lvxferre

At least in Classical Latin, as used in late Republican / early Imperial times, it is a consonant. And quite distinct from the vowel. In fact, that "Ⅎ" I mentioned was an attempt of some emperor to spell /w/ [w~β] apart from /u u:/ [ʊ u:]; that wouldn't happen if at least some speakers didn't catch "hey, /w/ doesn't look like a vowel".

But before that, it's way more complicated. The Etruscan alphabet had a letter for /w/, it's ⟨F⟩; but when the Latin alphabet popped up, instead of using it for /w/ they repurposed the letter to /f/ [ɸ~f], and decided to spell /w/ with the same ⟨V⟩ as /u u:/.

Going further back in time the things get even messier, as PIE *u is clearly a syllabic allophone of *w, not its own phoneme. So... "is /w/ a consonant or a vowel?" "yes".

After that (the Romance languages) it depends a bit on the language, but I feel like the mess is back on the menu. That Latin /w/→/v/ is a consonant, sure, but other instances of [w] popped up; either as part of a vowel or as /u/ forced into a syllabic position. For example, in Spanish I'm pretty sure it's being handled as a vowel, because:

• it pops up in vowel alternations, like /o/ vs. /u̯e/; see ⟨dormir⟩ "to sleep" vs. ⟨duermo⟩ "I sleep". And typically when you can sub one thing for another, in language, those things are being handled by the language as part of the same category.
• if you analyse Spanish as having /w j/, you'll find the only occurrences of onset CCC demand either; like ⟨prueba⟩ /pɾweba/ [ˈpɾwe.β̞a] "proof". It's simpler to analyse them as /u̯ i̯/ instead, then claim Spanish allows up to two consonants in onset.

It's less ambiguous than your English example with "raw", where the absence of linking-R you mentioned hints it's already a consonant.

Honesty, one motivation for writing the comments is that I’m glad there is activity in this community and I want to push it. I could use more linguistics in my life so thanks for engaging with me!

You're welcome!

Latin [w] is labiovelar, just like [gʷ]; no palatal in this case. The difference is mostly order of operations:

• Latin - lenition, then loss of the velar articulation: [gʷ]→[w]→[β]
• Greek - loss of the velar articulation, then lenition: [gʷ]→[b]→[β]

then [β] evolving into [v] in both.

For phonemes, in some language-specific cases one might be preferable over the other, but for most part they're interchangeable. You could even use something weird, like /Ⅎ/; or do it like Mark Hale did for Marshallese vowels and use emojis. Either way, Latin has such a simple phonemic inventory that you won't see any confusion from using either.

For "raw" sounds it matters a tiny bit, because [w] implies more constriction than [u], while [u̯] implies it's the same as [u] except non-syllabic. Even then, personal preferences matter a lot, so different linguists might transcribe the same stuff differently.

The reason I used "w" in this case is simply convenience — it demands me a single keystroke, "u̯" requires four (after tweaking my .XCompose file for that; otherwise I'd need to copypaste it).

Not necessarily a synonymous (same meaning), but a cognate (same origin). For example:

• PIE *gʷem- "to come, to step" → *gʷm̥-yóh₂ "I come" → Latin uenio /'wenio:/ "I come" → Italian vengo, Portuguese "venho", Romanian "vin", all with /v/
• PIE *gʷem- "to come, to step" → *gʷém-tis "a step" → Ancient Greek βᾰ́σῐς /básis/ "step" → Modern Greek βάση /'vasi/ "basis, foundation"

Meaning went all over the place, but they're still cognates.

Or, in case you're referring to (*gʷṓws "cattle" - because of the cow): it should have been "vos" /w/ in Latin, but for some reason it ended as "bos" /b/ instead. If Latin didn't misbehave then it would be another example; compare with Greek βοῦς /bu:s/ "cattle, ox" → βόδι /'voði/ "ox"

nyaa.si has a bunch. Just be careful to not download the manga instead. (Both are under the same section, "Literature".)

Fair points. Well, it makes sense, my guess is probably off.

Back to the original question - why is Mojang doing this?

I hate that sort of guest that visits you meal time, but instead of having the meal with you they want to do something else. It's so... socially awkward, you know?

This happened to me twice this week. In both cases the same guest, visiting my mum, so they could crochet together. The first time I had placed piping hot food on the table, and then as the guest left my mum was complaining the food was cold. *sigh*

"This change in our version numbering won’t have a huge impact on our players," says Mojang. "We are, however, hoping it’ll make it easier for our creator partners and modders to understand which of our version numbers represent a game drop, and which of them represent patches or bug fixes to our drops."

