Myrski's English Transliteration
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.
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