is "ma-jo.." but in Eng, judging by the splitting, it should be "may-o..", so it will be written as "mai·onez". And there are cases when there must be an unmodified "i" (without a point) as in Lat or Ita "piano" (which only in Eng is pronounced as 'pjaenou', in Lat writing), in which case we have to write it as we are used to (with "ι").
b. The consonants are also ordered in a new way but they are in successive pairs (b-p, v-f, d-t, m-н, r-л), or triples (g-k-x, z-c-s, ζ-q-w), what is, again, better. Some Cs have several images because of font problems, and we will use whatever is easy to type, but the first image in the above list of Cs is nearer to the truth. Here we have in mind also that: "v" is what "w" in Ger is (e.g.: ver, varum, etc) and "f" is clear (so in Ger one will have, e.g.: fu¨r, fater, etc.), but it is preferable to be written something like Gre "φ", for "f" because it is better when the letters are of similar width and height — hence "d" has to be modified as something like "ð" (and it is one of the ways for handwriting it in Cyr), "t" like "τ", "b" and "k" should be a little bit lower (for we have to have enough place for Ms above them), et cetera. Further: "н" and "л" are better for writing in order not to confuse "m-n" and "I-l" (and do not forget that the Cyr "л" comes from Gre "λ" and looks more like it); the letter "x" is not the Lat char but the Cyr "х", what again is nearer to the Gre "χ", hence we have to write now: "xau" (for "how"), or in Ger: "xer" (for "Herr") or "xiәr" (for "hier"). The triple "g-k-x" is in the direction of moving of the tongue forward and it is really needed because these are similar sounds and very often confused in different languages (compare with: "choir /chorus", "Christ", Rus "гер", i.e. "ger", instead of Ger "Herr", etc.).
Later on, "z" is like in "zero", "c" is the good old Lat "c" like in "Caesar" or "circus" etc (but not in "casus"), though not with Eng pronouncing, but, say, with Ger one, and "s" is just the same (and not like in "zero", as Germans read it in, say, "sagen"). By "ζ-q-w" we understand the more vivid "h"-pairs of "z-c-s", so it might have been possible to write "chek" (for "check"), "zhenshchina" (Rus "женщина"), and "shtuhl" (Ger "Stuhl") — though, in fact, it should be used the M. "¨", and for the Ger word also "´", because "h" has another meaning, giving thus: "c¨ek", "z¨ens¨c¨ina", and "s¨tu´l" — but it is simpler to put it as: "qek" (=чek), "ζenwqina" (="жenшчina"), or "wtu´l", and that is why we have included these often used in many languages Cs in the new alphabet. The triple "z-c-s", and respectively "ζ-q-w", is again in the direction of moving of the tongue forward (and opening of the mouth); though here we may also speak of three pairs (z-ζ, c-q, s-w) where the second element might have been modified by "¨" from the first element. And note that for the Slavs "z" is "з", and "ζ" is written as "ж", but the last is too wide to be called a good letter — so that the author is not proposing something good only for people using Cyr.
c. Now about the modifiers, which are the most important part of our proposition. But we shall list them in three subdivisions for better explanation. And let us say again that the Ms can never be used as capital letters for they stand always after some real letter (so for them we will use just one half of a key, to what we shall come in part 5.).
c1. Basic modifiers for vowels (the first seven). In fact, very often two consequent Vs are pronounced together forming a diphthong (and that is why we forbid splitting between Vs), but they may be even more joined forming some new V., for which case, exactly, we need these Ms. Combining Vs to produce some modifications, or "special effects", we usually want to say one V. but say another one, what gives us the new sound. The V. we wanted to say is the basic one, which we type, and the one we try to say we must mark by some M. putting (as was said before) some small sign over the basic one (which sign we will write here after the first V., but when the Ms are not proper letters, in fact, we use always symbols for them, then no confusion may arise). Because we have enough Ms we may use them for modification to each of the basic Vs, as follows: "·" for "i", "¨" for "e", "º" for "ә" (for all other basic Vs but not "i"), "ˉ" for "a", "ˇ" for "o", "ˆ" for "u", and "~" for some special effects, such as Fre nasal Vs. For all basic Vs but "i" a modification to the same V. is meaningless (although allowed); for "i" as basic V. we have an important case of modifying to itself for which purpose we use both "º" and "·" in order to distinguish between "j" and "y" (as was already said), but other Ms can also be used with "i", of course; and only a modification of "i" to "ә" can not be made but there is no need for this, really, because all Vs modified to "ә" sound very strange and are not used (try to pronounce something like "iә", or "eә", or "uә", but in one sound, not as diphthong).
So this is enough, and in this way may be coded, e.g.: Rus "ты" (you) -> "tә·", "хороший" (good) -> "xәˉrowii·" (but "хорош`и" -> "xәˉrәˉwi" what is a bit different), "ëлка" (pine tree) -> "iˇlka" (or "iºolka", if they prefer so), "идея" (idea) -> "ideiºa"; then some Fre worlds, say: "fleur" (flower) -> "flo¨", "deux" (god) -> "du¨", "beau" (good) -> "buˇ" (as in "merci beaucoup"), "je suis" (I am) -> "ζiˇ siºui", their nasal Vs like "bonjour" (good morning) -> "bo~ζur", "entrez" (come in) -> "a~tri¨", etc. (and we do not bother to write "n", because they say it is not pronounced, but the V. before is modified, though if they want to write it, then they may do it as well).
c2. Basic modifiers for consonants. For Cs we use the same Ms as for Vs (why should we add any more symbols?) and because they are more then needed some of them are left free for further usage. We propose to use "·" for some softening of the previous C. where the tongue is kept as back as possible, as in Rus "ь" (the so called "soft sign"), e.g.: "учитель" (teacher) -> "uqitel·", "мышь" (mouse) -> "mә·w·", "речь" (speech) -> "req·", etc, also in Spa "ñ" like in "cañon" -> "kan·on", and in some other languages like "-r·" or "-b·" or something like. Then we will use "¨" to mark the moving of the tongue a little bit to the middle of the mouth, as in Eng or Ger "r" making it as "r¨" (Ger "der" -> "der¨", "Herr" -> "her¨", Eng "problem" -> "pr¨oblәm", but not when in Eng we have a prolonged V. before "r", to what we shall come soon). As for now the author could not find another C. to be modified in this way (though, maybe, in some languages it is possible, because "ζ" may be observed as "z¨", as it was said before), but this "r¨" is not as in Slavonic languages; or then in Ita "bravo /-issimo". The next M. is "ˉ", what means moving of the tongue as foremost as possible, and we found that this is exactly the case with the Eng "ð" and "θ" (which are, in fact, very old sounds), hence we will have: "they" -> "dˉei·", "mouth" -> "mautˉ"; possibly this should be the M. for the Gre "φ", hence "philosophy" -> "fˉilosәfˉi". But the Eng "w", which is not more a C. than a V., can be very well represented by "vº", giving: "what" -> "vºot", "where" -> "vºa¨ә", et cetera. The M. "~" may be used for some nasal endings as in Eng "-ing" -> "-in~", in some old (Ara) languages where there are syllables like "-mb" -> "m~" (possibly the Eng "tomb" -> "tu´m~"), or also "-t~" or "-d~" or "-b~"; and the Fre "r" should be, probably, "r~".
In this way the Ms "ˇ" and "ˆ" are not used at all, and there may be many combinations with the other Ms, so that it is possible to mark "dζ" (as in "just") like, say, "dˇ", or to write Czech or Polish "rζ" like "rˇ", or "dr" as "d¨"), but there may be also "-drζ-" etc, hence this is not a proper way of writing of Cs. Anyway, this has not to bother us now.
c3. Pronunciation modifiers. The last three Ms are: the accent "`", the prolongation mark "´", and the punctuation sign "|". We discuss them separately because they have to be put above the previous letter but may be overwritten with the first 7 Ms, because the first ones are to be put in the middle over the letter, and these — at both corners. The accent should be added to the alphabet because it is a good idea to write it exactly above the letter (when it has to be written at all) and not before the V. (or even the syllable) and it should be presented if one wish to enable good automated (computerized) reading of the text, which does not mean that one has always to write accents (as it is not done, usually, in the books). This sign is clear and has to be put in the leftmost top corner, where the similarly looking "´" has to be in the rightmost top corner (but they may be designed as something like small "\" for accent, and "/" for prolongation). The "´" is an important symbol and by handwriting may be changed to something like "-/", or even written in the old way as "h". It is to replace Ger lengthening of Vs with "h", also in Lat (and in other ancient languages, too), where over the Vs a small line is written, and, of course, in Eng, e.g.: "need" -> "ni´d", "read" -> "ri´d", etc. The last M. "|" must be represented as something like a small vertical strike or a point, again in the rightmost top corner, or better in the right upper end of the sign (i.e. just after the sign), though it may as well not be printed at all (just be kept in the file). The purpose of this "|" is to inverse the rules for splitting of Vs and Cs, or more precisely: when we have V-V the normal way is not to split here, but if we want splitting, and some small pause added, then with "|" between the Vs we will do this; in C-C case splitting is as a rule allowed, so with "|" between it should not be; in V-C the splitting is allowed too, so to disable it we put again "|"; and in C-V there is no place for splitting, so with "|" we make it again and put a little pause there, as in the case of some apostrophe.
Let us give some more examples. In Eng: "for" -> "fo´", "person" -> "pә´sn", etc.; similarly in Ger "gehen" -> "ge´en". Then, we do not always need to write "r¨" in Eng and have just to miss it, but we may want to do this sometimes, as in "trouble" -> "tr¨әˉbl"; where in Ger we almost always have to write "r¨", though in words' endings on "-er" they say "ә" like "Mutter" -> "mutә". About the "|": Ger "bearbeiten" -> "be|ar¨bai·ten" (to allow splitting between "ea"), or Eng "period" -> "piәri|{o/ә}d"; then "|" between Cs means if one does not want to split there, say, in Tur "hadji" -> "xad|ζi", or Eng (probably Spa) "banjo" -> "ba¨nd|ζou" (but in Eng "John" -> "Dζoun" it is clear it will not be split, anyway); then if we want to split after a C. as in Eng "perennial" we have to write it as "pәr|eniәl". However, in the usual correspondence in a given language "|" may as well be omitted, if one does not want to make it world wide accepted, or spell-checking programs may be used to correct and/or translate to the new alphabet. In a way, "|" may be used as an ellipsis between Cs (as in "isn't" -> "isn|t"), because it is, anyway, just a punctuation sign and not to split there is also good, but this should not be a rule, because we may omit whatever we want, wherever we want (as in "'course" for "of course"; though it might be "f|course").
And let us add some exceptions about splitting: two equal Vs (as basic Vs, but they may be modified) are to be split fast always (like in Cyr "instanci-iºa"), and also a V-iº-V may be split before "j" (="iº"), or V-i·-V. may be split after "y" (="i·"), with the exception when on either side of the splitting there is no syllable left (or less then 2 or 3 chars); three or more (if possible?) consequent Vs may be split after the second one (as in Ger "Bauern" -> "bau-er¨n", and similarly with Eng triphthongs like "hour" -> "au-ә" or "fire" -> "fai-ә"), or may not — what depends on the accepted for the language rule (if some language has to be given as a basic one, which should not be the case, because we propose an all-world alphabet); two equal Cs are to be preferred for splitting (if there are more Cs, for otherwise it is to be split and there is nothing to prefer; but doubling Cs should be, as a rule, rejected from all languages).
3. Different Languages
Now let us observe more closely the used by the author languages. We shall begin with the Eng, which, though very good from the point of view of grammar, is possibly the worst one from the point of pronunciation. With the Cs we are easily done, as explained before, having to write, e.g.: "then" -> "dˉen", "thin" -> "tˉin", "cheap" -> "qi´p", "shake" -> "wei·k", "pleasure" -> "pleζә" "hedge" -> "hedζ", "long" -> "lon~", "red" -> "r¨ed", and "wind" -> "vºind". Now about the Vs: "back" -> "ba¨k", "cut" -> "kәˉt", "alive" -> "әlai·v" (there is no need to list all basic Vs), then the diphthongs: "day" -> "dei·", "nice" -> "nai·s", "boy" -> "boi·", "jes" -> "iºes", "grow" -> "grou", "town" -> "taun", "near" -> "niә", "pair" -> "pa¨ә", "sure" -> "wuә", and possibly "more" -> "moә" (instead of "mo´"); then the prolongated Vs: "see" -> "si´", "far" -> "fa´" (after a long V. "r¨" is better to be omitted), "for" -> "fo´", "soon" -> "su´n", "girl" -> "gә´l" or "her" -> "hә´", and also "music" -> "miºu´zik"; and the triphthongs: "fire" -> "fai·ә" or "faiә" (but, according to the author, more like "fai|ә", paying no much attention to the triphthongs), "hour" (here = "our") -> "auә" (i.e. "au|ә"), "lower" -> "louә" (i.e. "lou|ә"), and "player" -> "plei·ә" (again like "plei·|ә"). Let us give some more examples: "alibi" -> "a¨libai" (and not "a¨libai·", I think), "language" -> "la¨n~vºidζ", "quart" -> "kvºo´t", "I" -> "ai·" (and if one wants to distinguish it from the other "ai·", i.e. "eye", one may change the last to "ai·g" or "oug", because this, anyway, comes from Ger "Auge"; or to change "I" to "ai·x", because it comes from Ger "ich", i.e. "ix" in new writing, or Ita "io", i.e. "iºo"), "action" -> "a¨kwn", "thought" -> "tˉo´t", et cetera.
Now with Ger, but there will be less problems here (and with Spa and Ita it should also be so). Let us begin again with the Cs: "f" and "v" (in most cases, but not in obviously foreign words like "Venus") become now "f", where "w" and in some cases "v" (like this "Venus") become "v"; then "ss" (or also "ß") and some "s" (when read as real "s") are now "s", and the most "s" become "z", but "z" is to be written as "c" (again with some exceptions); "ch" and some "h" in the beginning are turned to "x"; "h" for prolongation is changed to the M. "´"; "r" is to be written always as "r¨" (if not omitted at the ends like in "mutә"); and the classical cases: "sch" -> "w", "tsch" -> "q", "st" -> "wt", and "sp" -> "wp". The Umlaut is always to be changed to the M. "¨" giving, e.g.: "Väter" (fathers) -> "fa¨tә" (though they make no difference in pronouncing between "a¨" and "e"), "böse" (crossed with someone) -> "bo¨ze", "Tür" (a door) -> "tu¨r¨". In addition many unstressed endings "-er" are to become "ә", for example: "Lehrer" (teacher) -> "le´r¨ә", "über" (over) -> "u¨bә", etc., but "der" (an article) -> "der¨", "jener" (that) -> "iºener¨", etc. The diphthong "ei" becomes "ai·", "eu" -> "oi·", and this is in effect if instead of "e" stands "ä", as for example: "mein" (mine) -> "mai·n", "heute" (today) -> "hoi·te", and "täuschen" (delude) -> "toi·wen". They have also such cases alka" (or "is: "Johann" -> "Iºo´an", "jetzt" (now) -> "iºetct", "piano" -> "pi|ano" (to enable splitting, as in "beurteilen", meaning to judge, and becoming "be|ur¨tai·len"), etc.; and the triphthongs are represented with "auә" as in "Bauer" (farmer) -> "bau(|)ә", and maybe "ai·ә" as in "Meier" (a name) -> "Mai·(|)ә". Some more examples: "wahr" (true) -> "wa´", "Haus" (house) -> "xaus", "Stuhl" (chair) -> "wtu´l", "machen" (to make) -> "maxen", "schwer" (not light) -> "wver¨", "sagen" (say) -> "zagen", "siegen" (win) -> "zi´gen", "singen" (sing) -> "zin~en" (or "singen", because "-ng" isn't typical for Ger), "Christ(os)" -> "Kr¨ist(os)", "Chor" -> "kor¨" (though "xor¨" will be more adequate as near to the Greek original and written as "хор" in Cyr), "Wachs" (a wax) -> "vaks", et cetera.
What concerns French we will look just superficial, because the author does not know this language. The Cs are more or less traditional, with good "ζ" (written in different way), our "w" (written as "ch", not meant as the old "w"), also "g", "k", "z", "s", etc., though some of them written in more then one way, and the left ones. They does not pronounce the old "h", and seem to miss our "c" and "q", and their "r" is to be given as "r~" (but maybe not always?). Now, we go to the Vs: they seem not to have our "ә", but make a distinction between open and closed Vs, where the open "e" and "o" are the usual ones, and the closed "e" should be now "i¨" (or "e·"?), and the closed "o" -> "uˇ". They seem not to have prolonged Vs, but have diphthongs, by what we do not mean writing "ai" instead of 'e' (or "ou" for 'u'), but the following: our "ua" (usually written as "oi"), our "ai·" (using long "-aille"), our "ei·" (as "-eil"), etc., but here is their "oe" which is of two kinds — open "oe", which has to be now "o¨", and closed "oe" (or "oeu"), which becomes "u¨". And, of course, their nasals "a~" and "e~", but it is their business whether they will want to make any difference between "an", "am", "en", and "em" (what is all "a~" for them), and with the 4 ways to say "e~", too.
Now about Cyr, which means here Rus and Bul (but Ukrainian too, for they seem only to have two "i"-s — the Cyr "и" and the Lat "i"). In Rus exist three "e"-s: "е", "э", and "ë", where the first and usual one has to become "i¨" (hence the already mentioned "женщина" -> "ζi¨nwqina"), the "back" one is the right one, i.e. "e", and "ë" must be "iˇ" (or "iºo", if they prefer it so, but never "e¨" what has no meaning in the new writing!). Here the Bulgarians do the things right, so their one "e" is just the same. The char "ь" in Rus turns to the M. "·" (as mentioned), and Bul "ьо" becomes "o¨", and "йо" must be "iºo". We have talked about the unstressed "o" in Rus becoming now "әˉ" (in Bul we like, too, to make unstressed Vs sounding more dull, like "o" -> "u", "a" -> "ә", but that is observed as non-literate pronunciation). The last letters "ю" and "я" become "iºu" and "iºa", respectively, because they are combinations (like Lat "x", or Gre "ψ") as e.g. "следующий" (next) -> "sli¨duiºuwqii·". Bul "ъ" is just "ә", and in Rus this sound is not readable, as in "подъëм" or "подъезд", and may be made by the M. "|" enabling splitting after the previous C. (and not before) and making some little pause, i.e. "pod|iˇm" and "pod|i¨zd" (or by modifying the C. with "~" what gives "pod~iˇm" and "pod~i¨zd", though that does not sound any better).
There are many other languages and we may give some hints about them. In Lat there are some prolongations of Vs, the classical "ae" -> "a¨", "oe" -> "o¨", "ph" might be now "fˉ", "c" is mostly our "c" (when followed by "e" or "i"), but sometimes "k", or the new "q" (as is in Ita), and some other exceptions. In Gre they have two "e"-s — "ε" and "η" — where the first one should probably be our "e" and the second one — "i¨" (or just "i"?), but otherwise they seem to be badly phonetically endowed. In Tur and Ara and in other ancient languages there are many "dζ"-s, our "q", also "ә", sounds like "dˉ" (or "d~"?) and "tˉ", but we have signs for them. In Chi or Jap there might be "dζ" or "dz", too, but this also is not a problem. Well, maybe some of our propositions for writing will not be accepted looking illiterate or vulgar (say, Ger "fa¨tә", or Rus "әˉkno", or their "ni¨t" for "нет" as "no", etc), and many literary persons will insist to write the words properly and try to pronounce them so, but we have to give some examples and have therefore to make some decisions. Or, maybe, in some languages the usual practice will be to use some "better looking" letters (and write, say, "okno" or "net", or use always normal "r" and not "r¨") but later on, with the use of some spell-checking editors, the text will be converted to the correct new writing. It might be so, but all this has not to bother us at the moment.
4. An Example
As a simple example we will give the new transliterations for just one paragraph of this text (that of the Subject), but in four languages — Eng, Ger, Rus, and Bul — to see how it will work.
Old Eng:
The next paper ... anyway. — 562 chars (without spaces and splittings).
New Eng with Ms:
Dˉә nekst pei·pә diskәˉsis dˉә pr¨oblәm vºitˉ komәn tr¨a¨nslitәr¨ei·wn fo´ o´l vºә´ld la¨n~vºidζiz. Dˉis iz ә dr¨a´ft, әv ko´s, fo´ sәˉq dζenәr¨әl pr¨oblәms kud not bi disai·did bai· vºәˉn pә´sn nauәdei·s, bәˉt dˉә ai·diәs involvd mei· bi iºu´sd a¨nd ikstendid bai· sәˉm gr¨u´p әv lin~vºists vºitˉ flu´әnt nolidζ әv ә dәˉzn vºai·dli iºu´sd la¨n~vºidζiz, inklu´din~ o´lsou, sei·: Fr¨enq, Gr¨i´k, A¨r¨әbik, Qai·ni´z, etz. Dˉen it wud bi diskәˉst a¨nd pr¨opәgei·tid tr¨ai·in~ tu kәnvins pi´pl әv dˉә ni´d fo´ dˉis, a¨nd if sәˉm vºә´ld o´tˉor¨iti vºitˉ not ounli sәdζestiv pauә bәˉt kei·pәbl tu info´r¨s tˉin~s vºil be ingei·dζd, dˉen, posibli, dˉә pr¨oblәm vºil be solvd. Bikoz it mәˉst bi solvd in vºәˉn-tu´ senqәr¨i´z, a¨nivºei·. — 617 chars, or 10% more.