I know that Mojang is not being honest, that there's something going on, but I can't exactly pinpoint what.

The old numbering system is not hard to understand. It's simply 1.A.B, where A = major version ("game drop") and B = patch/bugfix. And the newer one is not easier, it's A₁.A₂.B where A₁ = year and A₂ = major version within that year.

Perhaps this is meddling from the above? It's possible Microsoft is trying to kill the Java version, but before that it's trying to leave explicit that all Java versions became "deprecated" - and having the release year in it is a good way to show it. But that's just me guessing.

all the shitty languages like fr*nch

I know you that you are joking, and that the target is not a marginalised language. But please, linguistic prejudice is not healthy, not even for jokes.

With that out of the way... why not go the same way Sejong and Sequoyah went? Instead of adopting old scripts, creating new ones.

turkish could use the tibetan script

I feel like Turkish did a really good job "wrestling" the Latin alphabet, considering they aren't even in the same family. It would be nice if it had a script better suited for languages with vowel harmony, though.

I think your mum identified a real cultural difference, but she's blaming it incorrectly.

Your point #2 is spot on: as you grow older you're expected to do more things your own way, than you did as a child. Take some risks, learn with mistakes, get other things right. That's so biological that even chimps are like this too.

So at least some level of "let me cook!" is expected. Even if your family stayed in China, or if moved elsewhere than USA.

However, that does interact with culture. Because we humans want two things:

1. independence - the ability to act on our own
2. community - support from our own peers (family, friends, etc.)

Both are desirable, but mutually exclusive - you can't have your cake and eat it too. But how much of each we give up for the sake of the other depends on culture. And based on a lot of things I think people in USA are expected to focus on #1 at expense of #2, while people in China focus on #2 at the expense of #1. (That's a continuum, though. Nobody is giving up all their independence, or all their community.)

And that's bound to interact with how adolescents are expected to behave. With your parents being raised to expect a lot less independence of you than you, being raised in USA, want.

So… do you think Americans (or Westerners in general) are “too rebellious”? Were you “too rebellious” growing up? If you have children, do you think they are “too rebellious”? Should kids be being “more obedient”?

My family wasn't even remotely healthy so it's poor grounds for comparison. But let's say I learned rather quickly how to do my own thing while pretending to play along a screeching mother, who dumped her stress on her two children. (For reference I'm from Latin America, and almost 40.)

I don't have children. The nearest of a "filial figure" I have is a nephew. If anything I think he's a bit too obedient.

Instead of an "internation script" I wish people diversified scripts further. (And low-key wish English adopted the Shavian alphabet.)

For me the neatest aspect of Hangul is its block-building. Syllables are fully visible, as their own units, without masking the phonemes.

The intro of the video is a bit silly, but the info on Hangul's historical background is really cool. Specially regarding the "lost letters"; further info here, for those who want.

Relevant to note a writing system doesn't need to be flexible to "spread out". The Latin alphabet for example wasn't designed like Hangul*, but it was still pretty much tailored to a single language, Latin. That's why for example you have so few letters for fricatives and vowels. It's more of a matter of power - the Latin alphabet piggybacked on Republican Rome, then the Imperial Rome, then the Catholic church.

In an alternate timeline, where English used Hangul instead... people wouldn't be screaming "why does ⟨island⟩ have a mute ⟨s⟩???". They'd be screaming why

has a mute ⟨ㅅ⟩ instead, or similar**.

The youtuber probably knows it because it pops up specially often when talking about Korean, but do note what's transcribed as /ʌ/ for English is actually closer to [ɐ]. So when she talks about ⟨ㆍ⟩, note the letter was probably for something like [ɐ] or [ə]; a different sound than ⟨ㅓ⟩ eo that is also transcribed as /ʌ/ (this one is actually [ʌ] though).

*with a major exception: the letter ⟨G⟩. Originally Latin spelled both /k/ and /g/ with ⟨C⟩. Then some guy called Ruga was not amused people kept mispronouncing his name. The Roman emperor Claudius also designed three letters, ⟨Ↄ Ⅎ Ⱶ⟩, but they were short lived.

** inb4: yes, I know, ⟨ㅣㅏ⟩ are supposed to represent /i a/, not /aɪ̯ ə/... in Korean; my point is that English would make the same mess with Hangul it does with Latin. Also, I had to cheese the cluster there.