Allohistorical convergence pet peeves

[charl]

But knowing the Japanese credible.. thanks for the tips(but that means if a germanic/scandinavian state make colony we stilll gona have Korea with K, even in Spanish I still write Korea with K than C)

And in Hurgan Mind Poland meand: playgroun of Germany and Russia

This is true. The whole spelling Korea with a C thing is only really applicable to English. In Scandinavian languages spelling it with a C just couldn't ever make any sense (and our language at least try to make our spelling make sense, unlike English). AFAIK it's the same with German and Dutch, and probably quite a few European languages that uses Latin script for their alphabet.

C is a bit of an unnecessary "non-letter" anyway. It should have been abolished centuries ago.

 

[Lord Insane]

C is a bit of an unnecessary "non-letter" anyway. It should have been abolished centuries ago.

Actually, it could be useful in Swedish. Of course, the possible use isn't used for it to-day, but theoretically, it could be.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

This is true. The whole spelling Korea with a C thing is only really applicable to English. In Scandinavian languages spelling it with a C just couldn't ever make any sense (and our language at least try to make our spelling make sense, unlike English). AFAIK it's the same with German and Dutch, and probably quite a few European languages that uses Latin script for their alphabet.

C is a bit of an unnecessary "non-letter" anyway. It should have been abolished centuries ago.

The Corea/Korea myth assumes that the Japanese gave quite a lot more damn about the English language then they should. The language of diplomacy was then French, and Korea is still "Coree" in French.

 

[charl]

Actually, it could be useful in Swedish. Of course, the possible use isn't used for it to-day, but theoretically, it could be.

How exactly? In all languages I know of that use Latin script C is conditionally either equivalent to an S or a K. Now why do we need a letter that can be either of those when we could just use them as they are?

That said C is a very useful letter to me personally since when I transcribe my conlang C is a paleo-dental unvoiced frictive, which I otherwise would have to create some kind of symbol combination for or something (I am trying to avoid dialectic marks). So C is good for that, but when it comes to applied actually used languages C is rubbish.

 

[Lord Insane]

Those darn sj sounds, for separating them in spelling.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

So C is good for that, but when it comes to applied actually used languages C is rubbish.

As a Romanian-speaker, I have to say that it's the "c" that's useful and the "k" that's rubbish. I'm sure the Italians would agree.

 

[Gonzaga]

As a Romanian-speaker, I have to say that it's the "c" that's useful and the "k" that's rubbish. I'm sure the Italians would agree.

Those who speak Spanish, Portuguese and French would agree too.

 

[archaeogeek]

As a Romanian-speaker, I have to say that it's the "c" that's useful and the "k" that's rubbish. I'm sure the Italians would agree.

It usually marks foreign words, like ph in french (which was removed from a few arabic loan words so it now only applies to greek words).

 

[charl]

Ah. Ok, well, whether your language uses C or not, I think we can all agree that having a letter than can be two different sounds is stupid, or alternatively that having two letters that can be used to represent the same sound is superfluous.

 

[Thande]

Of course you need both a K and a C, how else can you tell which words are Anglo-Saxon and which are Norman?

 

[Hendryk]

The Corea/Korea myth assumes that the Japanese gave quite a lot more damn about the English language then they should. The language of diplomacy was then French, and Korea is still "Coree" in French.

Quite. We've called it that way all along. There has never been any question of changing the spelling. It's only something English-speakers have done, for whatever reason.

 

[Thande]

Quite. We've called it that way all along. There has never been any question of changing the spelling. It's only something English-speakers have done, for whatever reason.

I tend to attribute it to an annoying movement that feels the need to make foreign names 'look more foreign'. It's not just a post-colonialist thing as I once thought either - you notice it just in the change from the 18th to the 19th century.

 

[Fiver]

Ah. Ok, well, whether your language uses C or not, I think we can all agree that having a letter than can be two different sounds is stupid, or alternatively that having two letters that can be used to represent the same sound is superfluous.

Welcome to the English language. We have 40 sounds and only 26 letters. Every vowel and some consonants can be pronounced at least 2 ways before we get to multiletter combos. CH is not pronounced like C + H. SH is not pronounced like S + H. NG is not pronounced like N + G. TH is pronounced 2 different ways, neither sounding like T + H.

"ough" is pronounced "uff" in "tough" or "rough"
"ough" is pronounced "off" in "cough"
"ough" is pronounced "ow" in "plough"
"ough" is pronounced "owe" in "dough"
"ough" is pronounced "up" in "hicough"
"ough" is pronounced "oo" in "through"

 

[Susano]

As a Romanian-speaker, I have to say that it's the "c" that's useful and the "k" that's rubbish. I'm sure the Italians would agree.

Im not sure about Romanians, but the Italians pronounce c sometimes like k and sometimes kinda like z, IIRC, so clearly there is no well-defined use for that letter even in Italian

 

[MrP]

Im not sure about Romanians, but the Italians pronounce c sometimes like k and sometimes kinda like z, IIRC, so clearly there is no well-defined use for that letter even in Italian

C plus I: soft ch in English. C on its own: hard. English people mispronouncing Bruschetta as a ch (or Tsett) noise: confusing!

 

[Prem_Rack]

How exactly? In all languages I know of that use Latin script C is conditionally either equivalent to an S or a K. Now why do we need a letter that can be either of those when we could just use them as they are?

That said C is a very useful letter to me personally since when I transcribe my conlang C is a paleo-dental unvoiced frictive, which I otherwise would have to create some kind of symbol combination for or something (I am trying to avoid dialectic marks). So C is good for that, but when it comes to applied actually used languages C is rubbish.

Polish uses both C and K.

 

[minifidel]

From a thread in Chat: Italy is always united in the end; it doesn't matter that the South and the North were on pretty damn horrible terms, that the South and North had had separate identities for a long time, and they speak, essentially, different languages. They'll still end up united.

 

[charl]

Polish uses both C and K.

Really? What is C used to represent? My knowledge of things Polish is pretty much nil.

 

[Susano]

Really? What is C used to represent? My knowledge of things Polish is pretty much nil.

German, too, uses c and k (yes, even outside ch and sch), but c really only as remnaint, so to say. Basically, in German you can either replace it with z or k. Dunno about Polish, of course, but that European languages use both letters is not unusual. However, usually one of the two is superfluous.

 

[charl]

German, too, uses c and k (yes, even outside ch and sch), but c really only as remnaint, so to say. Basically, in German you can either replace it with z or k. Dunno about Polish, of course, but that European languages use both letters is not unusual. However, usually one of the two is superfluous.

Well, that's why I asked. I don't know anything about the Polish language whereas I'm familiar with German.