New Eng without Ms:
Dә nekst peipә diskәsis dә problәm vit dә komәn translitәreiwn fo ol vәld lanvidζiz. Dis iz ә draft, әv kos, fo sәq dζenәrәl problәms kud not bi disaidid bai vәn pәsn nauәdeis, bәt dә aidiәs involvd mei bi iusd and ikstendid bai sәm grup әv linvists vit fluәnt nolidζ әv ә dәzn vaidli iusd lanvidζiz, inkludin olsou, sei: Frenq, Grik, Arәbik, Qainiz, etz. Den it wud bi diskәst and propәgeitid traiin tu kәnvins pipl әv dә nid fo dis, and if sәm vәld otoriti vit not ounli sәdζestiv pauә bәt keipәbl tu infors tins vil be ingeidζd, den, posibli, dә problәm vil be solvd. Bikoz it mәst bi solvd in vәn-tu senqәris, anivei. — 509 chars, or 10% less.
Old text in Ger:
Der folgende Artikel erörtert das Problem mit gemeinsamer Transliteration aller weltlichen Sprachen. Das ist, natürlich, nur ein Entwurf, weil solche generale Probleme kann man heutzutage nicht allein entscheiden, aber die vorgebrachten Ideen können von einer von Linguisten bestehenden Gruppe benutzt und erweitert werden, wenn diese Leute ausgezeichnete Kenntnisse von Sprachen wie, z. B.: französische, griechische, arabische, chinesische, usw., haben. Danach soll alles besprechen und propagieren werden, mit der Absicht alle Leute von den Nutzen dieser Schritt zu überzeugen, und wenn eine Behörde mit nicht nur suggestiver sonder auch exekutiver Macht engagiert werden könne, dann, vielleicht, wird das Problem endlich gelöst. Weil es muss in eins-zwei Jahrhunderte jedenfalls gelöst sein. — 687 chars (counted without spaces and splitting everywhere).
New Ger with Ms:
Der¨ folgende ar¨tikel er¨o¨r¨ter¨t das pr¨oblem mit der¨ gemai·nzamen tr¨ansliter¨acion aller¨ veltlixen wpr¨axen. Das ist, natu¨r¨lix, nur¨ ai·n entvur¨f, vai·l zolxe gener¨ale pr¨obleme kan man xoi·tcutage nixt alai·n entwai·den, abә die for¨gebr¨axten ideen ko¨nen fon ai·ner¨ fon lingvisten bewte´enden Gr¨upe benutct und er¨vai·ter¨t ver¨den, ven di´ze loi·te ausgecai·xnete kentnise fon wpr¨axen vi´, c. b.: fr¨anco¨ziwe, gr¨i´xiwe, ar¨abiwe, xineziwe, usv., xaben. Danax zoll alles bewpr¨exen und pr¨opaζi´r¨en ver¨den, mit der¨ abzixt alle loi·te fon den nutcen di´zer¨ wr¨it cu u¨bәcoi·gen, und ven ai·ne bexo¨r¨de mit nixt nur¨ sugestiver¨ zonder¨ aux ekzekutiver¨ maxt a~gaζi´r¨t ver¨den ko¨ne, dan, fi´lai·xt, vir¨d das pr¨oblem endlix gelo¨st. Vail es mus in ai·ns-cvai· iºa´r¨xunder¨te iºedenfals gelo¨st sai·n. — 717 chars, or 4% more.
New Ger without Ms:
Der folgende artikel erortert das problem mit der gemainzamen Transliteracion aller veltlixen wpraxen. Das ist, naturlix, nur ain entvurf, vail zolxe generale probleme kan man xoitcutage nixt alain entwaiden, abә die forgebraxten ideen konen fon ainer fon lingvisten bewteenden Grupe benutct und ervaitert verden, ven dize loite ausgecaixnete kentnise fon wpraxen vi, c. b.: francoziwe, grixiwe, arabiwe, xineziwe, usv., xaben. Danax zoll alles bewprexen und propaζiren verden, mit der abzixt alle loite fon den nutcen dizer writ cu ubәcoigen, und ven aine bexorde mit nixt nur sugestiver zonder aux ekzekutiver maxt agaζirt verden kone, dan, filaixt, vird das problem endlix gelost. Vail es mus in ains-cvai iarxunderte iedenfals gelost sain. — 634 chars, or 8% less.
Old text in Rus:
В следующей статье обсуждается проблема общей транслитерации всех мировых языков. Это, конечно, только первоначальный или черновой вариант, поскольку такие мировые проблемы не решаются одним человеком в наши дни, но изложенные идеи могут быть использованы и расширены некоторой группой лингвистов, владеющих в совершенстве дюжину широко использованных мировых языков, включая также, скажем: французский, греческий, арабский, китайский, и т. д. Потом это должно быть обсуждено и пропагандировано с целью убедить людей в необходимость этого шага, и если при этом будет заангажирована какая нибудь инстанция обладающая не только инициативной, но и утвердительной власти, то тогда, вероятно, проблема эта будет решена. Потому что она, так или иначе, должна быть решена в течении одного-двух столетий. — 688 chars.
New Rus with Ms:
V sli¨duiºuwqi¨i· stat·i¨ әˉbsuζda|i¨tca prәˉbli¨ma obwqi¨i· transliti¨razii vsi¨x mirәˉvә·x iºazә·kov. Etәˉ, koni¨qnәˉ, tol·kәˉ pi¨rvәˉnaqal·nә·i· ili qi¨rnәˉvoi· variant, pәˉskol·ku takii¨ mirәˉvә·i¨ prәˉbli¨mә· ni¨ ri¨waiºutca әˉdnim qi¨lәˉvi¨cәˉm v nawi dni, no izloζi¨nә·i¨ idi¨i mogut bә·t· ispol·zәˉvanә· i raswiri¨nә· ni¨kәˉtorәˉi· grupәˉi· lingvistәˉv, vladi¨iºuwqix v sәˉvi¨rwi¨nstvi¨ diºuζinu wirәˉko ispol·zәˉvanә·x mirәˉvә·x iºazә·kov, vkliºuqaiºa takζi¨, skaζi¨m: francuzskii·, gri¨qi¨skii·, arabskii·, kitai·skii·, i t. d. Pәˉtom etәˉ dәˉlζno bә·t· әˉbsuζdi¨no i prәˉpagandirәˉvanәˉ s ci¨l·iºu ubi¨dit· liºudi¨i· v ni¨әˉbxәˉdimәˉsti etәˉvәˉ waga, i i¨sli pri etәˉm budi¨t zaangaζirәˉvana kakaiºa nibud· instanciiºa әˉbladaiºuwqaiºa ni¨ tol·kәˉ iniciativnәˉi·, no i utvi¨rditi¨l·nәˉi· vlasti, to tәˉgda, vi¨rәˉiºatnәˉ, prәˉbli¨ma eta budi¨t ri¨wi¨na. Pәˉtәˉmu wto әˉna, tak ili inaqi¨, dәˉlζna bә·t· ri¨wi¨na v ti¨qi¨nii әˉdnәˉvo-dvux stәˉli¨tii·. — 853 chars, or 24% more.
New Rus without Ms:
V sliduiuwqii stati әbsuζdaitca prәblima obwqii translitirazii vsix mirәvәx iazәkov. Etә, koniqnә, tolkә pirvәnaqalnәi ili qirnәvoi variant, pәskolku takii mirәvәi prәblimә ni riwaiutca әdnim qilәvicәm v nawi dni, no izloζinәi idii mogut bәt ispolzәvanә i raswirinә nikәtorәi grupәi lingvistәv, vladiiuwqix v sәvirwinstvi diuζinu wirәko ispolzәvanәx mirәvәx iazәkov, vkliuqaia takζi, skaζim: francuzskii, griqiskii, arabskii, kitaiskii, i t. d. Pәtom etә dәlζno bәt әbsuζdino i prәpagandirәvanә s ciliu ubidit liudii v niәbxәdimәsti etәvә waga, i isli pri etәm budit zaangaζirәvana kakaia nibud instanciia әbladaiuwqaia ni tolkә iniciativnәi·, no i utvirditilnәi vlasti, to tәgda, virәiatnә, prәblima eta budit riwina. Pәtәmu wto әna, tak ili inaqi, dәlζna bәt riwina v tiqinii әdnәvo-dvux stәlitii. — 691 chars, or the same.
Old text in Bul:
В следващата статия се обсъжда проблемът за общата транслитерация на всички световни езици. Това, разбира се, е първоначален или чернови вариант, тъй като такива генерални въпроси не се решават в днешно време от един човек, но изложените идеи могат да бъдат използвани и разширени от някаква група лингвисти, владеещи в съвършенство дузина широко използвани световни езици, включващи също, да речем: френски, гръцки, арабски, китайски, и т. н. След това въпросът трябва да бъде обсъждан и пропагандиран с цел да се убедят хората в необходимостта от това, и ако може да бъде ангажирана някаква инстанция притежаваща не само инициативна, но и утвърдителна власт, то тогава, навярно, проблемът ще намери своето решение. Защото той, все едно, трябва да бъде решен за едно-две столетия. — 661 chars.
New Bul with Ms:
V sledvawtata statiiºa se obsәζda problemәt za obwtata transliteraziiºa na vsiqki svetovni ezici. Tova, razbira se, e pәrvonaqalen ili qernovi vari|ant, tәi· kato takiva generalni vәprosi ne se rewavat v dnewno vreme ot edin qovek, no izloζenite idei mogat da bәdat izpolzvani i razwireni ot niºakakva grupa lingvisti, vladeewti v sәvәrwenstvo duzina wiroko izpolzvani svetovni ezici, vkliºuqvawti sәwto, da reqem: frenski, grәcki, arabski, kitai·ski, i t. n. Sled tova vәprosәt triºabva da bәde obsәζdan i propagandiran s cel da se ubediºat xorata v neobxodimostta ot tova, i ako moζe da bәde angaζirana niºakakva instanziiºa priteζavawta ne samo iniciativna, no i utvәrditelna vlast, to togava, naviºarno, problemәt wte nameri svoeto rewenie. Zawtoto toi·, vse edno, triºabva da bәde rewen za edno-dve stoletiiºa. — 695 chars, or 5% more.
New Bul without Ms:
V sledvawtata statiia se obsәζda problemәt za obwtata transliteraziia na vsiqki svetovni ezici. Tova, razbira se, e pәrvonaqalen ili qernovi variant, tәi kato takiva generalni vәprosi ne se rewavat v dnewno vreme ot edin qovek, no izloζenite idei mogat da bәdat izpolzvani i razwireni ot niakakva grupa lingvisti, vladeewti v sәvәrwenstvo duzina wiroko izpolzvani svetovni ezici, vkliuqvawti sәwto, da reqem: frenski, grәcki, arabski, kitaiski, i t. n. Sled tova vәprosәt triabva da bәde obsәζdan i propagandiran s cel da se ubediat xorata v neobxodimostta ot tova, i ako moζe da bәde angaζirana niakakva instanziia priteζavawta ne samo iniciativna, no i utvәrditelna vlast, to togava, naviarno, problemәt wte nameri svoeto rewenie. Zawtoto toi, vse edno, triabva da bәde rewen za edno-dve stoletiia. — 680 chars, or 3% more.
This example, although too short to be called exactly representative, shows that for languages with Lat alphabet (Eng and Ger), the new alphabet gives about 5% more typing when all modifiers have to be put (in Eng it is a bit more, maybe so will be in Fre, too, but in Ita, Spa, and in other western languages there will be about +3%, so on the average this will give not more then +5%). But this is of no importance for the volume of the books because all Ms will be written above the letters, so if we do not count them (what has been done by deleting them), then we gain 8-10% in the volume (number of letters), what looks pretty good. And what is the situation with the other alphabets? Well, not the same, but still not bad, because this initial increasing of even 24% for the Rus text and 5% for the Bul is mainly because in Rus almost all Vs are not from the standard 6, but when we reject all Ms we have the same length as for the original text (0%) in Rus, and just 3% more in Bul. What is to say that probably for all languages the volume of the printed text will be on the average with 3-5% less (the average of: -10, -8, 0, +3 is -3.75). So we have made nothing worse but have gained the universality of the alphabet throughout the world.
5. The Keyboard
Well, the volume of letters in the books will be the same or even less, but will this not give us more typing, because we have to type all the Ms? To answer this question we will turn our attention now to the keyboard, where we have said till the moment only that, in addition to the normal "i" without a point, the letters "j" and "y" have to be included meaning "iº" and "i·" respectively, but this is not enough. So let us see what we have on the main or letter part of the standard ("qwerty") keyboard. We have first to find some way for easy referring to the keys, so let us name the bottom line (with the "Space" key) as "Z" (from "zero"), then going above we have "A", "B", and "C" lines with letters, then the number line "D", and then the function keys (but they are of no interest to us). Then the number "1" letter will be the leftmost one ("z" or "a" or "q", respectively, not counting "Ctrl", "Shift", etc.), and so we have on the major three lines ("A", "B", and "C") 10+12+12 = 34 keys, but they were 33 before (with 11 on "B"), and are now, in fact (at least on the author's keyboard) 35, because there is a "A0" key (and let us not put this coding in quotes anymore).
They are so designed, that if one puts the last finger of the left hand on B1 ("a"), then also the other fingers of the left hand (without the thumb), then leaves two keys ("g" and "h"), and then puts the second finger of the right hand on B7 ("j") and continues with the other fingers, then one ends on B10 (";") covering at least 10 keys on each line (going a little bit on the left). But there are 12 keys on B and C, so you see that it is accepted that one may reach two more keys with the last finger of the right hand, and none or just one key (A0) with the left one (and this only on one line). In short, in the worst case the keys are 33, and they can easily be made 37, including two more keys on the left — B0 and C0 — because there is no need to have wider keys for "Caps Lock" and "Tab" when they are so rarely used. The "Caps Lock" must be split in two keys (as it was done with the "Shift" making place for A0) and so we will have the needed B0 and a small key for "Caps Lock"; and the "Tab" has to be discarded from there and on its place put a normal letter key C0 (the "Tab" will be put on line "Z" either between "Ctrl" and "Alt", where on some keyboards there exists a key but it does not work, or on the left part of the "Space" key which is, surely, a very long one and some 3-4 letter keys length in the middle is just what is needed), so that there will be no increase in the width of the main keyboard.
In other words, although we may do well with 33 keys (25 proper letters, plus "j/y", plus 5 keys for 10 Ms in pairs, gives even 31), we propose to make use of 37 keys (A0 - A10, B0 - B12, and C0 - C12) counting all Ms as full keys, because it is much more comfortable to work in one case, and even in this way we need only 35 keys (25 letters plus 10 Ms, where "j" and "y" are to be put over the corresponding Ms), but the more the better, because in this way we will have 12 free positions for some other chars or combinations of chars (8 over the left Ms, and two full keys). This leaves us without any punctuation signs on these lines (even the point and comma are missing), but this is not crucial because on the Rus (and Bul) keyboard (with 32 letters for the Rus) all char keys are used for letters and the point is on D12 (in Rus, I suppose, on D07). Having enough free positions, however, we may still use two keys for ";/," and ":/." (where the first sign is for capital case) and put them, say, on B12 and C12 and work with 35 keys. But our proposition is more general: to shorten the "Space" for two keys on the right, too, and put these most often used signs there. And so, using 37 letter keys we make the following proposition for the standard world-wide keyboard, beginning with No. "0" and ending with "12", where our reserved half keys will be marked with "+" sign (and "Cə" is capital "ə"):
D: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
C: ~/+5, M/m, O/o, Cə/ә, I/i, Z/z, ζ/ζ, D/d, B/b, V/v, R/r, +8/+7,+?/+?
B: ˆ/+4, N/n, U/u, A/a, E/e, C/c, Q/q, T/t, P/p, F/f, L/l, |/+6, +?/+?
A: ˇ/+3, ˉ/+2, ¨/+1, "·/y", º/j, S/s, W/w, G/g, K/k, X/x, `/´
Z: "Ctr", "Alt", Tab, "Space", ";/,", ":/.", "Alt", "Ctr"
So, and now let us use the twelve keys marked with "+". The trick is very simple: these are 12 places left for the beloved (or often used) national combinations of letters with Ms, making in this way the total number of the used letter keys in each language to 37. Some of them are numbered from 1 to 8 because we think that 8 additional chars for each language is enough for the beginning, and the four positions marked with "+?" are left free (for personal coding). The numbered "+" keys are put nearly all in low case (with the exception of the last one on C11) to be easily accessed for typing, whereas the Ms are left in upper case (with the exception of the prolongation M. on A10) because it is to be expected that they will be rarely used. The keys A3 and A4 are already full with "y" and "j", and the corresponding Ms, and A10 is full with a similar looking pair of Ms. In this way the keyboard will be easily adapted to each language (and they may be 20 or more), but only for small modified letters, and if one wants to type a capital letter with M. ("Dζon" or "Iºu´rop" or "O¨sterraix·") then the combination has to be made by typing the letter and the M. Working on a computer, or even on an electronic typewriter, there will be no problems with forming of the modified image of the new letter by logical "OR-ing" of the pixels (and who uses nowadays an ordinary mechanical typewriter?; but even if one does so, the M. may be written next to the letter, as we are doing this here, or one may make use of the backspace key); with capital modified letters might be some difficulties because of their greater height, but this is noting serious.
Well, eight combinations are not much at first sight, but we shall see that for some languages (like Ger, Bul, and probably Spa, Ita, etc.) this is even more then needed and some syllables have to be included, because a combination is any possible sequence of chars. For the languages which we use as examples we propose the following design of "+"-keys in the given order (without pretensions for the best choice):
Eng: a¨, әˉ, vº, r¨, n~, dˉ, tˉ, d|ζ.
Ger: a¨, o¨, u¨, r¨, au, ai·, oi·, ge.
Fre (prob.): i¨, o¨, u¨, r~, uˇ, a~, e~, ua.
Rus: i¨, әˉ, ә·, iºu, iºa, l·, t·, na.
Bul: na, ta, za, iºu, iºa, po, iz, wt.
Then we will give again our old examples starting from the text with Ms and using "j" for "iº" and "y" for "i·" and numbers (there are not in the text) from 1 to 8 for coding of the above mentioned combinations with one sign. The number of chars counted will be the number of the keystrokes issued.
New Eng typed with new Eng keyboard:
6ә nekst peypә disk2sis 6ә p4oblәm 3i7 komәn t41nslitә4eywn fo´ o´l 3ә´ld l153i8iz. 6is iz ә d4a´ft, әv ko´s, fo´ s2q 8enә4әl p4oblәms kud not bi disaydid bay 32n pә´sn nauәdeys, b2t 6ә aydiәs involvd mey bi ju´sd 1nd ikstendid bay s2m g4u´p әv li53ists 3i7 flu´әnt noli8 әv ә d2zn 3aydli ju´sd l153i8iz, inklu´di5 o´lsou, sey: F4enq, G4i´k, A¨4әbik, Qayni´z, etz. 6en it wud bi disk2st 1nd p4opәgeytid t4ayi5 tu kәnvins pi´pl әv 6ә ni´d fo´ 6is, 1nd if s2m 3ә´ld o´7o4iti 3i7 not ounli sә8estiv pauә b2t keypәbl tu info´4s 7i5s 3il be ingey8d, 6en, posibli, 6ә p4oblәm 3il be solvd. Bikoz it m2st bi solvd in 32n-tu´ senqә4i´s, 1ni3ey. — 525 chars, or 7% less.
New Ger typed with new Ger keyboard:
De4 fol8nde a4tikel e424te4t das p4oblem mit de4 8m6nzamen T4anslite4acion alle4 veltlixen wp4axen. Das ist, nat34lix, nu4 6n entvu4f, v6l zolxe 8ne4ale p4obleme kan man x7tcuta8 nixt al6n entw6den, abә die fo48b4axten ideen k2nen fon 6ne4 fon lingvisten bewte´enden G4upe benutct und e4v6te4t ve4den, ven di´ze l7te 5s8c6xnete kentnise fon wp4axen vi´, c. b.: f4anco2ziwe, g4i´xiwe, a4abiwe, xineziwe, usv., xaben. Danax zoll alles bewp4exen und p4opaζi´4en ve4den, mit de4 abzixt alle l7te fon den nutcen di´ze4 w4it cu 3bәc78n, und ven 6ne bex24de mit nixt nu4 su8stive4 zonde4 5x ekzekutive4 maxt a~gaζi´4t ve4den k2ne, dan, fi´l6xt, vi4d das p4oblem endlix 8l2st. Es zoll, abә´, in 6ns-cw6 ja´4xunde4te jedenfals 8l2st s6n. — 619 chars, or 11% less.
