Sheer genius

Hat-tip to , from :

Obsessed as I am with alphabets, I have had to identify the 26 flipped letters:

:sɹǝʇʇǝ1 pǝddı1ɟ xıs-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ǝɥʇ ʎɟıʇuǝpı oʇ pɐɥ ǝʌɐɥ ı ‘sʇǝqɐɥd1ɐ ɥʇıʍ ɯɐ ı sɐ pǝssǝsqo


Most are from the International Phonetic Alphabet – which you can search on WikiPedia.

.ɐıpǝdıʞıʍ uo ɥɔɹɐǝs uɐɔ noʎ ɥɔıɥʍ – ʇǝqɐɥd1ɐ ɔıʇǝuoɥd 1ɐuoıʇɐuɹǝʇuı ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ ǝɹɐ ʇsoɯ

z is just z
ʎ is a a phonetic sign for the sound written ‘gl’ in Italian or ‘lj/љ’ in the languages formerly known as Serbo-Croat
x is just x
ʍ is the way I pronounce the first letters of “what”, though this is not standard English
ʌ is a short ‘u’ sound
n is just n
ʇ is the click sound often written ‘tsk’ in English
s is just s
ɹ is the normal English pronunciation of ‘r’ (unrolled)
b is just b
d is just d
o is just o
u is just u
ɯ is Turkish ‘ı’ sound, a very short ‘uh’
1 is the number 1
ʞ is an obsolete phonetic sign for a click sound (now written ‘kǃ’)
ظ is the rarest letter of the Arabic alphabet (Ẓāʼ).
ı is the Turkish letter which is written ɯ in phonetic script
ɥ is a sound halfway between ‘w’ and ‘y’, as in the start of the French word ‘oui’
b is just b
ɟ is a sound a bit like ‘y’ found only in the Natsilingmiutut dialect of Inuit
ǝ is the phonetic sound for the ‘scha’ or unstressed vowel, as in the second syllable of ‘vowel’ when you pronounce it at normal speed. It is also pronounced a bit differently (like standard English ‘a’ in ‘hat’) as a normal letter in Azeri.
p is just p
ɔ is the short ‘o’ in German and Dutch (and some English dialects, esp Australian and New Zealand). A long ɔ (ɔ:) is the standard English ‘aw’ sound.
q is just q
ɐ is the standard English short ‘u’.

This entry was posted in Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sheer genius

  1. peterbirks says:

    I disagree that Murdoch had a “stifling control of the media”. He had a stifling control of the “mass media”, but I would contend that the period when the mass media ran information dissemination (starting roughly with Northcliffe and continuing with Rothermere, Beaverbrook, Maxwell and Murdoch) is over, a short-lived interregnum. Information dissemination has been democratized, and savvy news disseminators are now sidestepping the mass media.

    In that sense, what are we trying to fix? Few of we liberal elite would deny that the NOTW and the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and several other UK papers were/are a pile of crap, but they exist as commercial enterprises – not (as could perhaps be argued with the case of Fox) as a Beaverbrook-style political agenda. But people buy crap. People want to know tittle-tattle. This Victorian double-standard of “My goodness this is terrible and we are going to spend eight pages telling to about it in full detail” has a long and ignoble history. Scurrilous publications about the elite’s sex lives are nothing new — just look at the cartoons of Caroline of Brunswick. Should George Cruikshank have gone to jail for violating Caroline’s right to privacy?

    I guess that my point is that if you are to have a free press, then you have to take the rough with the smooth. If you think that the rough is “too rough” then, sure, stop the press being free. But there’s no half-way house of “it’s a free press provided they take a ‘reasonable’ line and cover reasonable stories” because that brings in the old “who guards the guardians” argument.

    The weird thing here is that the ‘free press’ argument has actually worked. Your conclusion that

    “Any response which does not give privacy rights to all citizens is a failure”.

    loses as an argument, I think, because the general public is not revolted by the press intruding (perhaps unfairly) into the private lives of those who seek and achieve fame and/or wealth and/or high position, but it IS revolted when the press do the same to “the ordinary man in the street”. The newspaper-buying public, as it were, decided that some people (the rich, the famous and the elite) can be treated differently when it comes to privacy.

    It’s not a perfect world, and nearly all journalists have one major priority when writing a story. That is not: “does this story need to be told?”. It is “will the readers like it enough to buy the paper tomorrow for more of the same?” Journalists and editors might occasionally, indeed, often, pretend otherwise, but that’s the real bottom line when we are thinking about covering a story.



Comments are closed.