C stands for the phoneme "ts". Pretty much all Slavic languages have six or more S-like phonemes (s, š, ts, tš, z, ž etc.)Really? What is C used to represent? My knowledge of things Polish is pretty much nil.
C stands for the phoneme "ts". Pretty much all Slavic languages have six or more S-like phonemes (s, š, ts, tš, z, ž etc.)Really? What is C used to represent? My knowledge of things Polish is pretty much nil.
C stands for the phoneme "ts". Pretty much all Slavic languages have six or more S-like phonemes (s, š, ts, tš, z, ž etc.)
I noticed that there was a lot of those in my brief study of Bulgarian. Wouldn't Polish be better off spelled with Cyrillic letters, that can accurately portray all those sounds without resorting to all those horrible dialectic marks?
We spent the latter half of the 19th century trying to explain it to them, but they just wouldn't listen.
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.
They're going to stay disunited in my TL, even in 1995. But Italy will consist of only 3 countries by then, so don't expect any insane balkanization or the "Italy must stay disunited" cliché. The only reason why it's not fully united in my TL is because there's still a Kingdom of Naples in the south, even in the late 20. century.![]()
Just because naples exists does not mean that they could be annexed by a North Italian power,Norther italy has an advantage over southern Italy.
C stands for the phoneme "ts". Pretty much all Slavic languages have six or more S-like phonemes (s, š, ts, tš, z, ž etc.)
Speaking of Korea, one thing that I have found retrospectively dubious is the fact that in a fair number of post-1900 timelines, an alternate North Korea or a Communist United Korea is almost inevitably run by Kim Il Sung. As I am currently reading a biography on the man and the history of the country in general, I have realized that is not necessarily true at all.
Kim Il Sung had enough trouble in the early stages gaining respect in OTL, being seen as too young and as a puppet for Moscow. A political mis-step in a crucial early point could have been devastating to his political capital, and allowed a rival to step in.
One of the most important early Communist figures was Pak Honyong, but his fatal flaw was that his organization was based in Seoul. In a United Korea under the Communists, he is much more likely to have entered into a leadership role before Kim Il Sung could establish a personality cult.
What's more, a United Korea would have more ideological diversity. The Korean war saw the polarization of both the North and the South, with moderates suffering on both sides. Though rightists would likely succumb in a Communist United Korea, the moderates would have greater numbers and may have to be brought into the government, with individuals such as Kim Gu and Cho Manshik ("Korea's Gandhi".)
As modern North Korea in many ways has been largely shaped by the Kim personality cult, alternatives where Kim Il Sung did not achieve absolute power would have different natures and temperaments (Pak Honyong preferred a USSR-style elite Party rather than a mass party system, for example).
The consequences of a unified Korea would be a bit more interesting as absent the DMZ and militarization what happens in the event of the implosion of the USSR becomes a very good question.
There would still be militarization, it would simply be with an eye on Japan (and maybe China too) rather than South Korea. I would expect Chinese intervention if it looks like the communist regime is about to be lose power; Beijing didn't have a Sinatra Doctrine in 1989.
And on the subject of Korea, why is it always taken over by the Japanese, instead of managing to somehow prevent Japanese annexation. Korea was actually modernizing at a similar pace as Japan, so preventing the annexation would be an easy way to make ones timeline distinctive.
There would still be militarization, it would simply be with an eye on Japan (and maybe China too) rather than South Korea. I would expect Chinese intervention if it looks like the communist regime is about to be lose power; Beijing didn't have a Sinatra Doctrine in 1989.
Many believed that Japanese democracy would be unable to sustain the threat of a fully Communist Korea, and there would be a rapid return to militarism and dictatorship. That would probably push Korea and China together quite handily.
If Communist Korea is not run by Kim Il-Sung, and it doesn't have to worry about the whole rivalry-with-the-South thing, it might end up more like a normal socialist-bloc country, for good or ill.
Many believed that Japanese democracy would be unable to sustain the threat of a fully Communist Korea, and there would be a rapid return to militarism and dictatorship. That would probably push Korea and China together quite handily.
Which would also probably trigger another military dictatorship in Japan. I wonder what the USA does in this scenario, does it accept this like it did with the likes of Mobutu or does it try to halt it?
Which leaves the question of what the United States does in this scenario given that it would turn out the only thing 4 years of WWII did was to put the same kind of people back in power.