It means that, people are not realizing that C originally was hard and K stole its sound!
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
In English, what if C always made a hard sound and K didn't exist?
- Thread starter IhateletterK
- Start date
Oh! And there is this comment saying:
Latin and Greek. The Romans pretty much did away with the Greek letter kappa (κ) when adapting Greek words into Latin, replacing K almost entirely with C (they did the same thing with most loan words from other languages and alphabets, too, which is why the letter K is so rare in Latin). There are still a few hangover Ks in ancient words like kalendae, or in particularly old family names.
The letter C in the Roman alphabet came much earlier, derived from what was the Greek letter gamma (γ). in early Roman writings the letters C, K and Q were all used to represent the sounds we know as K and G (in writing at least, they didn't differentiate) - later on the Roman letter G was introduced to be used for gamma, and C was used for kappa.
Confusingly, when Roman presence spread to Britain, Anglo Saxon words that originally used C were replaced with K (e.g. "break" and "broken" come from Anglo Saxon words brecan and brocen, but it should be noted that it was a long time before English spelling was standardised.
CH is a different Greek letter (chi - χ); words using a chi in Greek were usually transliterated to ch in Latin, which has survived in a lot of English words with the sound intact (e.g. "chitin", from χιτών).
Also I'd argue that the letters very definitely don't sound the same, though there is a certain amount of redundancy due to the shift away from K and towards C in Latin transliteration. "Cite" and "kite", for example, have very different pronunciations. Or indeed, the silent K such as in "knight" or "knee". The base sound may be a hard sound for both letters, but they are both fairly versatile letters in terms of English pronunciation, particularly C.
Latin and Greek. The Romans pretty much did away with the Greek letter kappa (κ) when adapting Greek words into Latin, replacing K almost entirely with C (they did the same thing with most loan words from other languages and alphabets, too, which is why the letter K is so rare in Latin). There are still a few hangover Ks in ancient words like kalendae, or in particularly old family names.
The letter C in the Roman alphabet came much earlier, derived from what was the Greek letter gamma (γ). in early Roman writings the letters C, K and Q were all used to represent the sounds we know as K and G (in writing at least, they didn't differentiate) - later on the Roman letter G was introduced to be used for gamma, and C was used for kappa.
Confusingly, when Roman presence spread to Britain, Anglo Saxon words that originally used C were replaced with K (e.g. "break" and "broken" come from Anglo Saxon words brecan and brocen, but it should be noted that it was a long time before English spelling was standardised.
CH is a different Greek letter (chi - χ); words using a chi in Greek were usually transliterated to ch in Latin, which has survived in a lot of English words with the sound intact (e.g. "chitin", from χιτών).
Also I'd argue that the letters very definitely don't sound the same, though there is a certain amount of redundancy due to the shift away from K and towards C in Latin transliteration. "Cite" and "kite", for example, have very different pronunciations. Or indeed, the silent K such as in "knight" or "knee". The base sound may be a hard sound for both letters, but they are both fairly versatile letters in terms of English pronunciation, particularly C.
How is he saying C is the original hard sound when the comment credits the "original K sounds"? He's calling K a fraud because he doesn't like the /k/ sound, which he used to attribute to C sharing multiple sounds. If he thought C made the hard sound originally then he would be hating on C instead.
I think you should watch your own video link and see this part where the K symbol and K sound were chronologically first.
Yes, C is a replacement for K, the original letter.
It's not that! C was always hard in Old English and K replaced it. Also, it's not that he doesn't like the K sounds. K is a greek letter. C is a latin letter
Yes, the greek letters came before the latin letters. K is a greek letter that came before and C is a latin letter that came afterwards, as an offshoot of a greek letter. This argument is like saying Pokemon Red ripped off of Pokemon Gold because Pokemon Red has Kanto in it which Pokemon Gold also has.
Ok, but C still has uses
There are a few needs for the letter C
There are a few needs for the letter C
Well yeah, my defense of K is not an attack on C. I think the letter C is just fine as it is with multiple sounds like how Pokemon Gold has 2 regions in both Johto and Kanto, but I still think Pokemon Red's Kanto campaign stands on its own merit, just as K deserves to exist as its own letter because it was there from the start and we should respect that history. If C was always the hard sound then it would just be the new K.
There is a reason why, they had to replace K with C
I see where you're coming from with the idea that the letter k has seemed superfluous at times in history, but wishing for K to have never existed in the first place defeats the purpose of the ground it broke to get us to this point where C was able to succeed it, and I hope you can let go of your hatred for the letter K with a greater appreciation for its history now that you can accept that C replaced K. It's like saying that you hate Gen 2 but you love HGSS and you think HGSS should just have been the original GSC instead; you wouldn't have HGSS the same way it was without GSC as a starting point, and HGSS as the new GBC game in that position to start Gen 2 would just be the equivalent to GSC in that time period.
True but, there are still arguments and debates about this topic. Some still believe K copied C so let's just agree to disagree! Debate closed
Now! Calm down and stay away from this topic!
Maybe, C was part of the Latin alphabet and was used in some Latin words and then K was introduced but then, since C was earlier part of Latin, K was replaced since Greek and latin are 2 different writing systems
Okay I actually have a better analogy for this situation now than Gen 1 and 2 or GS and HGSS. Let C be Pokemon Crystal and K be Gold and Silver or replace with whatever generation you can relate to. Now in these days people consider the third version to be the most polished version and usually succeed the first releases of the generation in terms of new quality of life features, and in these days years after the release of each generation when you can choose which game to play easily, people will usually recommend a third version first. However, back when the games were releasing at the time, you had to play the original releases as they came out and the third version would take a couple years or so to release afterwards, so you couldn't just start with the third version if you wanted to experience the new generation. Basically hating on K and liking C is like hating on GS and liking Crystal; it's a fair point in hindsight, but you can't argue that C should have been the original K/GS and K/GS should never have existed, because Crystal by definition is an expanded version of GS that could only exist using it as a base.
You know what, why don't we follow each other?
I agree with your first new point. Relative to the new Latin alphabet, C was the definitive /k/ and K was just a legacy holdover from Greek that was used for some direct translations that you could say is redundant and that C was the main /k/ at that point relative in time. However, I don't think this warrants hate on K for reprising its original role as /k/ that it had been playing historically and inevitably encroached on C's domain, and so I don't want to say that I follow the name "IhateletterK" because I personally don't hate the letter K, just like I would not follow a user named "IhateGSC" or "IhateHGSS".
You said" C was the definitive /k/ and K was just a legacy holdover from Greek that was used for some direct translations that you could say is redundant and that C was the main /k/ at that point relative in time. " Then it means that, you are saying that, K ruined the whole reputation of using the letter C for the cuh sound which is why it was redundant. It just budded into places, it shouldn't be. K is not a Latin eltter. Anyways, I'm done discussing this topic and no reply is necessary! Now stay away from me and chill out. I am not going to listen to another one of your arguments! Bye Bye!
Gm marsh
I think that even if k is reduced to how it was used in Latin (mostly just for loanwords), that's still a potentially useful role. English is (in)famous for its tendency to borrow from other languages, and living in a period of global communication means there's a lot of exposure to other languages for English to borrow from. You might even be able to argue that English should adopt new letters for sounds used in loanwords that don't appear otherwise. Though I am admittedly only casually interested in linguistics, this isn't exactly my forté.
Let's just get rid of both letters altogether. I an't see a reason for needing either of them in most irumstances anyway
irumstanes
ah fu I messed up already
Oay I’m just realizing how hard it is to avoid using those letters in a sentene
