PURE PHONETICAL Language

Pater Noster - Our Father in Latin

A perfect example of how a phonetic language should be! What you hear is what you write down and vice versa.

Click to watch the video, listen and read the latin text.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hWE52zsOaA

All major languages should reform the spelling for an easy life:
withot mistieks and ddoouubbllee eorrs

Beautiful language, very easy to read, but very difficult grammar!

yeah, in latin every letter in pronounced, from the first to the last, clearly and no silent letters or mushy-machy sounds like in English, or crazy mispronounced endings like in french, crazy groups of letters that sound nothing like the spelling, crazy rules and so on.

H is silent in Latin or not?

H is H in LATIN - IT IS NOT SILENT

This text below (see link) has phonetical instructions for English speakers! That is mad, its like transcribing a pure phonetic language using non-phonetic writing so people can pronounce it phonetically.

You dont need to transcribe Latin Phonetically. Latin is already Phonetic as is!

DOMINUS TECUM transcribed into
Doh- mee-noos Teh-koom. what a mess!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGVMWsAZ8E&NR=1

What?? But there is no such thing as proper Latin pronunciation, correct? People just pronounce it as though they were speaking their native language.

"People just pronounce it as though they were speaking their native language."

Yeah that means phonetic. You write down as you pronounce it.

So Latin had no dialects, or did latin spelling vary from area to area depending on the local dialect?

This is the big problem with phonetic spelling. In English, there'd be hundreds fo differently-spelled dialects.

> A perfect example of how a phonetic language should be! What you hear is what you write down and vice versa.

It's not perfect. You didn't notice the groups "qui", "quo", "cae", "ce", "rr" and "tt" in your example.
Those can be confusing, so sorry, but Latin writing is not perfectly phonetical. Probabily Greek was/is?

> A perfect example of how a phonetic language should be! What you hear is what you write down and vice versa.

Latin is not phonetic since it doesn't differentiate short and long vowels.
Ancient Greek was phonetic. It distinguished 'o mikron' from 'o mega' for example. Unfortunately nobody knows how it was really pronounced because the pronunciation of accents (which were three and marked in writing) was lost.
Modern Greek preserve ancient orthography thus it's not phonetic.

"qui", "quo", "cae", "ce", "rr" and "tt" - these are some rules, you have to learn, the rest is phonetic, because the Latin alphabet (inspired from greek alphabet ) was especially designed for the Latin language.

Also Cyrillic alphabet languages are phonetic, since the Cyrillic was especially designed to suit the Slavic language. The other Non-Latin languages adopted the Latin alphabet that did not match the spoken language, so they had to modify it big time, resulting in a non-phonetic mess.

It all relates to the sound of the language, if you have the Latin alphabet, and if your sounds are different than latin sounds, then you have a problem, you have to create accents, groups of sounds and other gimmicks, to recreate a sound that does not exist in Latin, and Latin alphabet.

If you have only one character per sound, and you pronounce every sound and character, than you have a phonetic language. Instead of grouping 2, 3, or 4 characters to exhibit one sound, hence creating a mess, it's better to create a brand new character (non-latin) to exhibit that specific sound.

English and French are both a mess, and nobody really knows how to spell some exotic words, unless you memorise them.

All languages with a "native alphabet" tend to be purely phonetic, examples include Greek, Latin and Norse.

PATER NOSTER : « PURE PHONETICAL Language ».

Intéressante juxtaposition d'un substantif assez vague, qui englobe {langue} & {langage} sans pouvoir les distinguer, et d'un adjectif dont, par contraste, la plus grande précision est paradoxalement ruinée par le qualificatif de pureté qui lui est étrangement accolé.

Si PATER NOSTER s'enquiert des langues **orales** (nonobstant leur adaptation graphique), la réponse est à première vue évidente : toutes les langues orales sont purement phonétiques (et avant tout phonémiques bien sûr). Sans matière phonique, pas d'oral et donc pas de langue orale. D'autre part, si la voix humaine n'émet que de la matière sonore informe, il y a de l'oral mais pas de langue car c'est la structuration abstraite des sons en phonèmes qui permet le déploiement de la parole qui, sans cette structure intangible mais bien présente, ne serait qu'un élément du bruit que produit la bouche humaine.

Si l'on transpose la question de PATER NOSTER à la LSF (et à toutes les langues des signes en général : LSQ, LSE, LIS, LGP, DGS, NGT, ÖGS, BSL, ASL, РЖЯ, PJM, HZJ etc), voilà ce que ça donnerait : « Existe-t-il des langues signées purement gestuelles ? ». La réponse est contenue dans la question.

Autre transposition : « Existe-t-il des langues écrites purement graphiques ? ». Même remarque que plus haut...

En fait la question soulevée par PATER NOSTER concerne l'optimisation de la correspondance phonème↔graphème, terme à terme. Un phonème unique doit-il être rendu par plusieurs graphèmes ? Pourquoi un graphème peut-il représenter plusieurs phonèmes ? Pourquoi la combinaison de trois graphèmes <s>, <c> & <h>, soit <sch>, peut-elle être identifiée en allemand à un seul phonème, /ʃ/, et non pas trois ? C'est pour répondre à de telles questions que l'API (alphabet phonétique international) a été inventé.

On peut également, en suivant Saussure, répondre autrement à PATER NOSTER. Aucune langue, en tant que structure abstraite distincte de la parole phonémisée ne peut être orale : la parole est orale mais la langue non. Tout comme la langue est distincte de l'écriture graphémisée et ne peut donc être écrite : l'écriture est graphique mais pas la langue. Tout comme la langue est distincte de la gestuelle chérémisée et ne peut donc être signée : le corps signant est gestuel, la langue non.

In that aspect Spanish come pretty close to its "father" Latin, unlike its other romance brothers.