New Rus typed with new Rus keyboard:
V sl1du4wq1y sta71 2bsuζda|1tca pr2bl1ma obwq1y translit1razii vs1x mir2v3x 5z3kov. Et2, kon1qn2, to6k2 p1rv28qa6n3y ili q1rn2voy variant, p2sko6k2 taki1 mir2v31 pr2bl1m3 n1 r1wa4tca 2dnim q1l2v1c2m v 8wi dni, no izloζi¨n31 id1i mogut b37 ispo6z2van3 i raswir1n3 n1k2tor2y grup2y lingvist2v, vlad14wqix v s2v1rw1nstv1 d4ζinu wir2ko ispo6z2van3x mir2v3x 5z3kov, vkl4qa5 takζ1, skaζ1m: francuzskiy, gr1q1skiy, arabskiy, kitayskiy, i t. d. P2tom et2 d2lζno b37 2bsuζd1no i pr2pagandir2van2 s c164 ub1di7 l4d1y v n12bx2dim2sti et2v2 waga, i 1sli pri et2m bud1t zaangaζir2va8 kaka5 nibud· instanci5 2blada4wqa5 n1 to6k2 iniciativn2y, no i utv1rdit16n2y vlasti, to t2gda, v1r25tn2, pr2bl1ma eta bud1t r1w18. P2t2mu wto 28, tak ili i8q1, d2lζ8 b37 r1w18 v t1q1nii 2dn2vo-dvux st2l1tiy. — 670 chars, or 3% less.
New Bul typed with new Bul keyboard:
V sledva8a2 s2ti5 se obsәζda problemәt 3 ob8a2 transliterazi5 1 vsiqki svetovni ezici. Tova, razbira se, e pәrvo1qalen ili qernovi vari|ant, tәy kato 2kiva generalni vәprosi ne se rewavat v dnewno vreme ot edin qovek, no 7loζenite idei mogat da bәdat 76lzvani i razwireni ot n5kakva grupa lingvisti, vladee8i v sәvәrwenstvo duzi1 wiroko 76lzvani svetovni ezici, vkl4qva8i sә8o, da reqem: frenski, grәcki, arabski, ki2yski, i t. n. Sled tova vәprosәt tr5bva da bәde obsәζdan i propagandiran s cel da se ubed5t xora2 v neobxodimost2 ot tova, i ako moζe da bәde angaζira1 n5kakva ins2nzi5 priteζava8a ne samo iniciativ1, no i utvәrditel1 vlast, to togava, 1v5rno, problemәt 8e 1meri svoeto rewenie. 38oto toy, vse edno, tr5bva da bәde rewen 3 edno-dve stoleti5. — 638 chars, or 4% less.
All in all, this gives about 6% economy in typing (the average of: -7, -11, -3, -4 is -6.25), hence we again lose nothing and have even a little to win in typing, as well as in the volume of books. The files might be a bit longer but this does not matter nowadays (and even if this matters, the volume used on disk might be less, because we will need much less char sets to keep in use). But let us compare the percentage between the new text without Ms (in part 4.) and the new text typed with the nationally modified new standard keyboard (above), for each of the languages, because this forms an interesting characteristic of the language. For the Eng we have a difference from -10 to -7%, what says that they still can not make the whole win from the new proposition for the keyboard and need some more combination keys (though this is not a "discrimination" of Eng because they have reached the average percentage for our choice of languages, 6.25 to be precise, and besides, the original text in Eng is with 16% less (562 chars) then the average for the four used languages, 650 chars); probably the same will be the difference in percentage with the Fre. In the Ger we have a better situation (from -8 to -11%), what means they have reached the limit of the keyboard and the further diminishing (to -11%) comes from the syllables. With the Cyr alphabet, being very well suited for the languages, we have not much more to gain: in Rus from 0 to -3%, and in Bul from +3 to -4%. And the author is almost sure that a gain between 5 and 8% will be reached not only for languages like Lat, Ita, Spa, etc., but also in Tur, Ara, possibly in Gre, Chi, Jap, et cetera. And we still have not used the other four reserved key positions, so that even 10% economy in typing, as well as in the volume of the books, is to be expected.
So, and now let us add some more remarks about the bettering of the whole keyboard, because it was made in parts or stages without global point of view. Let us make the main (letter) part of it modified according to our proposition: with 37 keys on lines "A", "B", and "C", with new "Z" line, and let us split the "Back-space" key on the number line in two keys making thus "Back-Del" and "Fore-Del" (because they go in pair), and also split the right "Shift" in two keys but put the new key (say, "Insert") on the right (because the "Shift" has to be easily accessed), and finish with this. And now let us turn our attention to the right part of the whole keyboard. There is numeric keypad, what is a very good idea, but it contains under (or over) itself a movement keypad, and these movement keys are doubled and nobody knows exactly why? Well, the numbers are also doubled, but they form another small keyboard so that it is better to be put also here, but these movement keys are not on its place, and even the other movement keys are strangely split in two small pads. We propose the following: the numeric keypad retains the numbers and arithmetic signs, but the "Num-Lock" key is to be rejected and the other case to be switched in the usual way by "Shift" (there are two such keys and the right one is pretty near to the numeric keypad); but above the numbers have to be put some often used in calculations chars as, e.g.: "%", "o/oo", "No", "<", ">", "=" (as a sign), and some positions are to be left free to enter, say, national currency, et cetera. Even more to this: the space for the glimmer-lamps and above to the border of the keyboard may be used and this keypad has to be redesigned as proper scientific calculator, with memory (-ies), special functions, etc. (and if need be, then with smaller keys).
Then we go to the both small movement pads, which must, of course, be joined (because we have moved "Ins" and "Del" out of here) in one 9 key pad (3*3) placed to the bottom, where in low case should be the movement keypad (from the numeric keypad), but in upper case, which has to be switched again in the usual way with "Shift" (and/or "Ctrl" and/or "Alt"), to be put another movements (say, the "left" key in upper case may be a movement to the beginning of the word, or the line, then "Home" may move to the top of the screen, or the file, or the first window, etc.). In the place above this keypad will be a new, let us call it "symbolic", keypad (switched again by the "Shift"), where is enough place for 12 more symbols. All in all, in this way we gain places for at least 30 more chars.
6. Conclusion
As you see, we may as well state that our main proposition, and its possible enhancements, is a very important one for the whole world in the 21-st century. It may not start being applied with languages like Eng or Fre, because the traditions there are very strong and the native people have so badly tried to show their national individuality (reading the Lat letters in a different way), that it is not much probable they will want to change the status quo. But there are other folks, like Germans, Italians, Spaniards, etc. who have not great differences from Latin alphabet and could easily adjust to the new proposition. Still, they will not be the initiators and may only be ready to participate in the movement, if it will be world-wide accepted. But there are other more people and some of them use Cyr, which is a very good alphabet for their own purposes, but for, say, an Englishman, it looks like Chi or old Heb, so these folks are almost ready to accept the proposition (if being made to them) and to be included in the civilized western community. And there are also Greeks, also many Arab folks, and Persians, and Hindus, and Chinese, and Japanese, and more and more others. For them an universal world alphabet should be like a manna from the heaven (providing that this alphabet is really suitable for them, as the author expected). Because the letters are just signs, symbols, and as such they could take nothing from the national individuality of the folks.
And even if the time when this (or some other, but also universal) alphabet will be applied (and it will be, because when something is obviously bad people never cease to try to better the situation, even for centuries and millenniums) may not be so close to out time, then the ideas exposed in the paper may be used starting from tomorrow. What we mean by this is to use such alphabet for some internal representation of the words in computerized reading, spelling, and speech understanding systems. The existing systems can do wonders sometimes, but they work in one given language, and surely not for, say, Arabic. If some system for computerized reading of texts written in this universal alphabet is made, then texts from all languages may be converted to this internal representation (with national dictionaries and spell checking programs, but there is no need to do this simultaneously) and these files may be copied and pronounced (by computers), and, by the by, this standard will be accepted also for human reading. And it is good also for the usual dictionaries, especially for etymological ones, because there are always differences in writing and pronouncing of the words (especially for old languages). And what about the geographical names? And so on. And do not forget also the corollary ideas about a better design of the keyboard. Hence this draft may be a little bit (or more) distanced from the final decision, but it treats one very important problem.
Jan 2003, Dec 2013
REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE NUMBERS
(popular etymology and more)
Introduction
Here it goes about different ideas, that are hidden behind each digit, its graphical representation, the meaning of its name in one or another (or a third) language, about some special bigger or very big numbers, about some bordering, if I can call them so, numbers (like Russian 4, till which the numbers are in singular but later on they are in plural; or French 16, till which firstly goes the second number and then the first, as also in many languages with 11 and 12, but later is on the contrary), as well also about the very name of the digit in various languages. The questions are obviously complicated, and lost in the darkness of centuries, as it is accepted to say, but the very ideas are not difficult, because they were invented and used by the common people, only that these layers in out minds have now entirely disappeared.
To all of the things explained here I have come alone (what means that on some of them might be argued, yet, as you will see, I am sufficiently convincing with my cumulative proofs, so that I don't advise anybody to begin to argue with me), but this was possible for me because of my mathematical education, where for the common readers, I'm afraid, the guesses will be very hard and downright impossible (in any case, I have tried with some school students, as persons with more awakened and non-rigid model of thinking than the adults, and they have guessed about almost nothing). And the theme is interesting practically for everyone, because there is nothing really scientifically, this is reflection of ordinary human thinking and views to the world. Every symbol means something, but in most cases this is a matter of insinuation, that it must mean something — take for example the national coats of arms or banners —, like the letters, for example, which are many and have come though so many variations and rotations, and writing from left to right, or from bottom to top, and so on, that it is now hard to guess something simple and clear about them (for instance, the letter "A" was a bovine eye, but do you find it like it?; and if it is similar then why of a bovine?; etc.).
The letters carry some ideas, and in some cases, and on some places, I cite some of them, but with the digits it is easier, they are only 10, where the 0 and the 1 have obvious ideas (although here, too, something can be added), for the numbers 2, 4, and 7 the ideas are easy (for the 2 there is even something written in some children's primary books, but without explanations why), the 8 is a bit more difficult, but the ideas hidden behind the 3, 5, 9, and especially 6, are in such extent concealed — though very interesting, at least for me it was quite interesting to detect them — so that hardly one out of a hundred persons (maybe even one out of a thousand is nearer to the truth) would have guessed about them. I have explained this in two other places (in one multi-lingual dictionary with about 12 thousand chiefly roots of words; as well also in one big book in English) but these works are pretty large and are also not published officially. For this reason I decided to explain popularly what I can on some 20 pages here.
Because the digits, as I said, are part of our everyday life, and it is not bad to know how the ancient people — the Arabs, but they have only carried them from Ancient India, so that the digits are from the Sanskrit — have looked at them, this is simply interesting and mysterious (and this reasonably mysterious, not indoctrinated mysteries like the zodiacs, for example, where something reasonable exists, but this, surely, are not the stars — though let us not be distracted by this here). So that I advise you to scratch a bit you head (or what other place you are accustomed to scratch when thinking intensively) and see to what you can come alone. Let us add to the these digits also the big ones, the thousands, millions, and some smaller, 40, 16, 4, as well also 12 (i.e. why the months, and the apostles, too, must have been exactly 12 — at least this is very easy). And begin to think but stop to read further! After a month or two you return to this material, in order to check yourselves. And in order not to be pretty easy for you to look ahead I will begin first with the word about the very number.
The number
Well, this word has several variations, at least Slavonic and Western. As a Slav I think to begin with the Slavonic number (or because I am translating this paper from Bulgarian, what is also important reason), but let me first clarify some things, namely: normal citation of foreign words I will give in double quotes ("so"), especially if this is on the language of narration (here the English), but when the words are from foreign languages I will almost always miss them and will be content to apply only Italic font, although it can be used also for emphasizing (yet I hope you are intelligent enough to make the difference), and if there will be used Greek letters then surely without quotes (it is clear that the word is foreign); the single quotes I will use to mark how the word is to be read (in the nearest to the language of narration way) and will usually miss the Italic if the word is given in such quotes, but also very often 'this' quotes will be used when I am citing words in different from the Latin (usually in Cyrillic) alphabet (and then I normally will put Italic font to stress that the word is foreign); and the bold font is for underlining, something like subtitle.
Now about the reading, because there is no universal standard, the way out is to use some language with simple phonetics, like Italian (or rather Latin, and maximally simplified, say -ti will be read as 'ti'), or Bulgarian, but we have another alphabet, so that it is not suitable to be applied here; there is also one newest method that I have invented (in "Myrski's English Transliteration) but I will abstain from it here (because this paper was written earlier). Hence, if there are several adjacent vowels they must be read somehow so, with only this addition on new basic letters: "þ" is the so called soft sign in Russian and means softening of the previous consonant (like in the Spanish canyon-'kanþon'), and the "å" is this vowel like in your "girl"; it is supposed that "sh", "ch", and "zh" are obvious, "c" is like in Caesar (but in order to avoid any doubts this sound will be given as 'tz'), "j" is "yot" /"jot" what in English is usually given with "y" (or just "i", but there's a difference, the 'j' is not full vowel), your "w" remains for the moment, maybe something else (I am not very precise here in order not to bore you), and French nasal words will be marked with "~". And by "somehow so" I mean that, say, your "year" will be 'iår', "where" will be 'weår', etc., but the second vowel can have meaning of modifier, like also in Russian 'måi' what is "we", or their 'åokno' what is "window', or your "but"-'båot'. Well, and because there will be met many times names of various languages, I will shorten them to 3 (sometimes even to 2) letters, about which meaning you will be quite able to make the right guess; also lang. will mean "language". If there will be something else I will explain it on the very place.
So, and the Sl. number, which is 'chislo', has to be simply something pure ('chist' in Bul. or 'chiståij' in Rus.), and here is our 'chetà'-to-read (what we use not only for letters bur also for numbers, what is not correct); this is so also from mathematical point of view because the number, really, is some abstraction, numbers as such can't walk on the streets, figuratively speaking. And in order not to think that this root is only Sl. (and I am teaching you here something useless), let me tell you that here is also Eng. "gist" like (quint-) essence, Fr. geste ('zhest') as gesture (in the Lat. gestio means to make something, to launch), or Ger. Gestalt ('geshtalt'), what means kernel, image, essence, or also Tur. 'dzhaskam' as to hit, shove, push, or if you want also the Ar. ... jin /gin (or cin in Tur. but read again 'dzhin') as spirit, and others, what is to say that the 'chislo' is something squeezed, compressed, or abstracted.
The Western number, for its part, i.e. Lat. numerus, or Ger. Nummer, could be said that is something like Rus. 'nu' (or Eng. "now", or Ger. na, etc., particle for attracting of attention) + Ger. mehr (or your more, what ultimately is related with the mare-sea as something big), i.e. "something more"; or at least I think so, because this is how the numbers are built, with adding of one more. Well, specially one number in Eng. is digit, what is directly taken from Lat. digitus, only that it means a finger or fingernail, but this surely tells us that people have counted on fingers (or that the digits are as many as our fingers are, ten).
But if we make difference between one number as digit and many numbers, then in Rus. etc.(Sl.) a digit is 'tzifra', what is old Heb. word, cefir, and Ar. chifr, and from there also Fr. chiffre, Ger., etc., what is the cipher, something twisted, hidden, again some essence of the real things; and, when it begins with 'sh' or 's' then it can easily become 'tz' like in the Sl. langs; and here turns to be also Eng. "zero", maybe as the first "ciphered" thing. Let us, though, not go into many details because the very numbers are quite more interesting.
The zero and the one
The zero, obviously, is the "feminine" number, the "hole", naught, nothing, and for a long time if was not counted for number, because it is not natural number (and one number is natural, as I like to explain popularly to the school children, if it can ... run, otherwise it simply does not exist in the nature, i.e. the 0, the negative numbers, and the fractions of any kind, are not natural numbers), and in old Gr. was absent their contemporary word νουλα (read 'nula' because the Greeks — can you imagine this? — just have not a letter 'u' and are forced to combine 2 letters). This zero comes from the Skr. (for Sanskrit), where it is nullah, but the point is that this does not mean there zero, it means a valley, lowland, and then I think that here has to be added one ... river. Did you guess which? Well, as far as the nulirane in Bul. /Sl. (zeroing) often becomes nihilirane (nihilus in Lat.) or an- /nihilate in Eng., then we come to the root 'nil-', or to the river Nile. ( By the way, only the syllable 'ni-' in the Skr. means something low, lowland, valley, because is said — for the author does not know Skr. — that nivar meant lowland — where from must come Bul. 'niva', what is a field (sown with something) —, and udvar meant height, hill, something cocked up, like, hmm, like the cited in Rus., out of decency, hoping the people there will not understand an once that this is some cynical word — as it also happens — Ar. 'ud', what in Bul. and Rus. is written with 3 letters, but in Eng. with 4, and means something utterly masculine, or said relatively decently, a cock. Well, when I translated this in Eng. I saw that in Ar. is given some oud or ud as stringed musical instrument, and the Sl. ud is old Sl. but both things have to be related to the Skr. ud, in my opinion. ) And to the zero being the Heb. cefir, this really has to be so because in Tur. sifir means also zero, although this is a bit strange for this is the most insignificant digit, but when it is the first one, then this has to be so.
The one in Rus. is 'odin' (or 'edin' in Bul.) and it has to be the same also on the West, though this is not clear to everyone. This is in the sense that here is also Eng. "one", Ger. eins, old Frisian an, en, Hol. (for Holland or Dutch or Netherlands) een, and so on, and old Greek οιοσ (but now is ενα), and Avs. (this is from the sacred books of old Persians, called Avestas, i.e. nearly old Per.) aeva, and Skr. ekas. Though, if you think what we will run away from the "cock" you are wrong, because even in Ger. the prefix ein- (read 'ajn' — yet not 'adzhn' of course) is the same as Eng. (and Lat., too) in-, what means into, to enter somewhere (in the "zero', to be sure). And in addition to this, why must Sl. odin has this letter 'd', which is in the 'ud' (for there is no such letter in uno, eins, ενα, ekas, etc.)? Obviously because 'odin' is the masculine digit, and to confirm this let us mention also one well known on the West ... god, the Scandinavian Odhen or Woden (which in Rus. is given again as Oden), and somewhere in the etymological dictionaries is said that I.-E. (for Indo-European langs) root wodh- meant to burn, or to inflame, excite, cause erection.
Although the letter 'd', or the root 'od-', is also massively met on the West, for example in Ger. Öde (a desert, bare land), Eng. "odd" (as not even but the idea is that of the number 1, i.e. when you begin to count them by 2, first and second, then one number will remain alone, without brethren), or Heb. od (what means 7, and to which we shall come later, but 7 also is odd number), and here — for the Slavs this should have been now obvious — is the Sl. 'ad' what is a hell (and it has to be somehow related with our 'jad' what is an ire, rage, and it eats us — jade in Bul. — and makes us alone, like in the desert, what contacts also with Rus. jad what is a poison)! This Sl. ad-inferno is old Gr. Αδησ (Hades), but there is also one god of death, 'Aid' in Rus., who was son of Cronos and Rhea and ruled in subterranean kingdom, i.e. in the ad (so that the jad as rage or as poison can also not be accidental here, no matter that the jad-rage is related with the jadene-eating). We may add here also Rus. 'odnako' (but) as some objection, single exception, here most probably is the known ... poetic "ode", too, as something for singular or exceptional personalities, and (in my opinion) also the ... jod /iode /iodine, because it burns us like in the hell, and other things.
