FROM BULGARIAN LANGUAGE TO WORLDWIDE ALPHABET
Chris MYRSKI, 2020
[ Remark: Because on this site is impossible to perform more complicated formating of the text I use ↑i for upper index (and for powers) and ↓i for lower (e.g. A↓1↑2), what isn′t very beautiful but can be read. ]
: This is English adaptation of latest version of my ideas about worldwide alphabet going out from Bulgarian language as the better one from all Slavonic, but also other, languages. Here are given not only all basic vowels and consonants, but also all possible modifiers for making of new vowels, as well of possible consonants, and the writing of combined pronounced letters (diphthongs etc.). Together with this is given schematic, but quite thorough idea for new graphical image of all letters and modifiers, where are some pretty revolutionary (in the name of simplicity) ideas. This material now becomes the first for reading, because it is more schematic, yet for that matter more comprising, and it is the latter.
The topic of this material isn’t new for me, it has a history of more than 10 (rather 20) years and I have dedicated to it several materials, both in English and Russian, like, in the beginning “An Illiterate World”, after some time “Myrski’s English transliteration”, then a whole folder in Russian titled “Для всех СНГ-ейцев ” (“For All CIS People”, where to the theme are: “Уроки болгарского”, “Под болгарским флагом”, and “Гневное продолжение”), and later an adapted folder of the former titled “For Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus (the best world language” (where important are all things: “Bulgarian Lessons”, “Under Bulgarian Banner”, and “Down With The English (language)!”). Despite of this in the 20-th year I have squeezed nearly all this following material in one big explanatory dictionary in Bulgarian (yet under other pseudonym), and have decided that it is worth to include it also here in slightly adapted form in Russian and in English, due to the exceedingly high (according to me) importance of the problem in focus for the whole world, though primarily for the Slavs.
Probably the main reason for this, that people pay practically no attention to me is the fact that I publish myself on popular sites, not on specialized such, but the point is that there are, in principle, no sites for worldwide alphabets
(this, surely, is a narrow topic, and inter-disciplinary too). Besides, I am not certified etymologist (if there exists such education), and my main specialty is mathematics and programming, so that I am a foreign person in such circles and the people simply would have paid no attention to me also there (for they are not paid for this). But, people, from this follows that all is reduced mainly to finding of financing and setting of the question before the necessary instances, in view of what I am trying to make interested the common people, because the question touches mainly them. Well, I don’t think that “the ice will brake” while I am still alive, yet it is my duty to try to bring the question, together with my propositions, to as widely as possible mass of people, so that do not judge me too severely, but try to find time to read this paper, I have made all efforts to write it maximally laconic.
As far as this material is the last for the moment his main difference from the others is that it is more schematic and all-encompassing, so that it as if must be read as first
, and if somebody will be interested in details, he must then look at the before mentioned things, i.e. this last material must become first for all readers from now on. Although significantly shorten it is as if more straightly directed at the main goal, the creation of worldwide alphabet (based on the phonetics of Bulgarian language and Cyrillic alphabet), as well also at the taking of Bulgarian language between as possible wider circles of nations (preferably firstly between the Slavs) as standard language (no matter officially or not, because the way to other languages, in my view, goes through the Bulgarian). It is high time for other languages to shift the English language out of the undeserved forefront among the languages, and I raise the candidacy of Bulgarian, yet I stress, language
(no politics, or economy, or our habits, and so on, what are entirely different
things, to rule the world the Bulgarians neither have wished, nor are capable, when they can’t better their own state, which, with the coming of democracy, succeeded to come in the rear of the whole European Union, and has set on the path to gradual disappearance through increased emigration).
Taking into account that I do not want to use here Bulgarian, i.e. Cyrillic, chars, yet I am speaking about transliteration of all languages with Bulgarian alphabet, there might have been arisen some severe problems before me, but I have occasionally solved them before about 5 years in the mentioned “Myrski’s English transliteration”, which is good also for all languages and offers one nearly bijective transliteration. This is big material, but if very succinct the main things there are the following: all words are written as they are pronounced
(so that important are the phonemes, not the chars); some letters are thrown out of the Latin, and they are “q, w, y, x”; the words are read in some pure Latin (say in German), so that there are no English “y, j”; is added one very important vowel, which is like in English “girl” and it is marked with “y” (hence we will have ‘gyhl’, if with “h” mark the prolongation; also you may think that this i-greko becomes now i-bulgaro
!); all vowels are usually read as combined (so that diphthongs are made easily, say “man” will be ‘maen’, for the beginning); single quotes mark how is read, and double — how is written; in Bulgarian exist single chars for the usual “ch, sh, zh” but here they will be given in this way; and as if this is the most important (there are nasal vowels and other notions, but they will be cleared in their time).
1. Bulgarian language is the best of all Slavonic languages
I suppose that every non-Bulgarian will begin to dispute the above statement, and every Bulgarian will be partially non-objective, yet I, in spite of the fact that have quite incidentally come to this conclusion, simply can’t see where I can make errors — except of the very big novelty of my statement, and because of this of its utopianism — but I have approached the question from entirely non-biased and scientific positions. Under best I understand here both, its simplicity for learning, and also its offering right approach to all languages, i.e. through Bulgarian will be easy go to whatever other language (in some reasonable limits), and, as result of this, it is the most suitable as a world language
, no more and no less!
