e.g. máteùš
i admit, i could have added another acute e to the spelling,
but i thought: that would really be too crowded,
a bit like, from the depths of hades, there arose
a sentence, that, might, have, looked, like, this.
too much punctuation, a crowded space,
what was necessary was some fresh air, and an open field
somewhere down the middle of the word.
ah... noticing this... chemists write numbers associated
to elements and compounds *subscript...
hence punctuation is like a chemistry script.
diacritical involvement? that's like mathematical notation,
i.e. write out x cubed, or y squared...
where do you place the 3 and the 2 with respect
to the algebraic hypotheticals? well, they go above,
well: to the right corner of the hypotheticals;
very much like diacritical marks; but of course,
this is language, so they are placed directly above the letter -
but the comparison stands: both are punctuation statements,
chemistry of subscript notation of punctuation, inter-words -
mathematics of superscript notation of punctuation, intra-words.
nietzsche once noted: polaks are the french of
the slavs.
now... about that congestion, and a due comparison...
it comes down to the relation between acute, grave and the caron.
in french: e.g. the word crème fraîche
ah **** the antonym of the caron, the circumflex! that too.
thus into the aesthetic...
the grave e (è) in the word crème?
the aesthetic ugly would look like this crèm...
because that's the function of the grave e - it's as if
to pull back the word to the beginning, or at least reigning in the m,
so the second e is not even pronounced.
now the word fraîche and the dynamic of the circumflex
iota (î). it does something similar to the grave diacritical mark,
simple optometry... it's a constrictive symbol,
a biblical comparison to Samson pulling
two pillars so that a temple falls...
î
fra che
but once again, the french aesthetic, the e is once more redundant,
but, good heavens, imagine simply writing fraîch... ?!
so the circumflex and the grave accents have their similarities.
now, the second word, máteùš:
here we have a different dynamic,
the reason i didn't write it as mátéùš -
for one, having two diacritical marks on letters, side by side
is already pushing it, but three? and the fact that one of the letters
doesn't have a diacritical mark, namely t? well, that already excludes
the letter from the word, which would make the word morph
into máéùš: otherwise, the original would be noted in algebraic
form as x = letter without a diacritical mark
v = letter with a diacritical mark,
i.e. xvxxvv,
but imagine the variation xvxvvv.
anyway... what's the difference between the circumflex and the caron?
the caron? it hides one particular letter with regard to s;
in slavic, that letter would be z... in germanic? h.
how you'd say shish (kebab).
i was once accused of pronouncing the word kebab
in arficaan... i can already see an entry point of diacritical
marks into english... africaan? acute accent on both e and a
so i don't say the word with a macron on the a (ā)
kebāb (kebaab), africān (aan) -
**** this digression...
back to the story... what happens in the word máteùš
which is antonym to the french aesthetic? primarily the grave u (ù)...
and its relationship to the caron s (š)...
the grave u suggests to the s: put on a cloak, put on a fez
of magical properties, so that the z will not see you, standing next to me.
so the s duly agrees...
without the caron above the s? how would the word look?
z would come along, and rip off both their diacritical marks
z: u! give me the grave!
ù: no!
z: oh ****** well yes! (pluck)
right now i have a torso.
s! the caron!
š: ok ok, just don't steal my curves. (pluck)
z: ah... both arms and legs.
now all that's missing is a head...
oi! fake iota! the overdot!
i: sure, whatever, i never needed it in the first place,
this is me sitting down, i stand up, and it's as if it was never there - I.
(pluck)
ż: aaaaaaaah... (āāāāh, alternatively, i.e. ā = a x2).
p.s. and yes, ż is an orthodox letter... e.g.? żart.... joke.