But together with 'od-' / 'on-' there is one more Western root for the 1 and this is 'mono-', where is Fr. monde (world, earth), Ger. Mond (this time the moon), Ger. Monat-month, Gr. μοναχοσ (monk, surely, i.e. lonely person), even your monarchy as well as the monarch (what is Lat.). And if you ask yourself what is the common thing between the Earth and the Moon (Fr. and Ger. "mond"), then this is that both things are something tight, single, and from here is the idea of monism in the philosophy. ( On this place, if you allow me — and if you do not allow me this then jump everything till the end of the paragraph —, I would like to squeeze a remark about this, why ... are given as presents only odd number of flowers to living persons, and, resp., for the dead only even number. This comes from the meaning of "perfect" as finished, in some way even, there is nothing left or sticking out when one has died, and while the person is still alive he changes all the time, he is not perfect, like also the imperfect times. Yet in the Sl. langs this sounds better because in Bul. we have the word 'svårshen' as finished, and also 'såvårshen' exactly as perfect; similarly also in Rus. Now people don't take the numbers so seriously and may think that these are silly things, but the ancient people, in old Greece and not only, have even deified the numbers, especially the Pythagoreans, and the first difference between them is whether they are even or not. )
The two
The two, which in Bul. is 'dve', in Rus. 'dvoe' etc., can mutate a lot, changing to 'tv-' (in Eng. "two") or 'tzv-' (in Ger. zwei, 'tzvaj'; where some old Frisian "twa" can explain this Eng.-Ger. mutation), or in Lat. duo, or in old Gr. δυο ('dio'), or in old Heb. bina, and in the Skr. it was dwan. This, that here are all binary things, like It. bicicletta or Eng. "bicycle" and so on — ah, also the "bio"-things (βιο in Gr.), because everything living divides, and prior to this it copulates or makes couples —, is clear, but before we proceed to some religious aspects (and also to the picture of the digit) let us explain what does here the Sl. ... door, which in Rus. is 'dverþ', or also Bul. court, which is 'dvor', what seems puzzling. But it just can't be otherwise (although I personally have not guessed about this before the etymologists have told it to me). Ah, the point is that the court divides the space in two parts, our and foreign (and for that reason it is surrounded with fence), and the same does the door (in Bul. it is 'vrata' and tells us that it rotates, 'vårtja', but it also divides, it has two sides).
The religious aspects must be clear, this is the god-two or pair, because it is Deos in Lat. (resp. dea is a goddess) and Θεοσ /Theos in old Gr., and this is so in accordance with Bul. saying that "he who knows 2, knows 200", i.e. when one exceeds the one, himself, then he comprises everything! And the graphical image of the two is, as it is given in some primers, the swan's neck! It is so, but nobody explains to the children (neither later, to the grown ups) why this is so, why the swan is the two. This surely is not because it is a nice bird, but because it is ... simply a bird! In the sense that since the swan is nice bird we say that this is its neck, and it is sufficiently characteristic for to symbolize the digit, but behind this beauty hides any bird, and behind every bird, say, behind the hen, which is 'kokoshka' in Bul., is hidden, hmm — what is hidden, in your opinion? Ah, there are hidden two things (which in the end reduce to one thing), it is hidden the syllable "ko", respectively co in Lat., and from it comes Sl. "co" — because in Cyrillic (Cyr. for short) the letter 's' is written exactly like the Lat. "c" —, what means "with", or very often just the Cyr. "c" means this, but together with this also the ... act of copulation, obviously! Well, at least for me it was quite obvious (after the swan's neck), and phonetically this fits well with the "co-co" of the hen, so that it remained only to explain why the ancient people have taken for such representative example the hen, not the pig, say, or the sheep, the bull, the dog, if you want, and so on?
Well, shortly, because the hens are under our noses. Id est hens were in every courtyard, while cows were far away from everywhere, and they are grazing during the day, the sheep for a whole season are outside, the pigs, in fact, stay in their pigsty, but all those animals, hmm, they copulate significantly less than the birds. So that thousands of words, even in one and the same lang., have started from these animals, like, for example: copulation, correlation, cooperation, coalition, Rus. kolkhoz (if you want), i.e. collective, congress, conspiracy, constellation (and, resp. in Rus. 'sozvezdie' where star is 'zvezda'), also the ... constipation (some tightening of the bowels), and what not else, plus Rus.: 'sojuz'-union, 'skleivanie'-gluing-together, 'svjazåivanie'-tying, and so on. And as to words for the hen and related with her things these are, say, Rus. 'kura'-hen, which goes in parallel with Ger. Hure, what is not a hen, it is a prostitute, then Fr, coquette ('koket', i.e. like a hen, because coq-'kok' is a cock), then Ger. Vogel (a bird — for the reason that it flies like a 'foga' as we say, I'll tell you, what means very fast, and the word surely is twin with your "fog"), but then vögeln is already to copulate, to "screw", and then it is necessary to mention also Bul. jargon 'kopele' what is translated as "son of a bitch" and is the direct result of copulation. In the purest form, however, this root is presented in Sp. where coño ('konjo') is exactly vagina (and because of this those people have the hard curse "el coño le tu madre").
The three
By the number three the idea about its graphical image (to which I came at once, but till now have not met someone who has succeeded to find it) is simply a ... woman's breasts! Now, this is not cumulative proof, for it is only one and it isn't a proof at all, but in such cases I draw my strongest trump card and say: "But what else can it be, ah?". And really, what else can relate two semicircles if not two bursting female "peaches" (like the Arabs have the habit to say)? And the breasts of a woman, obviously speak already about a child (because the men can "use" them sometimes, but this is not their direct purpose). So, and what concerns the names of this digit, then in them always is present some friction, like in the triangle (which may be love one, but may also not be such), where Bul. /Sl. 'tri' /'troe' becomes drei by the Germans, tria /tre /tres in the Lat. langs, τρε in Gr., and trdyas in the Skr.
Hear are a heap of word, like the: triumph (thriumpus in Lat.), tribune, Christian Trinity, triangle, triviality (only three things, not much work, used initially for the 3 compulsory learning subjects: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric), but also the ... tree in Eng. (which is not exactly old Gr. dendro but is a 'derevo' / 'dårvo' in Rus. / Bul.), and the curious thing is that in the same Rus. / Bul. 'trava' / 'treva' means not this but only ... grass (yet it has to here, too, there is no other possibility, right?), and the grass usually begins to grow with three leaves, if you have marked this, i.e. it has not pairs of opposed leaves. The 'treva'-grass is not at all accidental here, and there is also Eng. "thrive" (throve, thriven), as to grow, prosper, i.e. something like to triumph, and in Ger. this becomes treiben ('trajben') what is to move, spur, incite (where from Treib means instinct or drive, most often sexual, i.e. some driving force; this is derived from some Teutonic, Teu. further, dreiban as to sow, initiate). Somewhere here is also the rubbing of hands ('trija' in Bul.; in the Eng. may be mentioned the "try" as effort to push something), Ger. treten as entering (like your "trot"), their treffen as to meet, It. trovare (also to meet — just as one 'tropa'-trotts-stamps on the "dromos"-path, I'll tell you, and 'tropam' is in Bul.), old Gr. τριβω (read then as 'tribo'), what means to rub, ruin; we can add also the known Fr. travail ('travaj', to work), what is as if spitting image of Eng. "travel" no matter that it means something else, and surely others.
Generally speaking the three is very important number, the most stable body in the plane (which is defined by 3 points), and it is used in many other places. For example, I strongly suppose (but can't prove this) that the meaning of number three is the reason to be 3 Eng. feet in their yard, and not, say, 5 or 10; in addition also one Eng. mile is about 5/3 of a kilometer (1,609 m), although here the things are a bit more twisted, i.e. (I suppose) that when one goes on foot one makes for 1 hour usually 5 km, and if this distance must consist of some 3 parts, then they have to be by 5/3 of it.
The four
The graphical image here is trivial, this is a square, eventually with a handle, in order to carry it raised. Phonetically, though, there is significant difference between Western and Sl. views on the matter (in sounding), because in Eng. it is "four", what is Ger. vier, and it as if has nothing in common with Sl. 'chetiri' (in Bul., in Rus. is 'chetåire'), but also with Lat. quattro (in fact in It.), what is the square. Only that in old Heb. this number was gevura, and it signified strength, courage (the hardness of diamond, which is pictured as rhomb). Yet here I recall myself Tur. ... gevrek (known also in Bulgaria) what is a circular bun in form of a torus, i.e. something twisted, curved, and to the gevrek, obviously stays also the 'cheverme' (in Tur. çeverme, what is something that not only is roasted on fire (on a grill) but is also rotated (because çevre, 'chevre', in Tur. means circle — and then maybe this is the hidden meaning of Bul. archaic 'chevråst' as agile, quick, moves to everywhere, like a top-toy)! For the moment let us not digress to this how (and why) the square can sometimes become circle (and vice versa), and continue with similarly sounding words, like Bul. ... 'chervej', what is a worm and we maybe think that it is red ('cherven'), yet not this is the point here, but that it curves or rotates (well, also twists and writhes, but this is something similar for the common person), which word has to be here due to the fact that in Rus. it is 'chervþ' or 'chervjak' where the latter is the known in mechanics worm-gear, which spins like a worm and rotates the cogwheel in perpendicular direction.
Well, but when we begin to rotate then arise new words and ideas, because here is Lat. roto (to rotate, and from here comes Bul. 'rota' as military company, for the reason that they are three and rotate by 8 hours during the day), then Ger. werken (which has given also Eng. to "work" and means the same, yet also Bul. ... 'otrertka' as screwdriver, as well as the jargon 'chovårkam' meaning to do something insignificant, to repair — nearly the same as the 'cheverme'), then (or before, don't formalize about the time, I'm moving in it, I am such person) in old Gr. the 4 is τεσσερα, and in Skr. is catvaras, what can lead us to 'katr', what is Fr. (quatre), but also vier /four now comes nearer to the old Heb. gevura, where our Sl. 'chetiri' can be derived directly from catvaras (i.e. the Russians sometimes take their words directly from the ancient Hindus, without being forced to go to the Latins). Well, but from "gever-" we can reach also to "kver-", and to "skver-", too, what is Rus. 'skver' (small garden), which is supposed to be square.
And here is the moment to explain you why the Russians take the numbers up to 4 for small (for they say "2, 3, 4 cheloveka" — in singular), while from 5 and above they become at once big ("5, 6, etc. chelovek" — in plural). Now, you have to look mathematically at the things, like in counting on ... fingers, of course, for the reason that when one counts he curls the fingers (beginning from the last one) and when he reaches 4 he has only the thumb left and he decides that this finger, as well also anything bigger than 4, will mean "much"! This is the idea, though the Russians will never explain it to you, because they have forgotten these rudimentary things, which earlier were inculcated in their heads, and today they say "2, 3, 4, goda" for years, and after this at once "5 let" for the same word "years", so that it turns that the 'godini' (this is in Bul.), although are synonymous with the 'let'-s, are as if smaller than the latter (which, in my opinion, though not only mine, simply fly, because this verb in Bul. is 'letja' — well, it might be that I imagine things, and here maybe the summer comes in play, which in its turn involves Lat. ... laetus as fat, well-fed, pure, etc., but let us not go in deeper details here). More than this, the relation of 5, or this what is after 4, with the "many" can be found also in Ger., where the number 4 is vieR, and "many" is vieL (what is built not in the usual way, because in comparative it becomes mehr and then meisten, so that I hardly imagine wrong things).
But let us continue with the 4, which, as we have remarked, in result of the twisting can sometimes look like circle (like 'gevrek', which, by the way, in Rus. is 'bublik', something swollen, like the Eng. bubble-gum). Well, the task for finding of the quadrature of the circle has tormented the minds from deep antiquity, but this can never happen for the reason that in the circle enters one unit that can't be measured with the digits and their parts, the number π, which is such "beast" that with whatever measuring stick you try to measure it, it can't be measured exactly even with fractional parts (as much as we fracture then, even to the infinity — this is something that both, children and adults, know, but don't understand, do not feel it). But the twisting remains, and because of this here are, for example, the following words: Tur. and Per. ... 'gjaur' /'gjavur' (gâvur), what is unbeliever, one who has gone "awry" from the proper faith, then Bul. ... 'gavrja se' (to hurt, abuse, in a way, like a 'gjavur', but which is also Western word because here is Fr. gouverner-governor and Lat. guberno (to rule, govern), respectively the governesses (who, as it turns, often 'se gavrjat'-abuse the naughty children, ah?). As far as all this is derived from old Gr. κυβερναω (to rule, govern), then here has to be also the ... cybernetics, which begins with 'si-', and the cyborgs, and even the ... shiffres-ciphers (in old Fr.), because they are also twisted, aren't they?
Generally said, the 4 can have two opposed aspects (what is wholly dialectical view), of something very good, square, double, diamond, or then of something very bad, twisted, made to a square (you see, now it turns that the circle is very nice thing, while the square is simply angular). We can add more "square" words like: Bul. 'gabårche' (a tack, and it can't be from the tree 'gabår' what is hornbeam, which, surely, is pretty twisted, something similar says us also the Eng. name), Bul. obsolete word 'guberka' (big needle), maybe also ... angel Gabhriel in Lat. ('Gavrail' in Bul., who probably 'se gavri'-abuses somehow, i.e. governs), and then maybe also our Sl. ... 'govor' (speech, talking, and this is in Bul., in Czech will be hovor, and in Pol. gwar), because the speech is a kind of command (as also Gabhriel, he might have been quite garrulous "man", or then uncompromising, who knows?). This, surely, is guttural sound, but it is very ancient, and in the Skr. gavate meant to sound (somewhere nearby is the known guru) and this does not preclude that there was also some twisting or rotating (i.e. rotating of the tongue in the throat).
And that around this fuzzy root there are many words in the world (with their own ideas) has to be clear. For example, there are old Gr. tetrarchs (τετραρχοσ), who were great rulers (either of 1/4 of some lands, or of the four directions of the compass, I suppose), then comes old Gr. (and Bul.) ... τετραδα ('tetradka') as notebook, because it is only one folded in four piece of paper, then is the tetrahedron (in Lat., or τετραεδρον in Gr., i.e. something with 4 sides, "edri"-s in Gr.), the tetragon or quadrangle, the ... cathedra (maybe), because it is quadrangular and raised up, Bul. 'edår' meaning big, surely (this isn't Sl. word, it is absent in the Rus.), as somebody with many (understand big) sides-"edri"-s. But there is also something else, there are "kaisers" (Keiser in Ger.) or 'kesarþ'-s in old Sl., what is Lat. Caesar ('tzezar'), obviously, and he might have been taken exactly for equivalent of old Gr. tetrarchs. There are also Lat. "teselations", something like "teslations", maybe, where the Tur. (also Bul.) tesla, meaning this useful axe-like tool called in Eng. adz, comes in play, the adze is used for cutting of pieces, so that the tessellation, what means covering (or dividing) of some area with equal figures, most often squares (though they might be also hexagons, and others; for triangles is used the word triangulation). And here, naturally, is also Sl. etc. 'kvartira'-quarters, the quadrangle in which we live, various square-carres (which can be also pieces of meat), the known old Eng. title esquire (which, in fact, is Fr., and will say simply one who owns some piece of land, which is supposed to be quadrangle), the squadron /escuadron, the It. squadra (which is squadron and some other things, but also football team), and other words. But in order not to think that I have forgotten about the bad, twisted "squares", let me tell you also that there is old Sl. word 'skverna', which is very similar to their 'skver'-garden, but means bad stain, shame, disgrace.
The five
The image of five, I am sure, you have not succeeded to guess (you might think that have, but surely haven't), yet it is very simple. This is ... a pendulum in Lat. ('mahalo' in Bul., or 'majatnik' in Rus.), where pendeo is to sway, dangle! As some combination of 'mahalo' and "pendalo" in Bulgaria is heard the word 'mandalo', but this mixing of roots have to come from quite ancient times because this is the Skr. 'mandala' (sacred circle). Be it as it may: why the five sways, ah? Have you guessed it? Well, until you "switch on" I will give you some other words, like: Eng. "depend" (and you rightly say "on", for it is hanged on something, where in Sl. it is "from" what isn't very correct), Bul. jargon 'pajantov' as ramshackle or unstable, also Bul. 'panta' as door hinge (because it hangs on it), Tur. (and archaic Bul.) 'pendari' as golden coins, yet not any such coins but only the swinging ones, those that are strung on a cord and are pending (or rather pendeo in Lat. meaning of the verb) on the bosoms of young brides (together with this on what they lean), the very number five in old Gr. which is πεντε, and from here also Bul. 'pet' or Rus. 'pjatþ' as five, until we come to the Skr. where this number was pañca (read 'pancha'). So till the moment it became clear where from is Sl. five, but Ger. fünf ('fjunf') or Eng. five are not from there, though in old Heb. it was tiferet and meant beauty or abundance, where is heard some 'fit- /fet-'.
Good, let us tell now why the five sways, because there are also other ideas and we must not become confused without necessity. But this is the idea of the wrist of the human hand, with its five fingers, that simply sways easy, right? And that is why it is perfect and abundant (in old Heb.) Yet here arises some mixing of 4 and 5, maybe as adjacent digits, which is quite old, because in old Gr., as we said, 4 is τεσσερα, what is pretty similar with old Heb. tiferet (5), and what may be the reason for the mentioned Ger. relation vier - viel, and, in general, for the names of these two digits in various Western langs (e.g., in Ger. vier - fünf, in Eng. "four" - "five", in It. specially fourth and fifth are quarto and quinto, what must not be accidental). And the five, when it is beautiful and flexible like our hand, is symbol of strength and security, because the pentagram lies in the basis of ... Pentagon, to be sure, and of the five-rayed star (as much as it is not liked now by many people), because all stars are pictured usually with five rays (if we don't count the Heb. Star of David, built from two interwoven triangles).
So that the five is the wrist of the hand, but also the span of the hand, or the sole of the foot, and from here are all "pedies"-children (as well also those who like children but not just so — i.e. the pederasts, what is well known word in many langs, yet in the Eng. people prefer to say homosexual men), but the curious thing (even for me) was that the ... heel of the foot must also be here, which in Rus. is 'pjatka' and in Bul. 'peta' (i.e. the relation 'pjatþ - pjatka' or 'pet - peta' simply cannot be accidental). Well, the heel surely is part of the "span of the foot", it is stamped on the earth by walking, but in it for the first time is seen the curvature in the picture of five, because the wrist is just torn, like a rag (what also is not accidental, for in Ger. the rag is Lappen, and the foot-sole is Fußlappen, where Fuß is foot). ( Here emerges also the ... petal, or Lat. petalum which is old Gr. πεταλον, but it will be too much for you to digress now also in this direction. )
And one more small addition: many digits are written stylized with as many strokes, as there signifies the very digit; it is so with: 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8. And, because many school children confuse 2 with 5 as fractions, let us explain this, too, it is so because 1/2 = 0.5, and 1/5 = 0.2, so that it turns as if the 2 and the 5 are mirrored images (if you put the mirror below the 2); this is consequence of arithmetic, but it has also found its reflection in the pictures of these two digits.
The six ...
Here, naturally, is the place for the six, but because it is so important and interesting we will ... jump over it at the moment. In order to give you more time to think about it. Well, let me give you one important hint: what is the relation between six and ... sex?
The seven and the eight
We discuss them together because there is not much to be said about each of these digits, but also because in some cases they are related. First the simplest moment, the image of 7 is, of course, ... a banner, on a long handle, which undulates (with the "iron" argument that: "And how else?)! Ah, but have you guessed why? Well, a Hebrew thing, in two words. God has created the world for 6 days and rested at the 7th, but this is 1/4 of a lunar month, so that there are reasons for its usage, and this is also prime number (and the ancient people have paid much attention to such numbers, although it can happen that in them are hidden ... secrets of the creation, more precisely in the distribution of big and enormous prime numbers towards the infinity). So that in old Heb. the 7 was od, what is exactly your word for odd, but to me personally it sounds like ... "Oh (said "daddy God", I have finished at last — and wiped the sweat from His forehead)" (yet let me remind you that we, the Bulgarians, bur also many other nations, read the "h", so that there is not big difference from 'oh' to 'od'). While the 8 in the same old Heb. was yesod /'jesod', what now must be "yeah + od", but however we split it the 8 is subjugated to the 7, is formed with adding of something to the 7.
Now, it is true that this is a Hebrew thing, but it turns out that also all Slavs now already thousand of years think in the same way, because, really, in Bul. 8 is 'osem' and it is close to 7 what is 'sedem' (i.e. osem = do-to + se(de)m), and in Rus. it is also so (vosemþ-8 = vot-here + semþ-7), what is not justified because the 8 is very good number (as we will see soon), while the 7, at least according to the West, is one ... well, rotten number! Is it so? Yeah, it not only is so, but the people there tie the 7 to the 6, not to the 8, because, for example, in Ger. we have sechs ('zeks') - sieben ('ziiben'), in Fr. six - sept — and this is rotten due to the fact that it is septic —, in Hol. is zes - zeven, in It. is sei - sette, and so on (and exactly this is cumulative proof, by the way, with many examples). This "septic" (attracting of all bacilli, cocci, and whatever may happen) by the 7 exists also in the ancient langs (without Heb.) where in old Gr. it was επτα (and now maybe is εφτα), and in Skr. was sapta.
While look at the 8, very twisted thing, twisted torus, what is so because it is the first cube (2^3), and its name on the West is simply an exclamation of astonishment and delight! Let us check this: in Ger. it is acht ('aht', i.e. "ah", and as a verb achten means "beware"), in Eng. it is "eight" what says 'ej', in Fr. is huit ('jui', i.e. something like your "gee", in Bul. I would have said 'uhaa'), in It. is otto (exactly the thing, so to say, ottimo there means excellent), in Sw. is atta, and so on, and in old Gr. is οκτο (something like "oho", what has gone unchanged in the Lat.), in Skr. is aštau ('ashtau') and in Avs . ašta, what is directly ... astounding. So that, as there is a phrase, "to the court everything is clear".
