Feb 2018
orthography implies: a word, yet diacritics implies letters, and ιota is the perfect example of an unnecessary diacritical misapplication, notably observed in a language that observes orthography: which is non-existent in english: which is still to untangle from the latin graphemes ae & oe; english hasn't untangled itself from the grapheme modus operandi: which is why LL TT NN OO GG PP: pull fattening manner pool bigger popping - invite the stutter!
- a word is worth is its orthography -
yet there is absolutely no need to indicate
the letters I & J with a lower-case diacritical branding:
because suddenly one of the letters disappears!
i.e. with i = ι, j = ī
a letter disappears!
and people thought that quantum
physics was bewildering...
because there is no ****** reason
to apply diacritical marking on a phonetic
mark that's already a "solipsistic" unit...
a saying revealed by:
ιota = ιgrek in the north...
| = . because what is 1 squared?
1... what's 1 cubed? 1. what's 1 to the power
of 10? 1.
glitches glitches glitches glitches
glitches glitches glitches glitches
twitching twitching twitching twitching
glitches glitches glitches glitches
- only yesterday i was in a supermarket
and met a fellow traveller:
a distant kin, whom i might have
shared a native conversation with...
point being: i could spot a language
behind the "faςade" of accent...
call that quasi s?
a word sprang to mind -
ziomek,
a slang among immigrants denoting:
a fellow of shared roots.
yet that morphed into an:
orthographic anomaly -
why does the i and j need diacritical
marks when there are
exceptions to be made: otherwise?
you know how easily
you can write *ziomek
differently while still retaining
the word and it's meaning?
źomek:
because the diacritical mark ****
of ιota is just that...
the unholy umlaut of
i & j...
| and .
are already synonymous:
they're not inter-sectional akin
to the illiterate signature of X...
why was it so hard to make a mark by
a mere I... instead marking
a count to 10? ah... in Kantian terms:
0 = negation...
well: the 1 is to be denied.
- a word is worth is its orthography -
yet there is absolutely no need to indicate
the letters I & J with a lower-case diacritical branding:
because suddenly one of the letters disappears!
i.e. with i = ι, j = ī
a letter disappears!
and people thought that quantum
physics was bewildering...
because there is no ****** reason
to apply diacritical marking on a phonetic
mark that's already a "solipsistic" unit...
a saying revealed by:
ιota = ιgrek in the north...
| = . because what is 1 squared?
1... what's 1 cubed? 1. what's 1 to the power
of 10? 1.
glitches glitches glitches glitches
glitches glitches glitches glitches
twitching twitching twitching twitching
glitches glitches glitches glitches
- only yesterday i was in a supermarket
and met a fellow traveller:
a distant kin, whom i might have
shared a native conversation with...
point being: i could spot a language
behind the "faςade" of accent...
call that quasi s?
a word sprang to mind -
ziomek,
a slang among immigrants denoting:
a fellow of shared roots.
yet that morphed into an:
orthographic anomaly -
why does the i and j need diacritical
marks when there are
exceptions to be made: otherwise?
you know how easily
you can write *ziomek
differently while still retaining
the word and it's meaning?
źomek:
because the diacritical mark ****
of ιota is just that...
the unholy umlaut of
i & j...
| and .
are already synonymous:
they're not inter-sectional akin
to the illiterate signature of X...
why was it so hard to make a mark by
a mere I... instead marking
a count to 10? ah... in Kantian terms:
0 = negation...
well: the 1 is to be denied.
