A note about vowels in different languages. 1

Daddy daddy will you shut up, I am doing some vowel analysis here. Vowel son? Yea, as you see a in Daddy, is that same as a as in Ma, or a as in pita? Nope. Thats what I am trying to explain here.

There are some so called vowels in Indian languages that are actually not vowels strictly speaking but conjugated phonetics and a mixation eg with English.

Vowels should be 5 strictly enough a, e, i, o, u. ( — and not say ~17 as in case of Indian languages, a fact mentioned years ago, on this website with extensive detailed analysis)

How then these vowels are rendered for pronunciation?

A pronunciation is a phonetic rendering of any alphabetic element. How many elements are there, as a starter: consonant, vowel, conjugated consonants, conjugated vowels, arbitrary phonetics, mixation-from-other-language. Also note that there are rules in place how to conjugate, an advance language like Japanese does not allow all combinations, reducing its actual alphabet to 46 elements.

In one variant its called as HIRAGANA, an alphabet set used for native PHONETICS ( — that is how language elements as mentioned above are spoken) and in THE other variant called as KATAKANA, the alphabet set used for foreign phonetics, so as not to mix phonetics. Its like two store houses for grains. Japanese mind is disciplined since 1000s of years given to their dissociating from the mighty parent clans and forming their own colonies in the mid of the deepest part of earth’s Ocean. S

Since there is a 1-1 correspondence of phonetics and transliteration rules the Hiragana and Katakana merely serve as visual partners serving two different purposes. Katakana welcomes the guest to house and Hiragana spanks them.

Then there is KANJI the thousands of visual scriptographs which are symbols with different meaning under different contexts but an underlying unity of understanding thats so vast that it should be researched, a leg of my sojourn in this direction also exists in this website. Kanji is originally Chinese and exists in many different parts of Asia.

Lets ask the question again, How vowels are rendered for pronunciation, Differently in different language.

( — The rendering is called as transliteration rules, eg if 1) a is said as a as in Apple or 2) a as in saw 3) a as in Asia or 4) a as in Daddy. They are 4 different transLIT rules hence 4 types of phonetic rendering of the same alphabetic-element a, a fact is used differently in different language. Similarly e fact is used differently, examples: e as in episode or e as in pen or e as in Pythagorean etc.)

Then a language is supposed to strictly define all these rules. In imitating English eg Indian languages have perhaps forgotten this basic notion and produced an immensely complex version of their own. There is therefore absolutely no point in objecting to use of English, anywhere. The thing that sucks about English is “they” are often not explicitly claiming that English likes to hide its rules, when English gets spoken enough the rules become clear, a fact immensely inconvenient for non-natives.

These different transliteration rules producing different possible phonetics when seen in context of only 5 and 5 elements of vowels wisely chosen are called VOWEL RULES.

Then there would be vowel conjugation rules, eg how exactly and what are the restrictions for a particular vowel to be conjugated to another consonant and another vowel. Japan does chose only 5 vowels, no less no more, explicit and implicit. India has more than 15 explicit rules and so many implicit rules, this better be reduced before we produce 500 languages in next 50 years.

Of-course Japan further restricts the vowel definitions by restricting exactly how they are conjugated, they are called eg o-don or i-don depending on i-vowel or o-vowel. In-fact don is what would be called dhwani in Indian and ton in English. Phonetically perhaps he same word with same meaning. But India does not restrict its vowels to 5 and does not further restrict the flow of vowels in a word, at-least not so far. This produces arbitrary language tracts which swells like a monster over time.

eg a/Japanese would be aa/Indian, with purportedly different pronunciation.

(its the same vowel a, as defined above, a/Japanese and aa /Indian is the a in Apple)

The aa/Indian is same as a/Japanese but the a/Indian is actually aw/Any-Language. (so not restricting the vowel causes whats called degeneracy or spreading of one rule into multiple)

(Any-Language would simply mean English, if another language does not have an aw phonetics eg Japanese does NOT have an aw phonetics)

Also note that India (Indian languages) defines a (actually aw of eg LawSaw etc) and aa (same as Japanese-Hepburn a) both as vowels, which I consider a crucible mistake.

So, India has allowed its vowels to degenerate, that is, assume different roles under different circumstances, hence like a bifurcated hair, an unhealthy feature. Apply shikakai and stop your hair from bifurcating.

Consequences: So happily Japanese people can write a = aa but ask us Indians to do that. We will feign with anger and madness of an incomprehensibility of our grandiose culture. How dare you not understand that the world comes from more towards less, than from less towards more, you science morons? A single hair is possible because two bifurcated threads or two different hairs have merged over time , due to a MOU between both of them to live in peace? And not the other way around, you unification morons.

My view; although I am a unification moron; a hair splits into two. A vowel splits into two? Hellow. And that should be restricted by shikakai or a vowel rule which ever is necessary.

The Indian system redefines the a as aw eg as found in Law. So a = aw. But aa = AApple because a = apple. The us Indians then invalidate English as a language, which we simply can’t tolerate, but now we are against the might of nature, the laws of maths are the ones inscribed into facts of nature and not the laws and rules of our fancy and whim. Sorry, time we change our attitude, than ask nature to change its. A reason why Indian (language) do not write a = aa. Now they are two things and not one. Thats also like violating the Einstein’s E = m.c.square if you do not happen to like it.

SO, a/Indian  conjugates to all consonants (of Indian/language) as in (N)aw, (M)aw, (B)aw etc and India says its a vowel. Note; N, M, B here are consonants and there are maximum 26-5 = 21, from their Roman correspondence. So all more than that consonants that we claim in our ALPHABETS are what would be conjugated consonants or mixed or not-modernized elements. Then “India” says something as aa another vowel (while a/aa are actually or ideally: same). In case of India, Universe has bifurcated, one to our whim and the other to our fancy.

But English knows better, it simply calls 5 vowels, conjugates, but has perhaps a hideous vowel and consonant rules which only the natives would know from spoken traditions. Which may also be the same reason why Indians claim emphatically Indian language transmit from a spoken tradition of language called Sanskrit, without any rules written. But I think its merely a syncretic effort, and our language is simply a mixation of other’s (and our) rules.

The (l)aw/(n)aw vowel is NOT defined in Japanese. But this is defined in Odia and all Indian languages actually.

In-fact its unnecessary from modern perspective but we keep it, like many other things.

So my name would be maw-n-mo-haw-n, as per my native rules, and not exactly Japanese translit: ma-n-mo-ha-n, or Indian translit: Manmohan(=maw-n-mo-haw-n, equal because understood). But this Manmohan (how I write my name) in Japanese, can’t be written, because there is no a = aw vowel in Japan but a = aa vowel only. And my name in Indianic is not Maa-n-mo-haa-n. IN-fact given that the rules will not be correctly understood and mixed its not Only Japanese that will not understand my name properly, but also the native-English-people. They will say most likely as Manmohan as per them, but taken as myaa-n-mo-hyaa-n as it would become in Indian translit rules.

I would be totally lost in translation, which is perhaps my fate so far in life.

One comment

  1. Pingback: a new step in number theory « Invariance Publishing House, mdashfoundation

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s