The nine
Yeah, but the 9 is not reversed 6, as you most probably have decided, because there is no logic in this (from mathematical standpoint). No, it is not this, it is rather one ... "no"! But let us look around firstly on the West, where we have: Ger. neun ('nojn'), your Eng. "nine", Sw. nio, Hol. negen, Fr. neuf ('njof'), It. nove (but 9th is nono), Sp. nueve — maybe enough "cumulating", ah? — and in the old langs respectively εννεα in old Gr., and in Skr. and Avs. nava. If you still have not grasped why the 9 means "no", then look that in some langs it means also something new. Does this help you? Well, if you are of those people that watch the ads then this surely will say nothing to you, but if you still can think a little, you are bound now, if you close your eyes, to see why the 9 is symbol of the new. Right? Because with it the digits finish, and we must begin again (in another decimal position, as it is by the meters). And for this reason the graphical image of 9 consists of ... two digits — the first two, the 0 and the 1, where the 0 is above, and the 1 is below. This is the whole philosophy here (i.e., we have begun with the 1 and have reached to the 0, as a 10).
And what is the situation in the Sl. langs? Well, again so, because, in this situation (but not otherwise — without the above explanations one would have hardly guessed this), Bul. 'devet' or Rus 'devjatþ' mean that the digits have ... gone somewhere ('djavam se' in Bul. /'detþsja' in Rus. is to disappear, to hide somewhere) — the bloody digits, ah! Id est this time we are wondering, like the West wonders at the 8, only that we do this with the 9, because where is 'devjatþ' there is also the 'deva'-virgin or 'diva'-beauty (this is Skr. Diva or Deva, meaning also a goddess), and our 'divak' (in Bul., a savage, yet also 'diven'-marvelous creature, if you make this relation, that everything alive is marvelous and beautiful God's creation), and Rus. 'devatþ' (to put, but the meaning is of wondering where to put is, to take it away from here), and so on.
The ten
Well, the ten is not a digit, from point of view of mathematics, but can sometimes be counted for such (especially if we do not begin with the 0). Anyway, let us say something about it. Here also exists mixing of ideas, for in Eng. it is :ten", in Ger. zehn, in old Gr. δεκα (dieci in It., decem in Lat.), and here are the "deans" ('dekan'-s or 'djakon'-s in Sl.) and the "decades" and the ... "doctors" or "docs", as well as the "docents" (for doceo in Lat. is to teach). Then we may add here also the various "doctrines" (or "doxies") together with the ... "paradoxes" (this what is around and out of the "doxy"), and the orthodoxes (exactly according to the "doxy"-norm), which come from old Gr. δοξα ('doksa', a thesis, account, name, reputation, etc. — in the ancient langs one word often has quite different meanings, for the reason that the people have started from the hidden in it ideas, which can be found in different things, in this case this is the essence of the thing), as well also from Ger. decken what means to cover. Look, in short this is the idea of the "cap"-hat, which, now as Gr. letter (καππα, kappa in Lat.) is exactly the tenth, and it simply crowns the things. Because of this here is Fr. chapeau ('shapjo'), Eng. "cap" and "cape", and even "cup", Lat. capito, the Capitolium, the "captains", the "capitalism" (i.e. the capital is the main thing, not the human), and a heap of other words. And the ancient word was old Heb. keter meaning crown or wreath, from which has left at least the first letter, though it meant 0 (i.e. this is some circle which is put on the heads of people, on which is worth to put some circles, in order to distinguish them from the others).
Now, the roots are pretty mixed, at least 'kapa-' and 'doks-' are entirely different things, more so zehn or ten, but at least our Sl. 'deset' is the Lat. deci-, and the "cap" came here due to its tenth place in the order of letters. The Ger. zehn is something pulled out (from their ziehen, i.e. climbed above, if we take the ten as last digit), or then, what seems more logical, is related with their counting, zahlen, to what we will come later again (though it is possible that it has something in common with their ... Zehe as a toe, i.e. something wiry, strong), and from there also with the Eng. ten. ( I personally, however, don't exclude entirely the possibility that the old Teutons have made their zehn taking the second syllable of Lat. deci, for the simple reason that have thought that "de" is a kind of prefix. )
Other special numbers
About the special position of the 4, eventually of the 5, we have already spoken. Then comes 12, what, quite obviously, is a very nice number because it divides by first four numbers (2, 3, and 4), and from here come the hours, apostles, minutes (they are divisible also by 5), and there existed some ancient systems of counting based on the number 60. There also the "dozen" ('dusina' in Bul.) is something like a cap, from the root "doc-". Together with 12 become special also 11 and 13, the first number because it is before 12, and the second — after it. But here are other moments, too, because 11 is simply beautiful number, it can give also ... 1001, what likewise looks beautiful, and in addition is divisible — this even mathematicians nowadays don't know, because have not thought about it — by 7, 11, and 13 ! So that, when we take the two adjacent prime numbers around 12 (and such two adjacent primes are not many, they are the nearest possible, like 29 and 31, and this is interesting by itself), and when multiply them, and once more time multiply this by the previous prime number, we get 1001, what, if we take away the zeroes, gives exactly the middle number of those 3 primes, 11. This is part of the magic of numbers, in the old times, but also nowadays, it has filled the heads of the people. In addition to this 1001 is good number in the present days for the Hindus, because they don't like to sell (or buy) something for round amount of money (these are a kind of "dead" numbers, remind yourself the even number of flowers), and with 1 less there simply something of the number is missing, so for this reason they prefer to be 1001, 12001, and other similar variants. And when 12 is such beautiful number, then 13 can now be unpleasant, right, and for that reason the Russians (but surely also other nations) call it "devil's dozen".
Well, and 16, what for the Latins (at least in Fr. and It. this is so) is the limit till which we say first the second digit and then the first, while later it becomes on the contrary, is also remarkable because it is the first (if we don't count the trivial 1) fourth degree (of the 2). The Germans, though, change nothing in the reading of the digits even to ... 99, and who does not know this will look at it as at something quite perverse. Well, this is so, but for the reason that the other nations don't do this (but the English until two centuries ago, in the time of Charles Dickens, have done this, say, they have said that somebody is on "6 and 50 years"), but otherwise there is some reason in this, for when we add the numbers we begin with the last digits and then come to the tens; this, what is not convenient, is that for all numbers bigger than 100 this is already not so, yet 100 is quite a big number, and for this reason the English say, for example, not 1984th year digit by digit, but "19 hundred and 84th", and the money they also count in this way.
In the Eng. there is one "score", what means literally a stroke, but with the numbers it means 20, archaic. So why is this so, how do you think? Well, this is obvious (how Sherlock Holmes would have said), this is because we have finished all our fingers, including the toes (which are named also fingers in the Sl. langs), so that when there is nothing on which to count further we put a stroke somewhere and begin anew. The English have "gotten" this bad habit, surely, from the French, who even nowadays can't say, for example, 80, but say 4*20, or do not say 96 (even not "6 and 90"), but 4*20+6+10, yet when they reach 97, then they say 4*20+10+7. Here the points can not be in the special position only of 16, but of 6, too (to which we will come soon), but that's that. By 70, though, they decide that 60 is quite a good number (divisible by: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and call it 60 + 10 (soixante-dix). The number 60 is strongly attracting, and for this reason the degrees in the circle are 360, not 100, what would have been more correct, but here comes also the period of our rotation around the Sun, so that 1 degree is one day, and by one minute a day increases (or decreases) the length of the day in each of the directions (i.e. by 2 min). Yeah, such curious moments, which nowadays are pure rudiments.
Big numbers
Well, here we can start with the 100, but firstly in the Western variants. Ger. hundert speaks about some ... dog (Hund), what might have meant earlier something important, or big amount (in any case they, as also the Russians, have the saying: "This is where the dog is buried", in the sense of something important, the core of the things). And the Eng. thousand, which is from Ger. Tausend (obviously), hides some hitting, crashing — from the throwing of the money (eventually with the purse) on the table, I suppose —, though the etymologists give some old Teu. forms like: tusund, dusund, dhüsundi, Sw. tusen, and others, and explain that this was combination of dhüs + hundi, meaning many hundreds, but, as you see, the "dogs"-hundreds are again here. And what concerns the hitting and thumping (dhüs), this was some I.-E. root meaning inflating, swelling, and there was their thumb (Daumen in Ger.), only that for me the thumping is more convincing than a possible inflation. Be it as it may, this is near to Rus. 1000, 'tåisjacha' (for where is 'djus-' there is also 'tåis-'), and in addition the root 'djus-' is simply the 2, which leads us to the dozen, where we can add also Lat. duodenum what is some special bowel, so that the point hardly is in the inflating.
And here we come to the 'djijm', which is Rus. (and Bul.), but means the same as Eng. "inch", and also the same as Ger. "tsol" (Zoll), so that let us clarify the things a little. Well, the 'djijm', in my view, is simply Sl. variant of pronouncement of the ... Eng. "thumb", where is necessary the following explanation: this is not the length of the last phalanx of the thumb, but the thumb looked athwart (which is normally broad about 2.5 cm), because in this way can be put thumb to thumb and to measure. And when you arrange in this way 12 "thumbs", this must give exactly 1 foot, i.e. sole of the foot, and I personally measured it and by me it turned nearly so (11.5 thumbs, i.e. on the 12th the sole ends)! So that these relations are not at all arbitrary, they may be adjusted a little, but are quite close to the truth, for an average man (by the women the hands are finer).
The very inch (for me obviously) means that this is something that is put "in" something what we measure. And the Zoll had come from Lat. telonium (what is not at all obvious, but has to be so, for the reason that 't' can easily become 'tz' by the Germans, I'll tell you), what was from old Gr. τελωνια and meant a tax or charge, but this is so because here the idea is of some dividing (compare with Ger. Teil, 'tajl', as part). So, but the more important thing is that from the Zoll we can come directly to Ger. zahlen (to count), or the variation zählen (to pay, understand, paying the money), which was entirely Heb., namely tsoln, what meant to count. So that the Zoll is a measuring stick, where the root is not only Lat., but first of all Heb., and from here quite easily can come the Ger. ten (zehn), and the very counting. ( Ah, there is something more here, by the thousand, here is a relation with the Rus. ... 'tuman', what is your fog, and this root is quite spread in the world, but the idea is for something that is very 'gåsto' (in Bul., or 'gustoj' in Rus.), what is closely, very thick, because the ancient people believed that the darkness is something that conceals the light, but it is not the place here to indulge in such digressions. )
And the millions and milliards, more so the Am. variant billion, are something very ... — but you surely will not guess this, ah? Well, the root 'mili-' is just something very nice, exactly 'milo' in Bul., what is related with the ... honey, which is 'meli' in old Gr., and there is something Ar. of that kind, and also in the Skr., because out of honey was made from quite ancient times the alcoholic beverage mead, and in Bul. (and other Sl. langs) 'med' is exactly bee honey (while the mead is 'medovina'). Here I also have not the possibility to digress, but can add at least that in this heap are all ... military people, i.e. 'mili hora' (in Bul., and 'hora' is people)!
Yeah, but we have almost forgotten about Bul. 1000, which is 'hiljada', and this neither is something 'milo'-nice, nor is swollen like the thumb, so what can it be then? Surely nobody could have guessed, and such things are not written in etymological dictionaries, because this word is typical Bul., not Sl., and in such case has to be something ancient that has come to us, either from Per., or from ... Mongolian, or from the Skr. But we can relate it easy with one Bul. jargon, ... 'hilja se', what means to smile happily, or rather to giggle! Yet in order not to think that I am inventing something with the ancient langs then compare it with Lat. hilarious (merry), or with Ger., rather Tyrolean 'ailaripi' (what isn't exactly a word, but then with their heil-'hajl', only without Hitler). And the idea about this giggling number — well, it, naturally, giggles not the very number, but we, that see so many money at once (because the people, usually, think about money) — gave me one Pakistani word, Naulakha, which meant 900,000, so that if the beginning is related with the 9 /neun /nine, then the "lahing" has to symbolize the 1000 (and in Ger. lachen-'lahen' is exactly to laugh, where the root is very ancient at least because ... the wife of Vishnu was Lakshmi, and she was pretty hilarious "girl", and had many faces). So, and here can be added also Tur. (and Bul., too) laf, what are usually funny stories told at the table during the eating and drinking (what leads us to your Eng. laugh, of course).
And what about our Sl. 100, which is 'sto' (in Bul., or 'sotnja' in Rus.)? Now look, the etymologists derive it from old Gr. εκατον (where we can mention also Lat. ... hecatomb, hundreds of vaults-tombs), and include in this heap also the hundred, and Lat. centum, but this may be so only because we want it to be so, for the reason that it means the same, yet the ideas hidden behind the words are different. In the ekaton there is some musical "tone", and " let us not make here guesses about what says to the Greeks the "eka"; in the centum is hidden some ... tinkling, clanging, like by the cents, or like also by the weighing scales which are centenarium in Lat., which was Gr. κεντηναριον (and from there we can go to Bul. archaic 'cantar' as the same scales — they are iron, they clang); and in the word 'sto', in my view, is hidden simply ... the exclamation "stop", i.e. enough (hundred hits with a rod, for example, ah?). For us 'sto'-hundred is not a few, and similar idea, only that twisted enough around the 4, exist by the Russians, who call the ... centipede exactly 'sorokonozhka" (where 'sorok' is 40 and 'nozhka' is a small foot). If you so much want more ancient root then take the Skr. or Avs. satam, or some pre-Sl. 'såto', what is the root of satiation.
Again the six
To have guessed what should have been the relation between six and sex I don't believe, but let us first convince ourselves that this is so (cumulating the things from various langs). For example, in Lat. the number is sexis, and the sex (which for many nations means the gender) is sexus, in Ger. the number is sechs, read 'zeks' (what is pure sex, because they read each first "s" as 'z'; the gender there is Geschlecht, 'geshleht', what means a "bad thing", schlecht is "bad", because they are — well, were, I mean — moral people), and in old Gr. the number is εξι ('eksi', what, surely, sounds pretty sexy). But let be clear also on the point that the sex is identified with the sexual organ, and more precisely with the masculine one (because who has counted earlier the women for humans?) so that it turns that this body organ has to be tightly related with the 6. Now it becomes clearer, right? Because, if one decides to look at one such "sex", more so if he is a man and looks at the river, he will see there that it is similar to the 6, i.e. it has its stick and its circle (well, two circles, but in profile they look like one). So that it turns out that from deep antiquity (some 3000 years is a good guess) the number 6 was compared and likened to the male penis.
But, of course, these are things with mathematical idea in them, because the number six was considered as the perfect number (and that the penis is perfect creation must be clear to all women, and to the men, too), what means that it is equal, as to the sum, so also to the product of all of his simple divisors: 6 = 1*2*3 = 1+2+3. For the prime numbers is clear that there is no other such number because their sum is always with 1 more than the product (which is equal to the number), but for the compound numbers, too, it is intuitively clear that this must be so, because for 4 the sum is 5 and the product is 4, for 6 they are equal, and further more the sum is always less than the product (for 8 the sum is 1+2+2+2 = 7, and the number or the product are 8; for 9 the sum is 1+3+3 = 7; for 10 the sum is 1+2+5 = 8, end so on, where for, say, 100 the sum is 1+2+2+5+5 = 15, and so on). ( Well, this depends on the definition, and I give you the simplest, but in the "Elements" of Euclid was accepted that a perfect number is such for which the sum of all its divisors is equal to the number — now not to the product —, and then, for example, 28 is also such number because 1+2+4+7+14 = 28, and there are also big such numbers like 496, for which 1+2+4+8+16+31+62+ 124+248 = 496 = 16*31, and so on, they are not limited. But even by this definition 6 is the smallest such number and it is only one digit. )
So that this idea was present in the heads of ancient Greeks and other nations before them, because also the Star of David is with 6 rays, and the die, i.e. the cube, has six sides (and in Bulgaria up to the present day is used six-point grading system in the education, where 6 is the highest grade), what again shows that not the male penis looks like the number 6, but the image of number 6 was so designed in order to symbolize this perfect (maybe the most perfect, or at least most emotionally accepted) organic creation. But these ideas can, up to some extent, be found also in the Sl. langs, for the reason that in Rus. the 6 is 'shestþ' (in Pol. is szešč, 'sheshch', and was some Baltic sheshi), while the ... rod or the stick is 'shest' and: just say now that 'shestþ' and 'shest', and this in one and the same lang., are not related! Besides, the very name 'shest' (so is the number in Bul.) is not very different from "sex", or take It. sei, what, if we read it with 'sh" in the beginning, is quite like in Bul., and in the Skr. this number was šat ('shat', what is practically the same sound that is heard when we brandish some stick) or also šaštiš, what can't miss to ... "shashtisa" you (if you know Bul., where to 'sashtisa', surely of Tur. origin, means to astonish, stupefy), right!? Let us add also that in Tur. the number 6 according to the dictionaries is alti, what is impossible not to correlate with their altin ('altån', for them the Lat. "i" very often is read like Bul. 'å', for the simple reason that they have not a big choice, either so, or with "a"), or rather a golden coin, but in the game of backgammon I am sure that 6 & 5 is called 'shesh-besh', where beş, 'besh', really, means 5, so that this root is not unknown by them. And also don't forget that all Skr. gods, when they look like humans, are with 6 extremities.
And what concerns the stick 'shest' in Rus., then their etymologists say that there was some old 'shåstå', then Belarusian 'shost', and mention some Latvian shiekshtas as ... tree trunk without branches. Well, but "that thing" is exactly like a tree trunk without branches, isn't it? They, surely, don't explain this, they rather guess, but if so then I can continue with other words, like Rus.: 'zhjostkij' (hard), 'zhestjanka' (a tin), 'zhelezo' (iron), 'zhezl' (a rod, scepter), as well also the ... 'zhele'-jelly, which is liquid, liquid, and at once hardens (well, nor exactly like iron, but nearly so). Id est the iron is a kind of jelly (while is liquid), and there was some old Sl. 'zhelåi' what meant ... turtle (because it is with hard shell), but the very word 'zheljaso'-iron (that's in Bul) corresponds well with Ger. Stahl ('shtahl', steel) or Stiel (stem of a flower). ( We could have thought that the ... 'zhålt'-yellow colour (in Bul.) is also somewhere here, but this is mixing or roots, the 'zhålto' is rather "gålto", or "goldeno"-golden, so that let us not digress with it. ) Ah, the Russians have also the word 'shesternja', what is a cogwheel, what may be so for the reason that the profile of the cogs looks like hexagonal, or may be minded the stick on which the cogwheel is placed (for there can't be a gear without axis).
But enough accumulating, now everything is clear, the six is a "great thing", like the "thing" of the male. And let us on parting return to the Gr., where their εξι-6 can be written also as εξ, what, obviously, has given the Lat. prefix "ex-" (which is 'iz' in Bul., and in It, only "s-"), as something that jumps at once — so, there is nothing, nothing, and at once something suddenly pops out, ah? This is the 'sashtisvasht'-astounding number six, with which, quite deservedly, we finish our opus about the numbers.
Oct 2012
MYRSKI'S ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION
0. Abstract
Here is given one author's way for using only the letters of Latin alphabet to signify how to read all English words, and then these ideas are extended for many other languages. Having in mind that the Latin alphabet is well known around the world it is supposed that this not only will give to all nations a common way for writing of their words, equally readable by all of them, but may also encourage many nations with different alphabets (like Arabs, Hebrews, Hindus, etc.) to use this proposition to make good presentation of their words accessible to all. The material stands upon the earlier "Illiterate World" yet is not continuation of it but rather an alternative to the described there ideas.
1. Preliminaries
This is a paper about one new way for transliteration of English words so as they are pronounced using only the 26 (and even a bit less) letters of Latin alphabet (and with nothing added above or below) for coding of all 40 and something English sounds (vowels, consonants, semi-such things, diphthongs and triphthongs), and from here, taking the English as one of the most difficult in writing with the Latin alphabet languages, also for all other languages, like: other Latin ones, Teutonic, Slavonic, Greek, Arabic, and others. Naturally, this can be done using several characters for marking of one sound, but the point is not to use more than the "decent" two characters (like, e.g., "sh", or "ae", with the exception of some triphthongs where is justified to use three characters), while there are languages where up to 4 and even 5 characters are used (e.g., in German "ch" is written using "tsch"), and working in one only language (e.g., "ng" in English may mean not the same as in French), i.e. this proposition is language specific. Also there should be looking only forward for the next character modifying in some way the previous (not to use "gn" to read soft 'n' — like in the Spanish canyon — what is the way how the Italians read their "signore", and the English, too).