Here and further I will explain the things maximally simplified
and in many cases without the necessary justification, yet my readers are also not specialists, so that one, rather intuitive, proof will happen to be in a variety of cases quite enough (more so because in the scientific circles pretty often exist different meanings, there are simply not everywhere accepted notions — like, e.g., some speak about Indo-European languages, and others about Indo-German ones, what sounds funny enough, in the same way like the Greeks call the known all around the world Turkish coffee, Greekish). So that my purpose is to put the questions
that have to be resolved, and as to what extent I am right or not, this is another question; even if I am wrong, important is the approach, using which one can come also to another decision, i.e. it is not obligatory that the language was Bulgarian, but such in which Bulgarian language will take primary position. Let me remind also that in single quotes I give how the words are read, and in the other ones how they are written, what difference here can turn to be quite significant.
The phonetics of all languages must
have common principles, as far as all people have equally made speech apparatus, and therefore all differences are introduced on purpose, in order that the nations differ, but this differences must not change the common principles. In this direction, and going out — obviously — from my mother language, Bulgarian, I have come to the conclusion about basic, modified, and combined
, predominantly vowels, yet also consonants, and these are all
possible variants for all human languages in the world, which views I intend to explain in p.3., but for the moment important is that Bulgarian language in phonetical aspect is the most correct
one, where I have in mind (as I have motivated this above) one scientific approach. By such approach is seen that even Italian, which is taken for unquestioned paragon amongst the languages, as most melodious of all, despite of this is more complicated than Bulgarian. For example, the Italians have not pure ‘e’, theirs is a bit (not so much as the Russian one) modified ‘ie’, have not pure ‘zh’ (like in “measure”, but exists the combination ‘dzh’, equal to English “j”, only that they use the letter “g”), and have not, practically the basic vowel, ‘y’, like in “girl” — and here I have to tell you that this letter exists in Russian alphabet, yet they don’t read
it, they find it unpronounceable, but they have something wide worse
than it, one really donkey sound, their so called “eri”, which they use very often, and it is built like modification of ‘y’ to ‘i’, i.e. ‘yi’ and it is the sound ‘eryi’, say, in their ‘myi’-we or ‘tyi’-you, which sound is more difficult and not pure basical and for that reason they can never learn to speak good Bulgarian, or also English, for that matter —, what means that there are words, that can’t be written correctly in Italian, but in Bulgarian this is possible and easy. Bulgarian phonetics is characterized with this, that we have all basic vowels
(they are 6 in my view), practically all basic consonants, including the warm ‘zh, ch, sh’ and in one
letter, and this, what we do not use (compared with the Russian), but have letters for it, is only the so called “soft sign” used for softening of the previous letter (like in Spanish canyon) and put after each
possible consonant, as well also some guttural sounds (‘gh’, ‘bh’, ‘ph’, etc., what can be imitated via “h”); we have also not nasal sounds, but they can be marked at least with “n” after the vowel. Further, modified vowels (as well consonants) we do not have, but the Russians, for example, have such, their “eri”, which is obvious modification (even without giving of exact definition of this, what we will do in p.3). And also even with the combined vowels in Bulgarian all is much more economical, where we use chiefly those with ‘j’ — but not in English reading, to remind you — (‘aj’, ‘jo’, and others), yet we are wide away from severe cases like French or English.
This is very important, because the more complicated is built from the simple, not vice versa (and for this reason, to give an example, the Russians can never speak good English, because they can not separate the sound ‘y’, they pronounce ‘gjorl’ instead of ‘gyhl’-girl). More than this, we have no difficult combinations (or rather consequences, series) of letters, like, e.g., Russian ‘uju’, ‘aja’, ‘jaja’, and others, and this simplifies the pronunciation; have also no elongated vowels (which exist in Roman languages as inheritance from the Sanskrit, and for this reason they exist also in the Gypsy), have no choking consonants, no unpronounceable accumulations of consonants (like ‘sprsk’, or ‘ndrzh’, and others). These are obvious things, but no nation cares about this, that its language is difficult, and even is proud with this; only that when it goes about popularization of a given language between other nations the things don’t look so, then the simplicity is of primary importance.
1.2. Grammar, cases
Well, here is simply nothing to say, because we have not cases! There existed one vocative case (when we call the name of a person), that both, is very easy (when it can be built, because this is not always possible), and is now almost not used. Naturally there exist other languages without grammar cases, such are all Roman ones (i.e. Italian, French, and possibly Spanish and Portuguese), in the Arab there are as if two or three, in the German they are 4, but in all other Slavonic languages — I have checked this for 5-6 of them — they exist, and they are 6, and in some places even 7, only not in the Bulgarian (and in Hungarian, I don’t know how this is possible, but they were there about 20). The cases require thinking in advance, preparing to what you want to say, there the endings are changed, they become very many, this is difficult to learn, there are a heap of completely
(really completely) unnecessary ideas related with the transitive or intransitive verbs and with the movement or staying, that change radically the endings, but such things in Bulgarian do not exist. So that if I am not wrong in my statement about Slavonic languages it turns out that, at least for all Slavs, the Bulgarian is the easiest and best language, but they come up to about half a billion people! As far as the Bulgarians are Slavs they guess about the cases, when they listen to other Slavonic languages, but for a person from the West this is not so. Besides, when I look at computer translators, then they understand pretty well phrases also with wrong usage of cases, and when so, then this is one more proof that the cases are redundant. I even don’t know, if they must be eliminated, how is better to approach the matter, either little by little (say, to make them first 4, like in the German), or take them away all at once (like this have done the Latins), probably the latter, but one may argue about this.