By the way, you have seen now that I use both kinds of quotes, because for many years I have decided (when there are two such characters) to use the single ones for marking of the way how the word is to be pronounced, where the double just enclose some word or phrase. In this way this my proposition (which I found appropriate to call Myrski's) becomes a way to signify how English words have to be read (what usually is given in square brackets and using very strange signs that are missing from commonly accepted character tables), as well also for almost any other language with not much peculiarities, or else not very precisely. For example, at the present it is difficult in English to write correctly some foreign words (like the Greek goddess 'Gea' which you write as Gaea, or the Russian Baical, which has to be in English 'Baykal', but in German is 'Bajcal', or the strange Russian vowel "eri", which is something alike the 'i' but very different from it, or the Turkish "kismet" which is not read with 'i', and many, many others), and having one (bad, sorry) alphabet badly used in various Western languages poses many problems, which don't exist, for example, in Bulgarian language where is made perfect use of its alphabet also for the words of many other languages. This is very important thing for almost every language (with the only exception of Bulgarian — I don't like to boast being Bulgarian but it turns to be so), yet there are languages where people cope more or less good with the situation (like: Teutonic, Italian, Spanish, Russian or Ukrainian, etc.), and there are such where the situation is simply terrible (like in — I am again sorry to tell this to some of my readers — English or French).
So that I have begun to think about the problem of finding a proper way for writing of the words of all possible languages before more than a decade and have given one good (working) proposition in my "Illiterate World" (further cited only as "Ill.W."), where the approach is really universal and starting from the requirements, not from the restrictions of a giver language. And I mention this here for two reasons: one is that in that paper I have come to some fundamental ideas about the types of sounds in all languages, which I will use mainly in the same way here (only not with so many explanations why I am doing this), and the other reason is that there the approach was different, there I have proposed new letters to be invented and made worldwide used, while here I am using the old Latin alphabet (which even from the beginning was not made good, there was reading of some characters in different ways depending on the next character, but not modifying it, no, just changing it to another one, say, their "c" and "g" are read in two different ways). About the expressed there Ideas I will try here not to sent you obligatory to that material and explain briefly the things; and about the as if duplication of the proposition and even proposing later on something less generalized, language specific, and not so precise, I have to give some explanations now.
Well, generally speaking, people don't like much to generalized ideas (especially between many nations), and here, concerning the language matters (which are a bit chaotic and fuzzy), and looking at the not too big interest at my former proposition (it is read, but as if only out of curiosity, not thinking about really using it), I have come to the conclusion that something simpler could have been of better use, even if not very correct in some cases. But one can always consider this as just another similar proposition, which for the English is, still, a bit drastic (in changing the habits to read their words), but not exceedingly so (the major part of the letters have retained their meanings), but for many other languages it is very suitable. And in addition this may be some intermediate step to finding of one only alphabet for the entire world, because from here will be much easier to come to something similar to my proposition about the new alphabet. So that it is good to have it, and I suppose to begin to use this somewhere later.
Now, as to the basic landmarks of this my proposition, which follow from the basic drawbacks of the English language, as well of the Latin alphabet, looked at in the spirit of my old ideas about basic, modified, and combined, firstly vowels, but later also consonants, the major points are the following: clearing of the very Latin alphabet from dubious characters, what will leave some characters unused and ready for our needs, then standardizing of the representation of English sounds so that they will be signified more or less like in other Western languages, and only what is really specific will be given in a new way, and then extending of this approach for several other languages. From the point of view of specifically used characters in English the stress will be set on the "y", "j", "w", and some vowels written in series; and from the point of the sounds will be underlined the importance of one basic, but missing from the Latin alphabet, vowel like in your "bird" or "girl" (which only temporary we will signify here as "ir"), and the easiest possible modifications of the vowels as well of the consonants.
I must also explicitly state that this material will be only in English (not like my usual way to use before this Bulgarian and later Russian languages) for the simple reason that it is intended basically for the English language, and there is no need to give explanations in other languages if one is not familiar enough with the English; though there is also the reason that these are scientific matters and it is normal to use English, as contemporary Latin, to make the things accessible for all nations.
2. Purifying of the Latin alphabet
For many readers the idea about bettering of the Latin alphabet may seem pretty bold but this is not my only view, the Italians do quite well with only 21 characters, without "j", "k", "x", "y", "w", and in addition "h" is not used as letter, it is only what I call modifier (to tell how to read "c", "g" or "sc"). I don't say that such decreasing of the number of sounds (because a character is, basically, a sound, or so it has to be in a good alphabet, and the less characters are used the less sounds there are in the language) is a good thing, it isn't in my view, but we can use it here as an advantage. So that we will better the ways of reading of "c" and "g", retain "j" as modifier or as semivowel, use the same approach for "h", leave "k" as necessary, then remove "x", "y", "w", and then remove also "q" (being a kind of 'k'). In this way the letters "q", "x", "y", and "w" will be made free for specific usage in the English or in other languages.
Now more precisely. About the "c" and "g" I think everything is obvious, because these are entirely different sounds (I mean "c" like in Caesar or Slavonic tsar and "k" like in king or column; the same about "g" like in great or go or French gare or garçon and 'zh' like in French Giselle or etage-floor or je-I or bijou or in the middle of English measure), so that Latin cielo-sky (though in Italian it will now become 'chielo') or then your celestial will remain the same (although for you beginning with 's'), but the cadaver will be 'kadaver' or Italian capriccio will be kaprichcho and the captain will become kaeptin; also the gare will be the same (i.e. gar) but the bijou will be bizhu. As you see I introduce also other new (combinations of) characters but they will be explained a bit later and for the moment I suppose that you are intelligent enough to guess the right pronunciation. Also, allow me to use some shortenings like: char for character, let. for letter (lets in plural), V. for vowel, C. for consonant, then lang. for language, comb. for combination, Lat. for Latin, Eng. for English, Fr. for French, It. for Italian, Rus. for Russian, Ger. for German, Sp. for Spanish, and others (I like very much to use bc. for because). And, well, I economize very often all kinds of quotes, when the quoting is obvious, and Italic stile use except for emphasizing also for foreign for the Eng. words.
And now about the "j" and "h". The let. "j" as semi-V. is necessary bc. in many langs there is difference between, say, 'ai' and 'aj' (like in I or mine), or 'jo' like in Lat. (Ger., Sp., etc.) Johannes or in your (i.e. Eng.) yogurt. There might sometimes arise doubt about the way of association of this 'j' — and let's call it 'jot' how it is proper to be called — (with the previous or with the next char) and in such cases is necessary some divider or delimiter, like "|" (say the Mayas people will be Maj|a). There are combs (combinations) of all possible Vs with the 'j' and in both kinds of association (like in "maybe", yogurt, etc.). And this char is semi-V. bc. it can't be pronounced alone, but it isn't a C. It isn't also a modifier (and let shorten it to M.), but the "h" is one, making 'sh' from 's', 'ch' from 'c', 'zh' from 'z', as well also the known 'th' and 'dh', but there can be also (say, in Ar. for Arabic) 'bh', 'gh', 'rh' (not only in Ar., in all Sl. for Slavonic langs the let. 'r' is clearly pronounced, maybe not exactly like in the rhino, but like in rhetoric, and, e.g., in Rus. the paradise is 'raj').
Yet I see an interesting parallel now between 'h' an 'j' which may be used here, I mean that like 'h' is M. but 'j' is semi-V., so 'h' may be used as semi-C. (this time, it can in no way be V.) and 'j' as M.! So why the last two things? Well, when I have begun in my old years to learn It. I have come to the conclusion that for them this is a ... — sorry, sorry, — shity letter. This has to be so bc. they call it 'akka' what must be a variation of Lat. caco (or Bul. for Bulgarian akam as to sh##, or also Rus. 'kakashka' as a small sh##, a shitlet, so to say). You can laugh, yeah, that is why I write this here, but in every joke there is a grain of truth and here what I tell you is true, no matter that the Its (Italians, to be sure) will not admit it (without whipping, as we like to add), bc. they don't say, for example, honour /honor but just il onore, and not honesty but la onesta, and Gers town Hamburg is for them Omburgo. So that they miss this letter, but the other folks use it, say, the Gers use very often their Herr-Master, or haben-have. Still, "h" isn't full-right C., it is pronounced (according to the Gers) like exhaling when you want to blow out a candle, and when they want it to be heard like real C. then they just double the char, only that they write "ch" for that purpose (similarly like "ck" is, in fact "cc" meant as 'kk'), e.g., machen is to make, or lachen is to laugh. And that is why, by the way, for the Gers "ch" is not like in Eng. (and here, too), neither what is in It. (making the "c" to be read as 'k'). In Eng. "h" is written, especially in the beginning of the words, as you know well, but it is simply not read (also in Sp.), so that you feel somehow that this let. is not a proper C., and this comes from Ancient Greece and is applied also to the let. 'k', and sometimes these both lets are even confused (like in our Sl., i.e. Eastern, Persian maybe, title of ruler, han, which you write as khan).
I give so many examples from different langs in order to convince you that the things must be standardized, and that in any case some nations will suffer and raise their indignant voices but this is unavoidable and I try to choose the most correct way of usage. Here the correct way is to use "h" as M., for Cs, but also for Vs, like in ah, or oh, what is used to mark a but prolonged V., say, of one and a half length, but not 2 equal vowels (not aa or oo), and when this let. is read as real let. then it must be written as 'hh' (say, Ger. mahhen, but Eng. 'onirr'-honour, for the moment). Making of prolonged V. is very important not only bc. they may differ in Eng. (say, sit or bit, and 'sih' for see, or 'soh' for saw), but also bc in the ancient langs, especially in the Lat., there are not so much accents in the words as there are short and long Vs, and the long ones are the accented. ( So that, by the way, if you want to imitate the way how the Gypsies, or maybe also the Ars, speak you have to prolong the stressed places of the words, e.g., 'dimohkrasi', 'kontihnjuejshirn', 'pirtejhtou' etc. — if you could have succeeded to decode my writing of the words; something similar do the Its, who like to simplify the words doubling one C. which they like and missing the others, where the fact is fatto, the Bible is ... bibbia, and they, as also the Ars, I suppose, simplify in this way also the V. in the Eng. words saying, e.g., 'rihli' instead of really, 'apehrans' instead of appearance, etc., though I have heard an It. girl to say 'rilli' for really. )
Ah, for those who have read my "Ill.W." I have to add that there "h" and "j" are not Ms, bc. there the Ms must be different from the lets, but here I have said that we will use only the 26 (and even less) lets from the Lat. alphabet. There are 7 Ms there, and here we have only these two chars. And this is one more reason why in one lang. the things may differ from those in another one. Still, the important point is to have good possibilities for marking of the words maximally near to the way how they are pronounced in a given language.
But let us continue. Maybe it is worth saying that "h" in the Cyrillic alphabet (further just Cyr.) looks exactly like the Lat. "x", what comes from the old Greek, so that the Lats (Latins or "Latinians", to coin a new word) have decided to make it to sound for 'ks', but this is compound C., these are two different Cs, hence there is no need of such char., and in Eng., e.g., we will have nekst, or tekst, et cetera. The "y" exist in the Lat. but it is just another, Greek, "i" ('igrek'), and in regard of the pronunciation there is no difference from the normal "i", so that it may freely be written as "i", say, "tipe" instead of type, of "holli" instead of holly (or Mirski or Mirsky, for that matter). Historically there is a difference, and the Greek let. looks more or less like the Lat. "v", which was confused in old times with their "u", but written with long tail it becomes Lat. "y", which let. looks exactly lake the Cyr. 'u', and I suppose the Greek let. must have sounded in old times a bit like a cry of a ... donkey, what is nearly to the mentioned Rus. eri (which is used very widely there) and is the alternative to this strange let. which I continue to write here as "ir", but which is one let., and we will come to its real signification when we come to the Eng. language. Well, I may spit out something in advance, the idea is that this Greek 'i" will become now a Bul. "i", but this sound is old and used in many langs, including the Eng.
Then "w" surely is not necessary for the Western world (excluding for now the Eng.); it is widely used in the Ger. (and that is the reason why this is almost the single error that the Gers made in pronunciation of Eng. words), but there is the good old Lat. "v" which is to be used, and nobody is guilty that the Gers read "v" as 'f' (as also "f") and "w" as 'v' (i.e. in Ger. we is "wir" read as 'vir', wind is the same read as 'vind', father is "Vater" read 'fater' or rather 'vatir', and so on). The let. "q" becomes simply 'ku' (say, ekuivalent, ekvator or something similar, it depends on the lang.). Yes, and the sign "j" may be used as M. also for C. adding meaning of something opposite to the "h" (as far as there are only two Ms then this is the most reasonable thing), i.e. as some softening. Like with the let. "r". I have explained that in the Sl. it is always well heard (like in your ring, but not like in performance or car), but it is not necessary to write it there everywhere as 'rh', only 'r' will be enough (e.g., brjag-shore, mir-peace, rab-slave, or rob in Bul., as well as the robot); 'rh' may be used for some old Eastern words (like rhinoceros, which must become 'rhajnocirrirs' but later will be given better presentation, rhithm, or my new God Urrh, about which I have written an extensively big book); and then it may be a soft "r", 'rj', like, maybe, in the car as kahrj, or then, to use one really used word, like in Skr. for Sanskrit prjd what was the same as you vulgar noun fart — sorry, sorry.
Now, the point isn't in the let. "r" only, there is the known Sp. 'canjon', where you write it as canyon (what now is not right) and the Sps (i.e. Spaniards) as cañon. But, especially if you ask the Russ, each C. can be softened, like Rus. uchitelj-teacher, or rechj-speech, or voshj-louce, or It. sogno, now sonjo as dream, and many other words. So, and with this we are done with the good (or not much, it depends) old Lat., and where they like to write "-ti" but read '-ci' then the latter will be used (say. demokracia, nacion-nation, publikacion-publication, etc.). There are no modification of vowels there (well, there exist the "ae" and "oe" but we shall come to them later; even "ae" in Lat. was pronounced like in Ger., their "ä", what is simply another way for writing of the simple "e", just marking the history of the word, these are usually derivatives, plurals), and no diphthongs like in Fr. or Eng. (only the normal associations with 'j', like 'aj' etc.), and if there are combined Cs they are obvious (like "sch" in schola becoming now skola). And we have gained the lets "q", "x", "y", and "w", but now we will find what to do with the "y".
3. Treating of the English words
A more clever reader should have guessed till now that the freed "y" char will be used for this fundamental sound like in girl which we marked till now with 'ir' but, surely, to write gyrl or even gyhl will be better; in this case the mentioned a bit earlier rhinoceros, will become 'rhajnocyrys'. This is so bc. (according to Myrski, ah?) there are only six basic Vs, namely: a, e, i, o, u, y (like in girl)! But there may be many modified (shorten to Md) Vs, which in my view are those where we want to say one V. but say another (this is explained in the "Ill.W."). The simplest Md Vs are "ae" where one wants to say 'a' but says 'e' and then arises the phoneme like in back or black, which will be written as baek and blaek. But there may be also a Md 'y' to 'ya' what is like in your "but", a bit more open then in girl, and then "but" becomes 'byat'; and however strange this may seem but the Russ use the same sound for their non-accented "o" (like "oknò"-window or "otec"-father, which must be now 'yakno' and 'yatec'), though they usually say that it is like 'a' but it isn't the same (for they don't write it as "a"). And to finish with the 'y' must be added the "chewed" several times Rus. eri sound, which becomes now 'yi' (hence myi is we there, tyi is you, myishj is a mouse, myislj is a thought, vyiigryishj is a gain, and many many more words). Practically every V. can be modified to every other (6*6 = 36, or rather 6*5 = 30, bc. modification with the same V. is meaningless) , but with the 'y' this is all (you try to pronounce 'ye' or 'yo' or 'yu' — more than this, I think that even this Rus. 'yi' might become a nightmare for some of the Eng. speaking people).
Another Md V. is the mentioned Lat. "oe", which for the Gers is "ö", and they modify in the same way also "ü" meaning 'ue'. Then there is the Rus. "ё", but it is an obvious mistake, bc. it is pronounced like 'io' (surely not 'ee'), which let. has been introduced relatively recently, before about a century; yet the more interesting in Rus. is their usual "e" which is pronounced as 'ie' (say, 'niet' is no), and they have another "e", which they call "reversed e" which exactly is the right 'e'. Another possible Md Vs can be 'oi', 'ou', or 'uo', 'iu' or 'ui' etc., and some of them are similar to some of the Fr. Vs (which differ whether the syllable is accented or not). In the Eng. might be found one more Md V. as part of a diphthong and this is the first V. in words like there or their, where, pear, etc, where must be written 'aey' (i.e. thaey, whaey, paey, etc.), though I suppose that this may be simplified to just 'ey' if it will be so decided. But let me stress once more time that these are Md Vs, not combined, and the proper way of writing will be using subscript and then have: 'byat', 'baek' and 'blaek', Rus. 'yakno', 'myi', 'tyi', 'niet', Eng. 'thaey', 'whaey', 'paey' (or just 'they', etc), and in some other cases or langs several Vs may be read just consecutive, like: in It. piano (pi-ano), or the exclamation (in Bul. but not only) vyj (similar to vaj), a Bul. name Baev, Bul. (in fact Lat.) word meander, Ger. bearbajten, and other examples.
And except the basic and Md Vs can be also combined Vs forming diphthongs (as well also not combined but just consecutive like in the It. piano), and here the major representatives are the combs with 'j' which we discussed above ('aj', 'ej', 'oj'). There are many such groups in Eng., like also: 'iy' (like in 'iy'-year, 'niy'-near, etc.), 'au' (like in 'bau'-bough, 'nau'-now, etc.), 'ou' (like in 'nou'-know, 'toun'-tone, 'stoun', 'roud', etc.), 'uy' (like 'puy'-poor, 'tuy'-tour, 'shuy'-sure, etc.), the mentioned 'aey' /'ey' (like 'paey'-pear, etc.). And there are also prolonged Vs like 'ah', 'oh', 'eh', etc. (in fact for all 6 basic Vs), only that there are not all short basic Vs (just 'a' is missing from the Eng., and the short 'y' becomes 'ya'). But I would like that you make difference between real diphthongs (say, 'mej'-may) and some complex method for writing of single V. (like in Fr "ai", as in "paire"-pair, what comes from the Greek lang., but is read as mere 'e', what from the viewpoint of pronunciation is not a diphthong, or also their "ou" read as mere 'u', bc. they read "u" as 'ju' and this now becomes a diphthong although written with one char). So, and the triphthongs are 'aiy' (like in 'faiy'-fire, 'taiy'-tire, etc.), 'auy' (like in 'auy'-hour or 'auy'-our, etc.), and 'ouy' (like in 'louy'-lower, etc.), for which I allow myself to think that they may be as well be thought for two syllables (and this will make better sounding the verses, in my view), if you count the last 'y' for separate V. (and what that it is not prolonged?), like 'fai|y' or 'mou|y'-mower etc, at least that is the way the Gers do (say, in their Bauer-farmer, what they pronounce as 'bau|y', ending in the same way like the Eng. "our").
And now about the Cs. But here are no special problems and we have already said that they remain, in broad outlines, the same, with some exceptions for: 'c' (as in Caesar; and there is no need to use "ts" /"tz", like in the Sl. 'car'-"tsar", when there is a proper char), 'k' (or 'kk' if needed, for "k" or "ck"), 'h' (for "h" but only when it is read, i.e. 'auy'-hour, and then even as 'hh' — say, 'hhit' but it might be simplified to 'hit' when "h" is in the beginning and can not be taken for M., similarly 'houm'-home, 'hjuhmy'-humour, etc.), 'z' (as in zero), 's' (for the same, there is no necessity to write "ss" in order not to read 'z'), also to the 'sh' and 'ch' is added 'zh' (like in measure), the Eng. "j" becomes 'dzh' as a difh-consonant, to the usual 'th' and 'dh' are added, if necessary, 'bh', 'rh', 'gh', but "ph" in some old words is changed to 'f', "q" is changed to 'k', "x" is changed to 'ks', it is added a "soft sign" with 'j' after the C., 'ng' remains the same and it is clear, "r" is the same when is read (like in read) and when is only hinted is better to miss it at all (instead of to write, e.g., 'gyhrjl' is enough to write just 'gyhl', or 'cah'-car, etc.), and remained only to say that the peculiar Eng. "w" will be marked as 'vh'. The last may not seem very fitting but it is a kind of 'v' and 'vj' seems worse, though if one wants one may use 'vq' (what I don't find better); on the other hand it is as if V., so one can pretend to write 'uj' or 'uh' what I don't advice bc. this will lead to confusion. But mark that, no matter that there are used 2 char these are simple C. ('sh' etc.), only 'd|zh' is a comb. (and also 'ng' but there in the original form are 2 chars). Some examples with "w" are: 'vhaey'-where, 'vhot'-what, 'vhen'-when, 'vhedhy'-whether, 'vhosh'-wash, 'vhaeks'-wax, and others. In this way we are again left with the 3 free M. ('x', 'q', and 'w') I don't know for what use.
But I must turn your attention to this moment, that when we write as we read then there several words may be confused bc. (and this is the bad moment in the Eng. and what makes it difficult to learn it good) there are many cases where one and the same sounds are represented in different ways (like the classical example of I and eye). You have taken that bad habit from the French, it is clear, bc. they have, for example, 4 ways to write one of their nasal sounds (and 4 for the others), namely: -an, -am, -en, and -em, are all read as '-ang' (if that is the way to write it in Fr.). I have asked myself long ago the question why some nations like to stick to the writing (the Western, usually, but not all), and others to the pronouncing (the Eastern, usually, and chiefly the Slavs), and have come to the conclusion that the root of this must somehow lie in ... the Bible, where is said that "In the beginning was the word", i.e. in the understanding of the written truths, and that to change words is a bad habit. Yeah, but this is pretty formal taking of the things, bc. the truth (no matter whether you mean it as God's words, or just some written words) lies behind the words, this must be obvious, but you try to argue with profane — sorry — people. Normally people who like to show their own judgement change the words how they like them, and this do not only the Russ and Buls who use Cyr. alphabet, this do also the other Sl. (I think), and even the Its, who are fervent Catholics (but maybe they just think more than the Fr. or the Eng.).
Anyway, this is simply silly in the present days, and if the people have the Lat. alphabet, and also this my proposition, then they can as well make use of it and help a bit to the foreigners in the learning of their langs. And as to the different ways of writing of the same (or even very similar) phonemes there are only two ways out of the mess: either you leave them as they are (saying: what of this that some words sound the same, people can tell the difference, can't they?), or you change a bit one or another of the words (say, let the eye become "eyg"-'aig' or "aug"-'ohg' or something of the kind, or the "I" become "ik"-'ik' or "ike"-'aik' or "yo"-'jo' or something else).
Sou this is evrithign koncerning only dhy Inglish laenggvhidzh aend juh kaen rajt nau, vhidhaut aeni nehd foh inventing of njuh aelfybit, begin tu lyhn it in skuhls as dhy Inglish of dhy fjuhchy aend, hens, dhy vhyan aend ounli vhyhld laenggvhidzh (foh yadhyvhajz it mej haepyn thaet dhy ... Bulgaeyriyn vhil tejk its plejs; oh dhen dhy Spaenish, oh dhy Aerybik, huh nouz?). Bikohz dhy Inglish haez its guhd sajd, byat it haez ohlsou its baed sajd, aend if juh duh not vahnish dhy baed vhyan it vhil kome in obliviyn.
Not that this will be easy for the English, it has to be done word by word, but it is possible to begin to print books in this modified English. Well, I have proposed, and you may dispose (what is to be supposed). But let us take one standard piece of text and convert it, also for some other langs, in this new manner, and even count the chars.
Original Eng. text: Here is given one author's way for using only the letters of Latin alphabet ... . — chars with spaces 703.
Transliterated Eng. text: Hiy is givn vhyan ohthor's vhej foh jusing onli dhy letys of Laetin aelfybit tuh signifaj hau tuh rihd ohl Inglish vhyhds, aend dhen dhihz ajdiys ah ikstended foh maeni yadhy laenggvhidzhiz. Haeving in majnd dhaet dhy Laetin aelfybit is vhel noun yraund dhy vhyhld it iz sypousd dhaet dhis not ounli vhil giv tuh ohl nejshyns y komyn vhej foh raiting of dhaey vhyhds, ihkvhyli rihdyble baj ohl of dhem, byat mej ohlsou inkyridzh maeni nejshyns vhidh difyrynt aelfybits (lajk Aerybs, Hihbruhs, Hinduhs, aetc.) tuh juhz dhis propyzishn tuh mejk guhd prezntejshn of dhaey vhyhds yksesybl tuh ohl. Dhy mytiyriyl staends ypon dhy yhliy "Ilityrit Vhyhld" jet iz not kyntinjuejshn of it byat rahdhy yn ohltyhnejtiv tuh dhy diskrajbd dhaey ajdiys. — chars with spaces 738 (+5%)
4. The same ideas about other languages
There will be, surely, not all the other langs but only those of them which the author knows (good or not much), namely: Ger., Rus., Bul., and with some reserves the It. and Fr., but this will be enough for Europe and part of Asia, and, hence, for the whole world, bc. the only one important lang. left is the Sp., which must stay somewhere between the Ger. and the It. in respect of its difficulty (the Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, and some other nations will follow the current; at least for the first pair of centuries I don't believe that the Americans, for example, will try to follow in the steps of the Chinese, or the others).
4.1. The German language
Here are almost no problems and I suppose that there transliteration could be done even automatically, without whatever dictionary. This is so for several reasons. Let us take first the V., where we have mentioned that they also use sometimes the let. 'y' but in the endings of the words and write it as "-er" (e.g., Lehrer-teacher), have some Ms and use "ä", but pronounce it as single 'e' and not as 'ae', then really Md Vs are "ö" for 'oe' (like in böse-bad), and "ü" for 'ue' (like in Übung-exercise, what is entirely correct; and have also the traditional combs with 'j' like 'aj', oj', and 'jo', as also 'au' (e.g. Bauer-farmer). Still, there are some peculiar moments and one is that they read everywhere "ei" as 'aj", what seems a bit funny, when they can write also "ai" (as they very rarely do) and I have wondered long time about this their habit, until once have occasionally looked in one short multi-lingual dictionary and have seen that almost the same as Ger. words (also the ways of building of derivative words) are the ... Hebrew (Heb. for short) words, and there "ei" is read 'ej'. As a result of this I raised the guess that maybe the Gers exactly for this reason, to differ from the Hebs, in spite of them, have decided somewhere about 15th century to begin to read "ei" in this way. ( Such things often happen, take the new Greek who have decided to read their beta as vita, i.e. 'b' as 'v'; as also to remind you that there was in the antiquity the invented word ... sibolet, used to detect the Hebs, bc. they would have pronounced it as 'shibole'; or take the bad Fr. habit almost always to read one let. less then written, bc. earlier, when they have made their lang. from the Lat ., they have read all the lets. ).
Further, they have 'oj' but they write it in another way, as "eu", and here I think they have taken the Fr. for bad example, and when the latter can write "oi" and read 'ua' then why the Gers not to write "eu" and read it as they like (bc. you see perfectly well that there is neither 'o' nor 'i' in "eu"). But these are just peculiar moments, they pose no difficulties bc. the Gers are consecutive, they write so always, and this can be changed with one operation in the whole dictionary. Then they use "h" for prolongation of the V. (like in Ehe-marriage, Ehre-honour, etc.), but not for 'i', where they write "ie" (e.g., Kompanie, marschieren, etc.), and when 'h' has to be read use "ch" (like in machen-make), as we said, what becomes now 'hh'. So this is about the Vs, they have not such big number of complicated diphthongs, and in other cases when there are two adjacent Vs they are read separately.
With the Cs they are also better than the Eng. bc. use "k" instead of "c", also "g" is usually read as 'g', don't misuse "y", have no "th" and "dh", "ng" is normal comb. of chars and not Md and instead of your -ing, have their -ung, et cetera. On the other hand they are worse with the Cs in another aspects, bc. misuse "w" for 'v' and both "f" and "v" are 'f'-s, use widely "z" as our 'c' (say, Zahn-'cahn' is a tooth), write often "ss" for 's', read beginning "s" as 'z' (say, singen-'zingen' is to sing), and their most beloved C. is 'sh', which they write with big care as "sch" (e.g. Schaf is the sheep, schlaffen is to sleep, schön is nice or good, etc.), and in the beginning of the words each "sp" is read as 'shp' and "st" as 'sht', and for 'ch' (as said before) use "tsch". Still, on the whole, the Gers are better also with the Cs., bc. here the Eng., taking roughly 2/3 of their words from the Gers, have tried to show their originality changing some Cs to older sounds (like 'vh' — I have met something similar in the Skr. —, 'th', 'dh', "j"-'dzh' — this, surely, is the most loved by the Gypsies sound —, etc.). As far as I don't intend to give you Ger. lessons here, let us go to the sample text, first in "normal" Ger., and than in "Myrskied" such.
Original text in Ger.: Hier ist eine Methode von dem Autor für Verwendung nur von der Buchstaben des lateinischen Alphabets, um zu zeigen wie man alle englische Wörter zu lesen sind, gegeben, und dann sind diese Ideen für viele andere Sprachen erweitert. In Hinsicht auf die Tatsache dass das lateinische Alphabet auf der ganzen Welt gut bekannt ist, es ist anzunehmen dass dies nicht nur allen Völkern einen gemeinsamen Weg für Schreiben ihrer Wörter, der gleichermaßen lesbar für alle von ihnen ist, geben wird, sondern auch viele Nationen mit verschiedenen Alphabeten (wie Araber, Hebräer, Hindus, usw.) ermutigen kann, diesen Vorschlag zu verwenden, um eine gute Darstellung ihrer Wörter, zugänglich für alle, zu machen. Das Material steht auf der früheren "Analphabetische Welt", doch ist keine Fortsetzung von ihm, vielmehr eine Alternative zu den dort beschriebenen Ideen. — chars with spaces 855.
Transliterated Ger. text: Hihr ist ajne Metode fon dem Autor fuer Vervendung nur fon der Buhhshtaben des latajnishen Alfabets, um cu cejgen vih man ale inglishe Voerter cu lezen zind, gegeben, und dan zind dihze Ideen fuer fihle andere Shprahhen ervajtert. In Hinzihht auf die Tatzahhe dass das latajnishe Alfabet auf der gancen Velt gut bekant ist, es ist ancunehmen dass dihs nihht nur alen Foelkern ajnen gemajnzamen Veg fuer Shrajben ihrer Voerter, der glajhhermassen lezbar fuer ale fon ihnen ist, geben vird, zondern auhh fihle Nacionen mit fershihdenen Alfabeten (vih Araber, Hebreer, Hindus, uzv.) ermutigen kan, dihzen Forshlag zu fervenden, um ajne gute Darshtelung ihrer Voerter, cugenglihh fuer ale, cu mahhen. Das Material shteht auf der frueheren "Analfabetishe Velt", dohh ist kajne Fortzetcung fon ihm, fihlmehr ajne Alternative cu den dort beshrihbenen Ideen. — chars with spaces 850.
Now, you can well see how near to the standard (in my view) usage of Lat. chars the Gers are, when they need not more chars for this transliteration; there are used even a bit less chars but I have rejected some doubling of Cs when have felt that this is not necessary. I should have removed all capital lets, too, bc. this is one "appendicitis" in their lang. (to write all nouns with capital lets), but have decided to leave this to them for some future moment. You can also see that the original text has grown in Ger. up to 22% (855 / 703), but the normal situation must be about 10 to 15%, I suppose (hence my translation leaves something to be desired, but let us not formalize too much). Anyway, would have not the Ger. lang. been too (i.e. unnecessary) precise, it wouldn't have come down from the pedestal of major European lang., and I would have proposed it for a world language, as also this wouldn't have forced the old Eng. people, I suppose, to make so drastic changes in their lang., coming in this way to the other pole (as people usually do, and maybe making necessary now some complication of the lang., but that is another matter). Alas, the Ger. lang. is very difficult grammatically, with its 4 grammatical cases and strictly tied coordination of adjectives, but then the Lat. langs (Fr., It., etc.) have also very difficult grammar (meaning now the tenses), and there are even worse cases, bc. the Rus. and other Sl. langs (but excluding the Bul., mark this) are a real nightmare to study with their 7 cases like in the old Latin.
4.2. The Russian language
Here I also have mentioned something before: their eri ('yi'), the 2 kinds of 'e'-s (but then the Ukrainians have two 'i'-s), their "ё" being Md 'io', and the unstressed "o" being 'ya', and will continue from here. The Sl. langs, as a rule, have their bright side, they have almost no real diphthongs (except the natural combs with 'j'); there are here and there (and were in old times) some a bit more complex sounds, like 'ou' (say, in Cz. for Czech 'mouhha' as a fly), some nasal sounds (like in the Fr.), but they have disappeared now. There are 2 special chars with 'i' in them which are whole diphthongs ('ju' and 'ja') but this does not pose any problems. The Rus. lang. in my view is a highly latinized lang. (as also Polish, Serbian, and others) in regard of the words, but this is difficult to be seen bc. of the endings, which are like: 'ij', 'oj', 'yi|j', 'a|ja' /'ja|ja', 'yim' /'yimi', 'u|ju' /'ju|ju', 'ovo' /'evo', 'elj|nyi|j, etc.). These things can be represented (without necessity everywhere to write this sign for disconnection bc. the association is clear in the lang., say 'nievyayabrazimyij' is unimaginable, 'samyastyajatieljnyij' is independent, 's uvazhieniem' is "with regards", etc.), but it is difficult for the ear of a Western person.
The Russ have also some strange combinations of Cs, like 'sh|ch', what is even written with one Cyr. let. (in Bul. this let, is read as 'sht' what is little better), and we (the Slavs) have all possible "warm" Cs ('zh', 'sh', 'ch'), and single lets for them, where on the West sometimes something is present, but always something is also missing and the ways to write them are different. Still, the problem with the Cs begins when there is nothing to divide them (like in Cz. name 'Bendrzhihh'), and the worst cases are the Poles and the Serbs (who say, e.g., 'srpska' for Serbian). But the good side of the Russ (in regard of the phonetics) is their "soft sigh" 'j', as we have mentioned it. Ah, the ending "-sja" is read as '-ca', and also "-ogo" as '-ovo'. Now to the example, but it will be in Cyr. bc. after this I will give the "Myrskifation" in Latin.
Original text in Rus.: Здесь приведён один авторский способ для использования только букв латинского алфавита для обозначения того, как нужно читать все английские слова, и потом эти идеи расширены для многих других языков. Имея в виду, что латинский алфавит хорошо известен во всём мире, полагается что это не только даст всем народам общий способ для выписывания их слов, одинаково читабельный для всех, но и подтолкнёт многие народы с другими алфавитами (как арабы, евреи, индусы, и другие) использовать это предложение для того чтобы придать хороший презентабельный вид их словам, доступный для всех. Этот материал стоит на прежнем "Неграмотном мире", но он не продолжение его, а скорее другой альтернативный подход к описанным там идеям. — chars with spaces 719.
Transliterated Rus. text: Zdiesj priviedion odin avtorskij sposyab dlja ispoljzyavanija toljkya bukv latinskyavya alfavita dlja yabyaznachienija tyavo, kak nuzhnya chitatj vsie anglijskiie slyava, i pyatom eti idiei rasshirienyi dlja mnogihh drugich jazyikov. Imieja v vidu, chto latinskij alfavit hyaryasho izviestien vo vsiom mirie, pyalagaietca chto eto ne toljkya dast vsiem narodam obshchij sposyab dlja vyipisyivanija ihh slov, yadinakovya chitabieljnyij dlja vsehh, no i pyadtyalkniot mnogiie narodyi s drugimi alfavitami (kak arabyi, ievriei, indusyi, i drugiie) ispoljzyavatj eto priedlyazhieniie dlja tyavo, chtobyi pridatj hyaroshij priezientabieljnyij vid ihh slyavam, dyastupnyij dlja vsev. Etot matierial stoit na prezhniem "Niegramyatnom mirie", no on nie pryadyalzhienie ievo, a skyarieie drugoj aljtiernativnyij pyadhhod k yapisannyim tam idiejam. — chars with spaces 838.
Now you see that, for one thing, the original text has grown a bit (with 2%) in what there is nothing bad, but having in mind that the Cyr. alphabet has more lets and is better suited for us it has to be fallen with a pair of percents, and, for another thing, that there is an increase in the volume (albeit the original is in other alphabet) of 16%, 838 / 719), what is a nuisance bc. the Cyr. is a better alphabet also for the Western langs (it is at least newer, made in 9th century). The increase in transliteration is bc. there are very often met the Vs 'ya' and 'ie' (as also 'yi' which can not be avoided), so that I suppose that, having in mind that the usual "e" is used much more often than the back "e", it will be better to write the usual one as 'e' and the other one as 'ae', what is more or less correct if we stay in this lang. only. In relation with this I may also propose that the Russ just omit their back "e" and use everywhere the usual 'ie' which can then easier be written as mere 'e' and said that it must, in fact, be read as 'ie'. There will be nothing disastrous, I suppose, if they will be forced to write, say: 'poiet'-poet instead of 'poet', 'ieto'-this instead of 'eto', 'ievyaljucija'-evolution instead of 'evyaljucija', like they write 'pobieda'-win or 'polie'-field, and so on, but while they make this difference there has to be difference also in the writing. A similar (but not the same) remark may be made about the non-stressed "o": when they say that it is pronounced as 'a', then let them begin to write it in this way (and have 'atiec'-father, 'akno'-window, 'sposab'-method, etc.), otherwise it has to be different. So I give below the same text where only the normal and the back "e" are chanced.
Transliterated Rus. text — II: Zdesj privedion odin avtorskij sposyab dlja ispoljzyavanija toljkya bukv latinskyavya alfavita dlja yabyaznachenija tyavo, kak nuzhnya chitatj vse anglijskie slyava, i pyatom aeti idei rasshirenyi dlja mnogihh drugich jazyikov. Imeja v vidu, chto latinskij alfavit hyaryasho izvesten vo vsiom mire, pyalagajetca chto aeto ne toljkya dast vsem narodam obshchij sposyab dlja vyipisyivanija ihh slov, yadinakovya chitabeljnyij dlja vsehh, no i pyadtyalkniot mnogie narodyi s drugimi alfavitami (kak arabyi, evrei, indusyi, i drugie) ispoljzyavatj aeto predlyazhenie dlja tyavo, chtobyi pridatj hyaroshij prezentabeljnyij vid ihh slyavam, dyastupnyij dlja vsev. Aetot material stoit na prezhnem "Negramyatnom mire", no on ne pryadyalzhenie evo, a skyaree drugoj aljternativnyij pyadhhod k yapisannyim tam idejam. — chars with spaces 808.
As you see only this has given nearly 4% decrease (838 / 808) and 808 / 719 = 1,124. If we change now also the non-stressed "o" (i.e. 'ya') to 'a' will have total volume of only 776 chars, or another decrease of 4% and the total increase of the original text will be only 8%. The third variant is given below.
Transliterated Rus. text — III: Zdesj privedion odin avtorskij sposab dlja ispoljzavanija toljka bukv latinskava alfavita dlja abaznachenija tavo, kak nuzhna chitatj vse anglijskie slava, i patom aeti idei rasshirenyi dlja mnogihh drugich jazyikov. Imeja v vidu, chto latinskij alfavit harasho izvesten vo vsiom mire, palagajetca chto aeto ne toljka dast vsem narodam obshchij sposab dlja vyipisyivanija ihh slov, adinakova chitabeljnyij dlja vsehh, no i padtalkniot mnogie narodyi s drugimi alfavitami (kak arabyi, evrei, indusyi, i drugie) ispoljzavatj aeto predlazhenie dlja tavo, chtobyi pridatj haroshij prezentabeljnyij vid ihh slavam, dastupnyij dlja vsev. Aetot material stoit na prezhnem "Negramatnom mire", no on ne pradalzhenie evo, a skaree drugoj aljternativnyij padhhod k apisannyim tam idejam. — chars with spaces 776.
4.3. The Bulgarian language
Ah, now you will see what means a good language. About the peculiarities here everything is much better than before, bc. we have no Md Vs at all! We have the usual diphthongs with 'j' only, no special endings, no exceptions in reading of the Vs or Cs, nothing more to mention, really! I have even not used 'hh' for "h" as let. bc. we have no prolonged Vs (our ... Gypsies have, but the Buls don't). Here comes the standard text in original, and then the 'Myrskified'.
Original text in Bul.: Тук е даден един авторов начин за използуване само на буквите от латинската азбука за означаване на това как да се четат всички английски думи, а после тези идеи са развити за много други езици. Имайки предвид, че латинската азбука е добре известна по света се предполага, че това не само ще даде на всички нации един общ начин за записване на техните думи, еднакво читабелен за всички тях, но и може да подтикне някои народи с други азбуки (като араби, евреи, индуси, и др.) да използуват това предложение за да получат добро представяне на техните думи достъпно за всички. Материалът стои върху по-раншния "Неграмотный мир", но не е негово продължение, а по-скоро алтернатива на описаните там идеи. — chars with spaces 700.