1.3. Grammar, tenses and verbs
Here, compared with the other Slavs, there is nothing new in the Bulgarian, yet for other nations there could be problems. Then the most messed up in a variety of aspects English language has the simplest tenses, but in the Latin languages there is a tragedy in this sense, there (in Italian) are whole 14
tenses (not counting passive voice, the ways for expressing of continuing actions, modalities, etc.), where in this number only the past ones are 5
. And here for me the important thing is the number of tables
with the forms of verbs, not tenses which are built with adding of some word which is one and the same for all persons and numbers, such things can exist, yet they don’t make the learning of the language more difficult. And in Bulgarian tables exist only in 2 occurrences, for the present tense and for the past tense; the future is built with adding of the particle ‘shte’-will and is not counted; we have also past tense with the particle ‘bjah’ or ‘bil’, where the first is used when the speaker is sure in the said, while the second is when he was not present at the moment and because of this is not sure (this as if was so), so that there is a difference between ‘az’-I ‘bjah hodil’ (where ‘hodja’ is to go) and ‘toj’-he ‘beshe hodil’, but this is modality (in the German there are 6 modal verbs, where we have practically not a single). This, what can confuse a person from the West (a non-Slav), is the existence not of continuous or not tenses, but of imperfect and perfect verbs
(we call them not-finished and finished ones), but here the things must also be not very difficult due to the usual suffixes (‘-ava’ and others), as also prefixes (for example, ‘rabotja’-to-work is short, ‘izrabotja’-to-work-out is again short and with this is stressed the oneness of the action, but ‘izrabotva
m’-to-work-out-repeatedly is longer and with this as if is stressed that the things do not end in this moment); in any vase, I have never have such problems.
In recompense of this we have no conjugation using the verb haben
(like it is in German), have no, but entirely, irregular verbs (there are here and there some exceptions with some very short verbs, yet this is in order to be able to pronounce them somehow; i.e. we have, to give an example, no
gam’ for the verb ‘bjagam’-to-run, or something of the kind). We have not even gluing of reflexive particle to the verb (like it is in Russian, where they say, e.g., ‘vozvrashchaetsja’ for to return him- (or whoever) self, we say ‘se vryshta’), what can be observed even as small drawback, because else it becomes shorter. Ah, something more, in the Bulgarian there is even no … infinitive, we say: the verb ‘rabotja’-to-work and ‘az’-I ‘rabotja’-work (what isn’t so in the Russian), i.e. we have one verbal form less. And we can build modalities as we like (what is so also in the Russian), for example: I think to do something, I intend to do it, I would have done it, it would have been good when, and so on, but without patterns. ( And by this I don’t compare with “crazy” languages like the English, where are violated even commonly accepted grammatical categories
, are confused verbs with nouns, or there are entirely missing genders, or they have equal forms for several persons, and because of this arises necessity to use often pronouns, or they heap 4-5 additional qualifiers to a given noun, which are also nouns, and other perversities; but we have not the other extremity, that there was not possible to move how one wants the words in the sentence, like it is in the German; i.e. I compare with one hypothetical average language, where exists rather something easier from a given basic set of languages, than the more complicated. )
1.4. Grammar, genders
Here the things in Bulgarian are also practically nice (what is a rule for the Slavonic languages, with minor exceptions, for example, where exist softening sign in the Russian, because such nouns can be of both genders), and the genders is not necessary to learn specially, they are established by the endings, where in the Western languages it is not so (if we do not count the English, where the total absence of genders did not
make the things simpler but more complicated), like, e.g. in the German, where the gender is not related
with the endings (with small exceptions), it is related with some now forgotten personalization or reanimation of the things of the real world (say, the very word is feminine because it is nice, the fork is such too, because it is elegant, while the spoon looks like an obese fat man and for that reason it is he there, and other examples). Even in the Italian, where the gender is defined by the ending, exist many misunderstandings in various cases for the same reason, due to some fast crazy ideas. To tell you the truth, I recently paid attention to the fact that in Bulgarian also exist
a decent amount of such mistaken nouns, which gender differs from the right one (e.g.: fem. ‘mosht’-power, fem. ‘tezhest’-weight, etc.), what is consequence of now lost soft sign, where usually confusions happen (i.e. because of the Russian), but in which cases something, obviously, could have been made, if we decide that this is necessary (say, we could speak about mas. ‘mosht’ or fem. ‘moshta’ — I don’t think that this will sound funnier than some Serbian words with changed, be it stressing, be it root vowel). So that Bulgarian language, not that has no lacks at all, yet they are as small
amount as possible (than in that average language that does not exist).
1.5. Other grammatical moments
The main curiosity for a bunch of other languages is our joining of the definite article with the noun or adjective, and this at the end (not in front, how it usually is positioned — where is positioned, because in the Russian such articles do not
exist at all, even if you will search there you will find nothing of the kind). But this not only is one simple and convenient solution, it is also not at all difficult to learn this, and it is, after all, nothing unheard of, because similar things have happened before, and even now in the Italian people glue together not only the reflexive particle but also the pronoun (for example, “smetetela ” means “stop you with this”). (This, that we have two kinds of articles for masculine, ‘-yt’ and ‘-a’, is such thing, which is no need even to mention, because nowadays nobody pays attention to it, and it isn’t also of importance.) Otherwise we have various endings for diminutives, like this is so in many languages, yet not in all of them (at least in the English such things are totally lacking), although in this aspect probably the Italians slightly win before us (by points, so to say). Ah, and our order of the words is, naturally, free, like it is proper to be, yet it is not everywhere so. And out polite form is only in 2-nd person plural, what is the easiest case, while in the German it is in 3-rd person plural, what confuses, and in the Italian exist several variants; nowadays the polite form as if disappears (under the perilous influence of the English), but it is necessary in many cases.
Well, we continue to use double negation, but this is not
part of the language, this is a question of some discipline and reason (yet there exist more severe cases, where the Italians, if I am not wrong, can use even triple negation, if this is so necessary). But there is by us another exceedingly important condition, with which a pretty tiny number of languages can boast, and it is that we read everything how we write
it, always, except when we do not darken some vowels dialectically, or not drop some letter, join words, or vary a bit the right variant, yet even in this case we are better than the other nations (even the Russians have some exceptions, like their ending ‘-ogo’ read as ‘-ovo’, the French are heavy case with their missing practically all last consonants of the words by reading, the English is much worse because they simply have no rules, every
word has to be learned how it is written and how it has to be read, and we have relatively long ago abandoned our old, so called, e-double, which sometimes were read as ‘e’ and sometimes as ‘ja’, so that we write now ‘bjal’-white for mas. singular, and ‘beli’-white for plural). This means that by us the possibilities to make errors are highly reduced, because it is one thing a wrong dialectical pronunciation, and quite another one writing of one sound in different ways, and, hence, when we go in the other direction, from the heard, it turns that this can be written in several ways; this is a question related with the alphabet, about which we will speak further, yet the only case when we are forced to put some sign above some letter this is by our pronoun for fem. ‘`i’-her (and normally ‘i’ is “and”; but this is ‘ej’ in Russian, so that we could quietly write the same, or then ‘ij’ and will have no other problems — where at the same time even in the Italian exist entirely equally sounding words like their “e” as “or”, and “è” as “is” for 3-rd person singular of the verb to be). We have even not dumb “e” (i.e. our old ‘y’ what looks in writing like the letter for ‘zh’), and such thing exists in many languages.
Ah, maybe the question with the accents could confound a person from the West, because we have not a rule for this, where the accent must be put (for example in the Italian it is as a rule at the last but one syllable), but this is part of the word, and probably is easy to be learned (besides, it can change places when necessary). So that concerning the grammar I don’t see what principal can be wished
from the Bulgarian, except to correct the confused genders, to add some words with the soft sound (what would make our speech more melodious), possibly some easy solution for the continuous tenses instead of verbs (in what I doubt), and maybe more often dropping of some prepositions for simplification (like ‘na’-on more often, what we are already doing).
1.6. Amount of words
On the basis of my knowledge of several languages I dare to state that it isn’t right to speak about rich or poor language, all
languages are rich enough, in order to express this what they want, and if some word does not exist (say, our … ‘boza’, which word is Turkish), then it either is explained descriptively with some additional words, or the foreign word is used (or both things). So that I will not convince you that the vocabulary of Bulgarian language is richer than of some others, yet will convince you in this, what is our vocabulary, to what extent it is understandable for the other nations, and for which exactly. Although there isn’t much to be explained here, we are Slavs, and Southern
ones, what is preferable (because the core of the Slavs in antiquity was on the South, they have surely moved westward through warmer areas), but the Slavonic languages are important class of Indo-European languages, and this isn’t Arabic or other Eastern languages, these are quite contemporary and modern languages, which have not a small (and even pretty big) Latin presence in them (only that it is masked by the endings and is not easy to be seen). More precisely, we have not at all small (maybe from 5 to 10 percents) amount of old Arabic and Persian words (and roots and phonetic kinship), one basic Slavonic core (which, a priory, is half Latin, and what isn’t such is in many cases older), 3-4 percents directly Greek words (as our immediate neighbours), plus innovations from the last couple of centuries, now chiefly English. So that our language is not special (like, say, Hungarian, or Finnish, etc.), but the people who are speaking it constitute one exceptional minority
on a worldwide scale, what may turn to be an important advantage (about what we will speak in the next subsection). Of all Slavs we have maximally near to old-Slavonic amount of words (and phonetics), where with us can compete only the Serbs (or Ukrainians, like also Southern Slavs), if there were not their disadvantages (where only the existence of grammatical cases in them already tilts the scales in our favour). We have even some hardly perceptible similarity with the German (as Teutonic language, via some ancient Aryan), what I take also for advantage for the West, and for the East it suffices our presence in Europe and common, predominantly Slavonic, yet also Persian, roots and sounds.
1.7. Political moments
This is an unexpected, yet in my view quite important, subsection, which aims to stress the benefits of one such tiny and exceptional nation like the Bulgarian (even if our uniqueness is reduced mainly to … barbarism, in many cases). Here I state that, firstly, every nation (o person) must learn (and know, and speak) at least one non-mother language, because this develops his /her brain, from here the logical reasoning, this is useful and necessary, and secondly, that the language of some tiny nation, about which no one would have thought seriously, that it can raise sometime claims for supremacy over the other nations that use the language, is preferable before the language of some strong nation! This, that till this moment this has not happened, does not disprove my thesis (for example, this, that till the invention of the airplane people were not in condition to fly, does not mean that it was not necessary for them to wish to be able to do this), i.e. that something important and desirable for all — and what can be more desirable than one common language for some big aggregation of people, isn’t this the bottom line of biblical parable about the Tower of Babel? —, is a nice goal, for which everybody must aspire if this is possible (with the hope that sometime this will be possible to do).
In other words, even if we speak only
about the Slavs (initially), the Bulgarian language will be the perfect one as an official
language for this group of nations, not excluding their mother languages, but as first foreign language, as language in which have to be translated the texts for the goods, the names of people and events, and the like. Or that instead of the English, which now performs this role (it doesn’t matter officially or not), it is wide better if this will be done by the Bulgarian, for there is no other alternative (for the moment)! That this is true for all Slavs (what means for Eurasia or the former Soviet Union together with its satellites, plus also all central-European Slavs) I do not doubt, but I think that it, taking into account our membership in the European Union, appears to be also first in its importance for all nations of the Near East, from here also for the main part of Africa (because Bulgaria, after all, is Europe, don’t forget this), then for the southern part of Asia (for India), further also for China and Japan (and I, quite by the way, suspect that specially the Japanese have also very clear phonetics, like the Bulgarian — this is one of my recent hypotheses), together with all islands in the Pacific Ocean including Australia, and then all Southern (or Latin) America. In result of this have remained only the Teutons and Latins in Western Europe, the Englishmen (as always differing with something from Europe), and the North America headed by the USA, which nations, sooner or later, will be also forced to join, when all other nations and continents have accepted Bulgarian language!
But well, these are pretty far perspectives (probably after a century), and for the moment the important thing is, that for the Slavs and those who do not stay away (like the Bulgarians) from Russia, this is the perfect language as official, not rejecting the national languages. And for all others it suffices initially to accept my proposition for new alphabet (from p. 3 and 4), and then, if it turns out that there are other suitable languages for such global intellectual domination, then they can enter in competition (because the English, for example, has that major drawback that the Latin alphabet is entirely inappropriate for it, more inappropriate than it is for the Turks, so that with the new alphabet it, probably, would not have been entirely for throwing to the garbage — and if it will decide to become a bit more human
, i.e. to introduce the missing categories — on what I have hinted once —, like emergence of some difference between nouns and verbs, and other things). Via the Bulgarian language, with its pure phonetics and the ideas for good grammar at the head, every nation will be in position to make an easier step to some other languages (as second or even third), be this again the same English! The only nation, that will clearly lose from my idea for introducing of Bulgarian language as official one for a big number of nations in the world, will be … the very Bulgarian nation, naturally!
So that I am not biased, not in the least, but I think that it is better if our tiny nation (which amounts up to only 1 per mill
of the word population) was “sacrificed” and all others have won, instead that all suffered, because the official language in the moment is that of some strong state, which, sooner or later, will come down, and the knowledge of that language will go down the drain (for you see that now people don’t want to learn not only Russian — I mean chiefly in Europe — but also German, and French). The language of any other nation, which will be accepted as official, will cause, in some time after, discontent between all other nations (because it has always happened and happens so in the world history, but till now the official language was that of the hegemonic nation, where I propose directly opposite approach, so that: what if I turn to be right?); in any case this has not yet been tried, and it is one thing to choose something better because it is better (and here easier), and quite another thing to choose this, what is proposed to us as (would be) good (but without motivation for the choice, as also without alternative).
2. Bulgarian alphabet is the newest and most universal
For me this is also practically obvious for chronological reasons, because the Bulgarian alphabet (and let us call it Bulgarian, not just Cyrillic, because there is a difference in the content and usage of some letters, and I mean exactly our usage) was created by the brothers Cyrill and Methodius in 9-th century, while Latin and Greek are with at least thousand years older (and probably more), the Hebrew and Arabian are more older, and so on, so that if we take that the human development, at least in general terms, is positive, then from here follows that what was created later must be also better. ( I haven’t a sight over all
alphabets, so that it might be, just to give an example, that the one of the Tajiks, or the Armenians, is better, yet I deeply doubt in this, because these are alphabets of old Eastern nations, and when so they must have long ago become anachronistic, at least if we look at them in the meaning of new worldwide standard. ) Besides, I will give in the next chapter exactly how, in my view, the new alphabet must look out (what is the important thing), so that here I will observe the matters more broadly. So our Bulgarian alphabet has 6 basic vowels (a, e, i, o, u, ‘y’ — and mark that the latter is like in “girl”), 16 basic consonants without which no language can exist (if we pay no attention at the Greeks, who have never had simultaneously the letters “b” and “v”, and these letters are: b, v, g, d, z, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, f, h, c like in Cesar) plus another 3 warm consonants (zh, ch, sh), which exist in some Western languages, yet not all at once, and not in pure form, and to this we have some not especially necessary sounds, which are combinations, and when so they can be missed.
In addition to this we have no difficult modifications or combinations of vowels or consonants, and with these letters is possible to encode pretty good the sounds of every language, under the condition that — how this is usually done, there is no other way — are used combinations of several letters for one phoneme (e.g. the English “but” can be written as ‘byat’, the Russian “we” will be ‘myi’, and so on), where the only problem comes from this, that is necessary to preserve bijective
correspondence of the new writing with the old pronunciation, and must be clear when the next letter modifies or connects with the previous one, and when not. In view of this I make my proposition for new alphabet, where all problems are solved. The advantage of our Bulgarian alphabet before whatever other alphabet is in this, that we have (at least according to my statement) everything basic presented, and with combinations of this is possible to build the more complicated, but is this really so or not, let be checked by every one nation. Well, I state that there is no more universal than our alphabet, and that even between all Slavs we use it in the best way, we have no one foreign letter, and read every one of them exactly so as it is necessary. In this sense the first stage for each language consists in some transliteration with Bulgarian letters, but as far as for them there is not yet good bijection, we need some other symbols, so let us in the next section focus on this, what must be the transliteration in the new alphabet (which is based on the Bulgarian, yet, just the same, also differs from it).
3. Conception for worldwide alphabet
I mentioned somewhere in the beginning that the phonetical apparatus of people of all nations is one and the same, yet with its help they pronounce quite big amount of sounds (phonemes, were they vowels, were consonants, or even semi-vowels). This set is, naturally, limited, yet it is quite big, and, for example, in the English is given that they have whole 25
different kinds of vowels and combinations, and no matter that their consonants are not so much, only 21, then in the Arab languages can surely be found some 20 or so consonants more, so that, taking into account this and that, if we look at the entire world, we can’t avoid to come to the conclusion that there are together about 50 and more vowels, and 60 and more consonants (plus maybe 3-4 semi-vowels, some nasal sounds, and other peculiarities), so that we will need somewhere about 100 to 150 letters for their writing (and again will incessantly arise need to make some modifications to already existing sounds), and this makes the alphabet, really, complicates (how it must be with the Chinese and probably Japanese). So what are we to do in this case, when we want, for one thing, to include all possible modifications, and for another thing, to have a simple alphabet (and I think that in it must be not more than 32
symbols, plus the corresponding signs from the uppercase, because this is a power of 2, but to try to be satisfied with 30)?
Well, I will not discover America, we will do this, what has been done for a long time, will use some modifiers
(M), and will put some signs above the letters (let it not be below, for universality, and in order not to hinder the underlining), only that we must try to include all possible
variants (even if they do not exist), and make the things maximally simple, what in this case means to allow necessity to look forward only
and this with 1 char
(in any case till the next real letter, not M). For this purpose is necessary to establish first which are the basic letters (vowels — V, and consonants — C), and also all Ms. Due to the limitations of the used alphabet, however, the very Ms we can write also in other way (were it with chars, or combinations of letters or numbers, if we understand these designations). And also something very important, the letters must reflect how the words are read
, not written, in the alphabet from where they have come (which requirement in Bulgarian alphabet exists everywhere). As far as here we are using the Latin alphabet, there are some rules for transliteration of all letters (according to their reading in the environment of Bulgarian language) to the Latin alphabet (and in some maximally pure Latin reading), which we have mentioned roughly before and will make more precise again further below, but the Ms will write with numbers (supposing that there are no numbers in the words).
In addition to this let us say that M-d letters are such, by which we begin to pronounce one letter (more often V), but finish with some other letter; while combined (K-d) Vs or Cs are pronounced together yet as pure sounds (phonemes; if they are Vs then they do not
add syllables, and if are Cs then there should not be divided by splitting across lines); there can be also just consequences (S; or sequences, series, in order to be able to use one capital Letter only) of letters. As far as joining of Vs happens often by their consecutive writing we will suppose that they are always (unless we show this with a special M) read as K-d, while by the Cs everything is directly opposite
, they are always (if a special M is not used) treated as separate and taken for Ss. This, what is nearly revolutionary requirement by this alphabet (because is met in no
one of the existing alphabets), is that all Ms must differ
from the letters, and because of this (in the final version of the font) they will be put above (or, eventually, a bit to the side of) the letter! Then we get the following:
(V) — 6, namely: i, e, y (like in “girl”), a, u, o (which can be divided in pairs as: i-e, y-a, u-o, which are obtained with wider opening of the mouth, or also in triples as: i-y-u, e-a-o).
(C) — 19, namely: b, p, v, f, d, t, m, n, r, l; g, k, h, z, c, s, zh, ch, sh (where we specially divide them with spaces for more convenience, and then is seen that these are 5 pairs of similar sounds, and 3 triples also of such, where the last triple is “warmening” of the previous, only that they must be written as single chars).
(M) — 10, maximally 12, and of 2 groups, more precisely: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (8); and 11, 12, 13, (14) (which is convenient to mark above as follows: one point, two points, circle, short line, angle up, angle down, tilde, two short lines; and from the second group are: accent from left to right, horizontal line (or eventually = ”h” if after Vs), vertical line, and accent from right to left, or can be used the signs: ` ¯ | ´ ).
Then we will have letters 6 + 19 = 25 and Ms 10 (max 12), but for them is no need to use the uppercase, so that they can occupy 5 or 6 keys, what gives 30 keys, or maximum 31, where I not only do not reach till 32, but don’t know for what exactly I will use Ms 8 and 14, and propose them just in case. Now a bit more detailed for them (because with the letters all must be OK, it is clear that there will be many M-d Vs, also K-d, also M-d Cs, etc., there will be no Latin “y, q, x, w”, “c” will be only like in “Cesar”, and so on, we will give later some more examples). So the idea of Ms is to M-y the given V (most often) to some other V, and when the Vs are 6 this means to another 6 (obvious, isn’t it?), and then, for example, the Russian “eri” will become ‘yi’ or here written as ‘y1’, and their “we” will be ‘my1’ or “you” in plural will be ‘vy1’, in English we will have “girl”-‘gyhl’, “but”-‘by4t’, “man”-‘ma2n’, and others. In addition to this has to be said that when there will be sometimes points over the letters, then the Latin “i” must be without
point, but if we write it with a point, i.e. as ‘i1’, then this will be the so called i-short in Slavonic, or German
etc. “j” (like in “Johan”-‘I1ohan’ or English “boy”-‘boi1’), and this will be one of the semi-vowels, and the other (from those which I know) will be the English “w”, which will become ‘vy’, i.e. ‘v3’. And so on, the examples (even only in 4-5 languages) are terribly many. The M 7 is for nasal sounds, and the 8-th is as reserve.
For the Cs so many Ms are not needed, yet we will use the same, because there is no necessity to invent new signs, where we can accept that at least the first 4 have their meaning and it is either in some moving of the tongue from the bottom of the throat forward, or in pressing of it against the teeth, with the following examples: the usual “r” remains as it is, but this is by the Slavs, and for the West it must be marked as ‘r2’ (with 2 points), because it is almost not heard, yet it can be also ‘r1’ as some soft ‘r’ (say, in the Sanskrit), and such softening can be used as Russian soft sigh put after each
C (e.g. their mouse will be ‘my1sh1’, the Spanish canyon will be ‘kan1on’, and many other examples), and for the biting of the tongue we will use the small horizontal line (and, respectively, physic will be ‘f4isik’, theos
will be ‘t4eos’, the English “the” will be ‘d4y’, and other similar words. Naturally, we can mark the last triple of Cs also in this way (i.e. as ‘zh, ch, sh’, how we actually write them here, yet we have said that this is only in order not to invent other chars but in the alphabet will be used one single char), only that, due to their wider usage in the old languages, I have postulated them here as basic Cs (and why should we free another 3 Cs, the letters are not much?).
For what are used the Ms from the second group? Well, they are for pronunciation
, where No 11 is for the accent (which is part of no
one language, yet it is a necessary sign in many cases), 12 is for the elongation (say, English “bird” will be ‘by12d’, “girl”-‘gy12l’, “law”-‘lo12’, etc.), 13 changes
the type of connection
of the Vs (and then also the syllables) or Cs (e.g., the piano in Italian or Bulgarian is read ‘pi13ano’, yet in English it is ‘pi1a2nou’; but on the other hand ‘dzh’ is usually not divided, and then it is necessary to write ‘had13zhi’ for the Turkish man who has made religious pilgrimage to Mekka, and ‘band13zho’ for “banjo”, because otherwise they could have been divided like ‘had-zhi’ and ‘band-zho’ — in what I see nothing perilous; probably the things here have to be thought through more profound), and No 14 is simply for making the word differ
(for example, in Italian “or” is “e”, and “è” — or rather stressed in the other direction — is “is”, which now will be ‘e14’).
With the use of Ms we can get 6 by 7 (with the nasals) = 42 Vs (although M-n to No 3, ‘y’, is practically unpronounceable, yet backward is possible; as also to itself has a meaning only with ‘i’ for the Western “j”, so that let them be 6 by 5 = 30), also, say, 50-60 Cs (the theoretical 19 by 7 is from the realm of fantasy), but this is not counting yet the diphthongs and triphthongs, that can give another about 50 sounds (and with the elongations, for example in the English there is a difference in the ‘i’s between “bit” and “see”, and they have simply not a short ‘a’). So that, taking into account this and that, with our new alphabet consisting of 25 letters and 12 Ms we will positively exceed 100 letters, significantly more than this. Even in a given language we can quietly refrain us from writing of letters for the Ms and use the more understandable writing via 2 letters for a M-n, where we suppose that there it is clear whether these are M-d or K-d (or simply S-d, for sequenced as synonym for consecutive) letters. In this way we can already quite good transliterate each language to the Bulgarian, having in mind also all said here, and further it remains only to define how these letters will be written with their Ms of 2 types, with addition of various kinds of underlinings (what is nowadays a must everywhere) and to design beautiful letters, with what we will occupy ourselves (I hope a bit shorter) in the next section.
Yes, but writing of the Ms via numbers is not very convenient, it is not seen to which letter we are M-ing (with the additions above), so that we can again have bijective correspondence (one-to-one, in both directions) of this, what is pronounced, with this, what is written in Bulgarian, writing also the second letter to which it is M-d as letter, only showing it as subscript
, in order to distinguish it from the next Vs, if there are K-d such (diphthongs and triphthongs). We could have used also superscript for K-d letters, in order to distinguish them from the S-d, yet this is hardly necessary when we have a M for dividing of Vs (like in the above cited piano), and it can be used also for joining of Cs (for example, ‘bandzh
o’), but from the viewpoint of Bulgarian language there is nothing bad if we divide whatever Cs (also the name of ‘Dvorzhak’, for example, which looks very funny on the West, because they write it not how it is pronounced, but how is written, only without the chicks above, so that it turns to be read as ‘Dvorak’, while in Bulgarian it can be quietly divided as ‘Dvor-zhak’; also ‘Bendrzhih’ can be ‘Ben-d-r-zhih’). Here are some examples: the Russian “eri” will be ‘y↓i’, the English ‘ya’ like in “but” will be ‘y↓a’, “man” will be coded as ‘ma↓en’, “we” will be ‘v↓yi’, the Western (yet not
English) “j” will be ‘i↓i’ an so on; on the other hand “by”, “buy”, and “bye” will all
(unless the Englishmen take some measures in order to distinguish them by pronouncing) be written as ‘bai↓i’, or also some “joj” will become ‘i↓ioi↓i’; or German böse will become ‘bi↓oze’. And other examples, they are of the order of millions, yet only as phonemes are several hundreds.
4. Graphical design of the new letters
Here my ambition is to be possible to use one of the simplest matrix printers, with 12, but even with 8 pins, that have half-step shifting in horizontal direction (yet to be able to use them even if they had no such half-step), plus the possibility to use the same pattern for lower-case letters also
for upper-case ones (what would have been significant simplification, and what could be done if the upper-case property is marked with some additional sign to the letter, as a new type of M), plus also that all letters had the same dimensions (in horizontal and vertical direction), and even to be possible to do some underlining
not below, but from the side
of the letter (what is entirely new idea, yet it can be realized with the use of one more pseudo-M).
Here is the variant for 12-pin printer (and if the pixels will be, say, 512 x 512, the better). The main part of the letter is 5 x 7 points (first in horizontal direction), exactly above it is a field 5 x 3 for the 1st M (for M-d letters), and below remain 2 lines, which never work (because the underlining is not there), what makes vertically 12 points (or pixels, if this is really matrix printer). In addition to this on the left
of the letter are two fields, where the upper one is at the height of the 1st M and with dimensions 3 x 3, what is used for the 2nd type of Ms (for pronunciation), and below it is a new field 3 x 7, which is divided in 2 parts
, and above is a field 3 x 3 for marking of the upper-case letters (what means a square, yet it can be remade in small circle; in any case, it is pretty big in order to be seen from afar), and below is a field 3 x 4 for marking of the underlinings (where are placed vertically
the following small lines: most at left is for the classical bold font, next to it is for the underlining, and further on the right, or most at right, is this for italic, which line must be punctured via a point, but can take also the previous vertical line in case of necessity and overlap with it, for it will somehow differ from it; besides, underline + italic is practically not used). This gives in horizontal direction 3 + 5 + 1 (for separating of the letters, what here will be quite enough, because in the main part of the letters the width is only 5 point), or 9 points; i.e. all letters will be in a field of 9 x 12, but in reality with dimensions of 8 x 10, where the very main letter will be only 5 x 7, what is more than enough in order to place there a beautifully designed letter.
In my view, though, this is unnecessary wasting of the fields, and because of this I propose now a variant for 8-pin printer, where work all pins, but below must be left 1 or 2 empty lines of points. There we have, respectively: main field of the letter with dimensions 5 x 5 (what must be quite enough; don’t forget that only 5 points on the principle yes or not suffice for coding of up to 32 symbols), field for the basic M of 5 x 3 (it is the same, there are no changes, but if there is higher precision of the raster then height of 2 points would have been enough and more suitable in comparison with the letter — here the problem is only in the drawing of the small circle, else all other signs can be imitated with points, beginning, for example, from the lower line of points), field for the 2nd M (on the left of the first and at the same height, again 3 x 3, respectively 3 x 2 points), and field for showing of the upper-case letters and underlinings on the left of the main part of the letter and with dimensions 3 x 5 (where the sign for the capital letter will have height of 2 points, and for the underlinings only 3). This gives horizontally again 3 + 5 + 1 (for separating) = 9, and vertically 8 + 1 = 9 (but if the main M is 2 points high, then above will also remain an empty line of points, like below).
Well, this is all, there can be other variants, it is possible, after all, to put the both Ms above, one above the other, the underlining can be done in the old way, in two positions below, there can exist (or not exist) eventually also patterns for bold and italic letters in the main part of the letter, and the capital letters can be shown again with some small line with width of 2 points on the left of the letter (yet there is no need to make it higher). All depends on the decision which will be taken, because I give only ideas (here is needed collective decision). And the typesetting of Ms must be done via superposition
of the images with BkSp with the previous one, because this is the classical variant on all typewriters and printers (this, that it is not done so now, and for each letter with something above or below it exists separate picture, is simply not right — we, out of old habit, like to do not this, what is necessary, but this, what we are able to do); anyway, in the character table for German language on the key for “=” (the rightmost in the top line) exist upper strokes, which, however, are pressed before the other letter, yet they do not show at once but show only when you press the next key (and their behaviour even depends on the next char, and only if it is one of the vowels then they are put above them, else they appear before the symbol, so that this, of course, can be done). Only that here we will have about 10 such Ms, yet this is in the standard variant for all languages, and for each one of them can be again made specific keyboards, where will be put all necessary keys, how it is now.
In all cases do not forget that on the standard keyboard only on the lower 3 letter rows exist 35 keys, plus another 12 on the line with the numbers (but there is also separate small keyboard for the numbers), and in my new alphabet there are only 25 letters, and with the Ms suffice 31 keys, so that there must remain places also for about 10 ready
M-d letters for easier typing (regardless the possibility for typing them via the standard letters and Ms). ( In fact, the topmost row with the signs can be used in upper-case for all 12 Ms, out of the 35 letters to be used 25 for the new alphabet, and the left 10, what means 20 in both cases, to be used for some necessary signs, like also for about 10 special for the given language M-d letters. ) At the same time, by writing by hand there is no necessity to use such unusual underlining of the letters, like also the marking of capital letters (although if it is more convenient for you to put one big point before the letter, then this also can be used). In two words, despite the universal character of the alphabet for all possible languages, I don’t propose practically anything principally
new, that was not applied in one of other time by the typing.
Well, my (non-serious and dubious, as I suppose, at least while I am alive) readers, this is in general terms my idea about one universal for the whole world alphabet, which stands firmly on the Bulgarian alphabet, and so as the Bulgarians use it, but allows additions (and painting up, finishing) of more than a hundred kinds of letters, which must be enough for all world languages, without
necessity to give different interpretations of a given M for some specific language, but in general case for all (yet, if such very special language appears, then, probably, might be come to exceptions). I have given earlier, some 10 years ago, similar ideas (as I have said in the beginning), yet here are some additions, this is the last
variant, so that it is more final, but due to this, a lot of things are given completely schematically. However, I can’t, after all (even if I will), perform the work of whole research teams
(say, in the amount of hundred human years
of work, which later can grow up to even thousand of years). I give ideas. If this alphabet, together with exact graphical representation of all basic letters and all Ms, will be finished in Bulgaria, then this will be project for new Bulgarian (respectively Russian, if in Russia) alphabet (in the Bulgarian will be practically no problems, because the number of letters will even fall down a bit, and we have no need of Ms, yet in Russia there will be problems, which can be surely solved), but if it will be done, to give an example, by the … Chukchi people, then it must be called Chukchian, so that I think that it is in the interest of every one nation to make something in this respect (if my ideas will not remain a voice in the wilderness, like it practically happens so far). Because of this I have written this new and updated edition of the project for worldwide alphabet, which, in some extent, is continuation of the idea of ancient brothers Cyril and Methodius, yet at a new level of communicating whole world, so that if we are still not in position to accept one universal language (and good one, not like the English with its grammar and alphabet), then we are long ago obliged to work out at least common alphabet for the whole world. Well, I have done my part, the rest is for the others.