Transliterated Bul. text: Tuk e daden edin avtorov nachin za ispolzuvane samo na bukvite ot latinskata azbuka za oznachavane na tova kak da se chetat vsichki anglijski dumi, a posle tezi idei sa razviti za mnogo drugi ezici. Imajki predvid, che latinskata azbuka e dobre izvestna po sveta se predpolaga, che tova ne samo shte dade na vsichki nacii edin obsht nachin za zapisvane na tehnite dumi, ednakvo chitabelen za vsichki ot tjah, no i mozhe da podtikne njakoi narodi s drugi azbuki (kato arabi, evrei, indusi, i dr.) da izpolzuvat tova predlozhenie za da poluchat dobro predstavjane na tehnite dumi dostypno za vsichki. Materialyt syoi vyrhu po-ranshnija "Negramotnyij mir", no ne e negovo prodylzhenie, a po-skoro alternativa na opisanite tam idei. — chars with spaces 729.
Hence, the original text in Bul. turns to be no longer than even in Eng. (which is, maybe, the most succinct of all langs), what isn't exactly so, in my view a translation from Eng. to Bul. usually becomes about 5% longer. And the increase of 4% by the transliteration is explainable with the worse Lat. alphabet (there are no 'zh', 'ch', 'sh' as single chars there).
4.4. The Italian language
Well, this is a language which I have begun to study after 55 (not 5), so that for me it is the less known of all langs. Still, I will give an It. version, with the help of computerized translators, in order to be able to do some quantitative comparisons. First some remarks about the phonetics. From the basic Vs they have not only the 'y', what is the usual situation in the Lat. langs, and they haven't modified Vs, what is a big advantage; the accented Vs are pronounced a bit longer but I don't think this has to be marked as prolongation, this is just their ... Gypsy soul showing up (no offense meant, of course). But they have many combined Vs (diphthongs), not only after "i" as 'j' ('ja', 'je', 'jo', and 'ju'), like in italiano-'italjano', pieno-'pjeno', piove-'pjove'-to-rain, piu-'pju'-more), but also after "u", or rather "qu" or "gu" ('ue', 'ua', 'uo', 'ui'), like: qui-here ('qui'), quota-t.s. (the latter meaning the same) also as 'quota' what we as a rule don't give with indexes, or guano-t.s.; other more complex cases of consecutive Vs are read as divided (say, nuovo is 'nu|ovo', leone-lion is 'le|one', fiato-fi|ato'-breath, corridoio-'corrido|i|o'-corridor, etc.). Still, there are exceptions when is used "i" as softener, like also "h" is a "hardener", and they are not read, like in: ciao-'chao', ufficio-'ufficho'-office, chi-'ki'-who, cucchiaio-'kukkjajo'-spoon, etc., and this approach is applied also after "g" (read softly, i.e. before "e" or "i", as 'dzh', and otherwise as 'g') and "sc" (read softly as 'sh' and else as 'sk'), say in: giovane-'dzhovane'-young-man, giardino-'dzhardino'-garden, sciopero-'shopero'-strike, schiaffo-'skjaffo'-a-slap, scherzo-'skerco'-a-joke, vagheggiare-'vagedzhdzhare-to-yearn, et cetera.
As to the Cs there is nothing very special, bc. we have mentioned that "c", "g", and "sc" are read in different way depending on the next V., but it turns that "ch" there is not what we mean hear. Well, there are always some other exceptions, like that "s" in the beginning is 's' but between 2 Vs is 'z', that "gn" and "gl" is 'nj' and 'lj', that "z" sometimes is 'dz' and sometimes 'c', and maybe something else. Ah, they insist on the doubling of Cs bc. there are cases when with single C. is meant one thing and with double one — another thing. So, and now to the standard example.
Original text in It.: Qui è dato un metodo dell'autore per l'uso soltanto le lettere dell'alfabeto latino per significare come a leggere tutte le parole inglesi, e poi queste idee siano propagati per molti altri linguaggi. Tenendo in mente che l'alfabeto latino è ben noto in tutto il mondo si suppone che questo non solo darà a tutte le nazioni un comune modo per scrivere loro parole, egualmente leggibile da loro tutti, ma può anche incoraggiare molte nazioni con differenti alfabeti (come gli arabi, ebrei, indù, ecc.) a usare questa proposizione per far una buona presentazione delle loro parole accessibile a tutti. Il materiale sta sul precedente "Illiterate World" ma non è continuazione di esso, piuttosto è una alternativa delle idee li descritti. — chars with spaces 735
Transliterated It. text: Kui e dato un metodo dell'autore per l'uzo soltanto le letere dell'alfabeto latino per sinjifikare kome a ledzhere tutte le parole inglesi, e poi kueste idee siano propagati per molti altri linguagzhdzhi. Tenendo in mente ke l'alfabeto latino e ben noto in tutto il mondo si suppone ke questo non solo dara a tutte le nacioni un komune modo per skrivere loro parole, egualmente ledzhdzhibile da loro tutti, ma puo anke incoradzhdzhare molte nacioni kon differenti alfabeti (kome lji arabi, ebrei, indu, echch.) a usare kuesta propozicione per far una buona prezentacione delle loro parole achchessibile a tutti. Il materiale sta sul prechedente "Ilityrit Vhyhld" ma non e kontinuacione di esso, piuttosto e una alternativa delle idee li deskriti. — chars with spaces 746
As you see, the text looks almost the same (because in the basis of this proposition lies the Lat. alphabet), and there is insignificant increase of only 1.5% in the transliteration, what is due entirely to the char. "g"-'dzh', which in addition to all is doubled. Yeah, but here I like to show you how good the text will look in Bul. alphabet, though you are not supposed to know it, but then you can believe me that I will not lie to you. The result is that the number of chars remains the same as in It.
Transliterated It. text in Cyrillic and with Bulgarian phonetics: Куи е дато ун методо делл'ауторе пер л'узо солтанто ле летере делл'алфабето латино пер синьификаре коме а леджере тутте ле пароле инглези, е пои куесте идее сиано пропагати пер молти алтри лингуаджджи. Тенендо ин менте ке л'алфабето латино е бен ното ин тутто ил мондо си суппоне ке куесто нон соло дара а тутте ле национи ун комуне модо пер скривере лоро пароле, егуалменте леджджибиле да лоро тутти, ма пуо анке инкораджджаре молти национи кон дифференти алфабети (коме льи араби, ебреи, инду, ечч.) а узаре куеста пропозиционе пер фар уна буона презентационе делле лоро пароле, аччессилибе а тутти. Ил материале ста сул пречеденте "Илитърит Вхълд" ма нон е континуационе ди ессо, пьутосто е уна алтернатива делле идее ли дескрити. — chars with spaces 733.
4.5. The French language
Well, this language I don't know at all, I have only some vague ideas about the reading of their words, which, although much more strict than in the Eng., are still bad enough to be followed, so that I am glad that this lang. came down from the scene in the end of 20th century. Not that I don't like this lang., I like it, but it just isn't civilized, it sounds like in the jungle, it may be used, say, to curse in it, or, then, to be spoken at home, to children (they would like it, I suppose), or in pubs, but not in the open and surely not wide around the world (as it was in 18th and 19th centuries). But let us look at the lets a bit more precisely.
They have the same 5 basic Vs (without 'y'), and use "y" as usual 'i' like in the Eng. They simulate diphthongs as "ai" and "ei", which both are read as 'e', also "ou" is simple 'u' bc. "u" is 'ju' again similarly to the Eng. But they have open and closed syllables and then the open ones are more or less the same, i.e. the single "o" and "e" are the same and "oe" is 'oe'; and then the closed are as follows: "o" is Md 'uo', "e" is Md 'ie' (practically like in the Rus., though it comes from the old Greek), and "oe" is 'ue'. Still, there are more problems bc. they write "oe", open and closed (i.e. 'oe' and 'ue'), as "eu" or "oeu", then "au" and "eau" are used for the single "o", closed and as 'uo' (bur as if sometimes open and as 'o'); then "oi" is 'ua', "-aille" (5 chars!) is '-ai', "-eille" is '-ei'. Then "e" more often than not is not read, but sometimes it is; and they have the same Ger. "ie" (what has to be Lat.) bit read it as 'i|e' (like derrière-'deri|er' what is a bottom, that's why I have remembered it) and bc. it can be confused with the closed "e" (as in santé-'santie'-health) it has to be written with this dividing streak (although this is not so important). But they have three kinds of strokes above the Vs neither of which is a stress, and each one means something.
And as to the Cs the things are more or less easy, their "ch" is 'sh', and "j" is 'zh'. Then there comes something similar to the It.. with the "c" and "g", but the soft ones are 's' and 'zh' respectively (the hard ones are again 'k' and 'g'). Further, "gn" is 'nj', but "gu" is just 'g', "qu" is just 'k', "h" is again not read, but there is not "ch" to harden the now 's' and they put something like a comma below the let. (say, garçon). And their "r" must be written as 'rh' bc. they like to gargle, rinse their throats very often; on the other hand, as far as this is always so, we may miss the "h" and write only 'r'. All in all, maybe the ... crazy Eng. way of reading is, still, some simplification of the even more crazy way of the French?
Ah, and their traditional nasal sounds, about which we have said something before, may be written as '-ang', and '-eng' but there is no need to write in 4 different ways the sound '-ang'. On a further thought, though, I decided that in honour of the Fr. we can use one of the 3 left Ms, namely "q" (it looks like a nose, a?), and only this after the V., to mark the Fr. nasals (say: the garçon will become 'garsoq', the session will be 'sesioq', the meeting-rendez-vous will be 'raqde-vu', or the enter-entrée — 'aqtre'). And though I don't know this lang. I will give you some version made with the use of internet translators, which are not so bad if one gives to them small portions of logically completed words, try the translations in several langs, and use some intuition to avoid blunders (which sometimes occur). It is good to see this bc. the important thing is the transliteration and if the words are grammatically right then this will do; I surely will make errors also there, but let us hope they will be not many.
Original text in Fr.: Ici est donnée une méthode de l'auteur pour utiliser seulement les lettres de l'alphabet latin pour signifier comment à lire tous les mots anglais, et ensuite ces idées sont étendu à de nombreuses autres langues. En tenant compte que l'alphabet latin est bien connu dans le monde entier il est supposé que ce non seulement donnera toutes les nations une voie commune pour écrire de leurs mots, également lisible par tous d'elles, mais peut aussi encourager de nombreux pays avec différents alphabets (comme les Arabes, Hébreux, Hindous, etc.) d'utiliser cette proposition pour faire une bonne présentation de leurs mots accessibles à tous. Le matériel se tient sur la précédente "Monde analphabète", mais non est une continuation de celui, il est plutôt une alternative aux idées qui y sont décrits. — chars with spaces 799
Transliterated Fr. text: Isi e donie un mietod de l'otoer pur jutilizie soelmaq le lietr de l'alfabie lateq pur sinjifi|e komaq a lir tu le mot aqgle, e aqsjuit sez idie soq ietaqdu a de noqbroes otr laqge. Aq tenaq coqpt ke l'alfabie lateq e bieq konu daq le moqd aqti|e il e sjupozie ke se noq soelmaq donera tut le nasioq jun vuae komjun pur iekrir de loer mot iegalmaq lizibl par tu d'el, ma pue osi aqkorazhe de noqbroe pei avek difieraqt alfabie (kom lez Arab, Iebrue, Indu, ets.) d'jutilize set propozicioq pur fer jun bon priezentasioq de leur mot asesibl a tu. Le matieriel se tien sjur la priesiedent "Moqd aqalfabet", me noq e jun koqtinjuasioq de seljui, il e pljuto jun alternativ uo idie ki i soq diekrit. — chars with spaces 694
As you can see the original text is with 14% longer than in Eng. (799 / 703), what isn't so important (in Ger. the text also has risen, even more than this), but my transliteration reduces its length with 15% (799 / 694), what says (bc. my errors surely will not change these results with more than one-two percents) that my idea is even more suitable for the Fr. lang. than for the Eng., if the Fr. wanted this, but I'm afraid that they don't want this. What they want is to simplify the spoken words, but retaining the written as long as possible, and how they will decode the proper words I can hardly imagine — this isn't correct, this is hypocritical, this is — sorry, my Fr. readers — simply barbarous. But that's the French. There are many cases when I curse the Eng. for writing one phoneme in several ways, but the Fr. win the contest unquestionable (if there is such contest, of course).
4.6. Other languages
As you know well there are many other langs but when the Eng. and the Fr. are done the others will not pose special problems. I would have liked to give here also something about the Spanish, but let me not be tortured by this bc. it should not be much different from the It. (phonetically there are differences, but not big ones, and grammatically all Lat. langs are similar). Then there is also the Greek, but phonetically it is more restricted than the It., and will be done more easily, I suppose. Then there are also the Scandinavian (Scan. for short) langs where are many sharp sounding Vs, but they must be either Md (and there are no other basic Vs than what we use here and we can modify each with each), and /or comb-d (diphthongs) in which case we also write the chars consecutively, and /or are simply adjacent lets, so there is nothing new. There are also the Japanese and the (funny, in my view) Chinese (shorten to Chi.), and there are also sharp sounds (but we have not used till now Md 'oi', 'ui', 'ua', 'ao', and others), yet all people have the same phonetic organs, they can't be really much different. And the Ar. and Skr. I have had somehow in mind, they are, still Indo-European langs.
And don't forget that we have other free Ms, "q" is used only in the Fr., it may have different meaning in the Chi., and there remain also "x" and "w", they can be used; there can even be 2 or 3 modifiers joined (only 2 different chars are enough to write each, however big, number or char., and if we use "h" as "0" and "j" as "1" we can have binary numbers of modifiers — say, 'ahjh' may be some Scan. V., or 'eqh' be something Chi. or whatever). So that my idea is powerful; the point is not to make the things excessively complicated and after some minor practice everyone has to be in condition to guess roughly how the given word is to be pronounced. But this is very important nowadays bc. one just can't read properly some name or geographical place, and now the world more and more becomes one country and this is a necessity. I have told in the beginning that my idea is not to force people to transliterate their whole dictionaries, this will be funny for many langs, and tedious, and also bad approach — the right one is to use better alphabet, say, the Cyr., where exist at least 'sh', 'ch', and 'zh' as single chars, and 'j' as soft sign, I have mentioned this, or even better if a new alphabet will be made for all, like it is described in "Ill.W." But this approach can be something temporary, for a pair of centuries. And it is always good to have other alternative.
5. Short user's guide for the proposition
This must be relatively short point where I will put succinctly how each of the used chars are to be coded, and how to make the usual, but also new ones, combinations of chars to signify every sound that one may pronounce. I intend to copy this piece where I will use this transliteration so that I will repeat some things of the said above in the material, but this will be also another approach to the clarifying of the things.
Firstly the Latin (Lat. for short) alphabet is purified using each letter for only one sound, what means that "c" becomes 'c' and 'k', "g" becomes 'g' and 'zh', "y" is freed (with using of the "i"), as also "q" (substituted with the 'k'), "x" (changed to 'ks'), and "w" (it isn't used in the Lat.). In addition are introduced "h" and "j" as modifiers (M. /Ms), where "h" is M. for the vowels (Vs), used for prolongation (to 1.5 sounds approximately), and also for consonants (Cs), used to harden their sounding (like 'th', 'gh', etc.) , and "j" is M. for Vs, used to build diphthongs (shorten to diph., usually written as "ai" or "io" etc.), and of Cs, used for softening of their sounding (like in the Sp. for Spanish cañon); when there is a necessity to write "h" as readable char then 'hh' is to be used (if in the given lang. for language may arise confusion). As you have seen, the double quotes are used for direct quotation of chars, and the single ones for this new transliteration, and in this manner it also shows how the chars are to be pronounced.
Then is introduced one new basic V., in addition to the usual "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u", which is coded with 'y' and sounds like in Eng. (for English) "girl". In addition to the basic Vs we may have also Md (for modified) what means that one begins to tell one sound but ends with saying another one; examples for this are: the Lat. "ae" (like in "back") and "oe" (used mainly in the Fr. for French), but also many others, like: 'ya' as in "but", "yi" (this is Rus. for Russian eri, as in myi-we etc.), Fr. 'uo', 'io', Fr. and Rus. etc. 'ie', and whatever you want; mark though that here can't be used "j" bc. it isn't V. Then there can be also diphs, mainly with "j", like 'jo', 'ja', aj', uj', etc. (the examples are obvious and in other langs they are usually written using "i"), but also how one wishes, like in: 'iy' (as in 'niy'-near), 'aey' (as in 'paey'-pear), 'ou', 'au', etc.; there can be triphthongs, too, like 'auy' (as in 'tauy'-tower), 'aiy', etc., but they are better to be thought as two syllables (like in Ger. for German 'bau|y'-Bauer). As the basic, so also the Md Vs, as well as the diphs, can be prolonged adding "h" after them (like in 'gyhl'-girl, 'fah'-far, 'suhn'-soon, 'mjuhzik'-music', etc.). If one wants to make the way of combining the Vs indisputable one has to use subscripts for the Md Vs (like in 'byat'-but, 'blaek'-black, 'myi'-Rus.-we, 'paey'-pear, etc.), and /or superscripts for the diphs (like in 'boj'-boy, Ger. name 'Johanes', 'grou'-grow, 'taun'-town, 'tauy'-tower, etc.), and /or put between the Cs "|" or "-" to signify that they are not to be joined (say, like in Lat. pi|ano), but usually this is rarely necessary because every lang. permits, either simple combining of Vs read separately, or modifying or making of diphs.
As to the Cs, there are used all usual ones, with the following remarks: 'c' is like in Caesar, or Ger. Zahn-toot), "h" is written like 'hh' when read (with exception of beginning but still somehow read "h" like in Ger. 'haben'-haben-have), "k" is 'k', hence "ck" is 'kk', "q" is written with 'k', "r" may be sometimes given as 'rh' or even 'rj' (but if it is equally read in the given lang. only 'r' suffices), "v" is 'v' (so Ger. "w" is changed to 'v'), the Eng. "w" is written as 'vh', "x" is 'ks', 'z' is like in "zero", then 'sh' is like in "shop", 'ch' is like in "church, 'zh' is like in "measure" or Fr. jour-day, 'th' and 'dh' are the same like in the Eng., "ph" is not used in new langs and changed to 'f', in some langs may be met also 'bh', 'gh', etc., the Eng. "j" is 'dzh', and is added usage of "j" as softening sign after Cs (like in Sp. 'kanj|on').
So that is it. Don't forget that this is method for writing of the words how they are read, so that if there are several ways for writing of one phoneme then confusions may happen, the responsibility for which take the very lang. It is lang. specific, but except of this it is still universal for every lang., and the Lat. alphabet is well known. Well, use it better, that is what I propose.
6. Singing laudations
Now I suppose that you are just bound to sing laudations for this brilliant proposition, aren't you? Even I myself may join you and sing together the following verse:
It's now a big temptation
For people of all nations
To Myrski just laudations
To sing for his creation
Of this transliteration.
I mean, the opera deserves it, and I may sing laudations with everybody else bc.: who is Myrsky? He is real person, yes, but the name is invented (as something coming from Rus. mir as world, i.e. I am a person who speaks to the whole world, a world author who defends no special interests and sticks to no concrete nation). And I may also sometimes be the real me, and sometimes be (the well known around the world, a?) Myrski, you see how twisted it is, don't you? Well, after so much reading of serious things I think the reader deserves some refreshing of the air, some fun, and I give it to him (or her) using the (familiar for me) name of Myrski. That is how it is.
But if more seriously, the point is that I am not a well known etymologist (though I have done much serious research in the field of meanings of the words around the world, of the human psychology expressed in the words — I mean my Urrh, of course), and what I have proposed might have been proposed by many other specialists in the area, yet it is not done (maybe there are similar propositions, I don't know, I've no time to check this in my age, but there is no world alphabet, and no unified way of using of the Lat., or whichever other, alphabet for all nations). And I'll tell you why this is so, why no other comes to my unique ideas (not only in this field). This is bc. I am working as, how I have named myself once, intelligent laic, i.e. one who can think but is not hampered by the canons of the field in which he (or she) works. And in my view it turns that this is very important and may be fruitful (though there always remains the problem how to bring the ideas to the masses). Bc., especially in the etymological field, every scientist with name will defend his lang. and country and will never come to such crazy idea to use one alphabet for many entirely different langs, he will recognize easily that this is utopia!
Yeah, that is how it is, this is something similar to the ancient parable about the Babylonian tower, though I am not speaking about one lang., only about one alphabet. This is so bc. people want first to differ from the others, and only then to think that something may be made common (usually based on something of their own, what for that reason is bound to be good — to give just as an example the fact that the Indo-European langs are called in Ger. Indo-German; or, then, that the Turkish coffee in Greece is called Greek coffee). And if one has already a name in a given field he will only lose it proposing such utopias. Well, I lose nothing, and the world may win something by my propositions; and I also fill in this way my time with creative occupation. And also sing laudations to myself, which nobody else can allow himself to sing. So that I am glad. And that some pigs don't like to eat pearls, this is true, but it is true also that one never knows what the "pigs" want. One has to try; what if they will begin to like pearls (they are shining, and one may ... roll them with his piggy nose, right?). So that I am trying. I may try to make also other proposition in the field of langs. If I will live long enough.
July 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria