Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Dobrodošli na forum Medžuslovjanskogo jezyka! Želajemo vam mnogo prijemnosti.
Добродошли на форум Меджусловјанского језыка! Желајемо вам много пријемности.
Welcome to Interslavic! We hope you enjoy your visit.

Sejčas pogledajete naše forum kako gosť. To znači, že imajete ograničeny dostup do někojih česti forum i ne možete koristati vse funkcije. Ako li pristupite v našu grupu, budete imati svobodny dostup do sekcij preznačenyh jedino za členov, na pr. založeňje profila, izsylaňje privatnyh poslaň i učestničstvo v glasovaňjah. Zapisaňje se jest prosto, bystro i vpolno bezplatno.

Сејчас погледајете наше форум како гость. То значи, же имајете ограничены доступ до некојих чести форум и не можете користати все функције. Ако ли приступите в нашу групу, будете имати свободны доступ до секциј презначеных једино за членов, на пр. заложеньје профила, изсыланьје приватных послань и учестничство в гласованьјах. Записаньје се јест просто, быстро и вполно безплатно.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Pristupite v našu grupu! Приступите в нашу групу! Join our community!
Ako li už jeste člen, prijavite se, že byste mogli koristati vse možnosti:
Ако ли уж јесте член, пријавите се, же бысте могли користати все можности:
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Just one alphabet forever; It is allowed to mix alphabets, no-one cares if the result is unnatural
Topic Started: Sep 5 2010, 12:53 PM (4,759 Views)
Gabriel Svoboda

(Written by Hellerick in 2007 here.)

ПAMETUJETE JAK ГAБRIEЛ ПЛANOVAЛ USTANOVIT NOVO UПOREДANIJE ПISMEN AЛФAБETA — NI ЦIRIЛIЧKO NI ЛATINSKO, AЛE NEJAKO SREДNO? JA MISЛIЛ ЧE TO БUДE ДOБRO I VEЛMO ПOЛIT-KOREKTNO, JESЛI MI БUДEMO MEШAT NE TOЛKO UПOREДANIJE ПISMEN, AЛE SAME ПISMENA TAKЖE.

TUT JE ПЛANOVANI MNOJU VSE-SЛAVENSKI AЛФAБET (AЛФAБUKA):

AБГДEЖЗIJKЛMNOПRSTФUХVЦЧШ

V TOM AЛФAБETE JE VIШE ЧISЛO ЦIRIЛIЧKIХ ПISMEN, NEЖ ЛATINSKIХ. AЛE ЛATINSKE ПISMENA SU KORISTOVANE V SЛAVENKOM JAЗIKE VIШE ЧASTO. ПO MOJEJ STATISTIKE, V TEKSTE ПISANOM VSE-SЛAVENSKIM AЛФAБETOM БUДUT 24% ЦIRIЛIЧKIХ ПISMEN, 24% ЛATINSKIХ ПISMEN, I 52% VЗAJEMNIХ ПISMEN. IЗ ДVOХ VARIANTOV (ЦIRIЛIЧKOГO I ЛATINSKOГO) JA VIБERAЛ ДЛJA AЛФAБETA TO ПISMENO KTORO NE TVORI KONФUЗIJU. TOЛKO JEДIN RAЗ JA NE MOГЛ IЗБEГNUT TOГO: IЗ ПISMEN Х I H JA VIБRAЛ ЦIRIЛIЧKU Х, ЗA TO ЧE ПISMENO Х KORISTUJE SE V ЛATINSKIХ TEKSTAХ VIШE REДKO, NEЖ Н V ЦIRIЛIЧKIХ TEKSTAХ.

ПRE TO ЧE KORISTOVANIJE MAЛIХ ПISMEN VEЛMO ROЗNIХ OД VEЛIKIХ ПISMEN TOЛKO TVORI JEШЧE VIШE KONФUЗIJU, JA REШIЛ ЗEMESTO IХ KORISTOVAT MAЛE VERЗIJI VEЛIKIХ ПISMEN.

:) (USMEШKA)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

БОЖЕ МОJ! IMAM NAДЕJU ЖЕ ТО JE JEN ЗАБАVA
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Gabriel, to je tvoja odpoveď na predloženje upotrebjati v jednom alfabete ščž i ŕńľťďśź? Ili j i ь?
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
I have played with an alphabet like that in the past and came to precisely the same conclusions as Hellerick! :)

BTW, ideas of mixing Latin and Cyrillic are not entirely new, see f.ex. this.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabriel Svoboda

Jarvi, to je moja odpoveď na predloženje upotrebjati j i ь v jednom alfavite.

ščž i ŕńľťďśź v jednom alfavite ne je problem, dolnolužickoserbski ima taki alfavit. On toľko ne ima ľ, ť, ď, za to čo on ne ima tutte fonemi (ale nijaki latinskoalfavitni slovjanski jezik ne ima vse sedem mekke bukvi, ktore ima Slovianski).

Každi kirilicnoalfavitni slovjanski jezik ima /j/, C'a i C'u. Ale každi piše ih inokak:

voshodnoslovajsnki i bulgarski pišut й, ня, ню, ne imajut ј i њ
serbski i makedonski pišut ј, ња, њу, ne imajut й, я i ю

Ne je možlivi kompromis, toľko neprirodni hibrid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
On toľko ne ima ľ, ť, ď, za to čo on ne ima tutte fonemi (ale nijaki latinskoalfavitni slovjanski jezik ne ima vse sedem mekke bukvi, ktore ima Slovianski).

That's right. But importing the remaining phonemes from other languages is not a problem for you, especially not "creating a hybrid". Don't you realise that exactly the same thing goes for Cyrillic as well? What I am proposing is nothing more or less than using Serbian Cyrillic with imported ь for those phonemes that are non-existent in Serbian and Macedonian. The only difference is that since we already have to import the ь anyway for that purpose, we might as well extend it to lj and nj for reasons of consistency (we would also have used acutes for tj and dj if Unicode had allowed us). It's just that calling it "Serbian Cyrillic with an addition" doesn't sound very democratic, and besides, Serbs and Russians can write it equally easily. Writing "vasz" is as much of a hybrid as writing "дльа". Likewise, mixing ń with ľ is as much as a hybrid, too. But this is nothing to do with creating hybrids or zxrakulism, this is just a matter of consistency.

To use a parallel: is a red Fiat Punto more Fiat Punto than a green one? Can you say that one of them is more "standard" or "better" than the other just because there happen to be a few more red ones than green ones? Of course not! What I mean by "prototype orthography" is simply that it doesn't have any colour yet. Ligatures like я and љ are just ways of painting it red or green, but "дльа" is still the prototype. Serbs contract it to "дља", Russians to "для". Who are we to say that для is better? I'm sure a Serb won't agree! If he doesn't know Russian or Bulgarian, he might not even know the character я. Mind, if nobody would write a word in a certain way, that doesn't mean he can't read it that way, and дльа is perfectly understandable for both sides.
Edited by IJzeren Jan, Sep 5 2010, 03:09 PM.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

The problem how I see it is that the latin orthography is practical, because it can be typed with CZ layout, while the proposed Cyrillic is impossible to type on any existing layout.
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabriel Svoboda

Quote:
 
What I am proposing is nothing more or less than using Serbian Cyrillic with imported ь for those phonemes that are non-existent in Serbian and Macedonian.


Oh, why do you use Serbian Cyrillic as a basis, then? Do you realise Russian Cyrillic doesn't need to import anything, as everything is already there? We only had Serbian Cyrillic because one of Slovianski's main design criteria is that it can be written on any Slavic keyboard (your own words). If it is no more the case, I propose to keep the Russian orthography that is consistent and looks natural at least to some-one, instead of modified Serbian Cyrillic looking natural to no-one.

Quote:
 
It's just that calling it "Serbian Cyrillic with an addition" doesn't sound very democratic, and besides, Serbs and Russians can write it equally easily.


Equally difficultly, you want to say. Both Serbs and Russians would have to switch their keyboard layout three times a sentence. With the natural Russian orthography, a Serb would switch just once at the beginning and once at the end. Of course, everyone can use alternative letters, nevertheless the modified Serbian alphabet can't be advertised as being easy to type per se.

Quote:
 
Writing "vasz" is as much of a hybrid as writing "дльа". Likewise, mixing ń with ľ is as much as a hybrid, too. But this is nothing to do with creating hybrids or zxrakulism, this is just a matter of consistency.


Okay, so let's say we can't be 100% consistent for the Latin alphabet. But for Cyrillic we can.

Quote:
 
To use a parallel: is a red Fiat Punto more Fiat Punto than a green one? Can you say that one of them is more "standard" or "better" than the other just because there happen to be a few more red ones than green ones? Of course not! What I mean by "prototype orthography" is simply that it doesn't have any colour yet. Ligatures like я and љ are just ways of painting it red or green, but "дльа" is still the prototype.


"дльа" may be a prototype, but "дльа једного" already is just green Fiat Punto with red dots, it's not colourless.

Quote:
 
I'm sure a Serb won't agree! If he doesn't know Russian or Bulgarian, he might not even know the character я.


Likewise a Russian might not even know the character ј. Indeed a lot of Russians know the Latin alphabet, but most likely the English Latin alphabet (i. e. j = dž), ot any Slavic Latin alphabet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Well, I should say that any Russian that learns English will easily learn that "jedin" means not "džedin"
But I support Gabriel's position. We should not rip Cyrillic, for Ukrainian is already enough to type any Slovianski text.
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

Jarvi
Sep 5 2010, 08:11 PM
Well, I should say that any Russian that learns English will easily learn that "jedin" means not "džedin"
But I support Gabriel's position. We should not rip Cyrillic, for Ukrainian is already enough to type any Slovianski text.
We didnt rip anything. You can write Slovianski on your Russian keyboard, only that every Russian who learn Slovianski will know that e is e and not ye. And that slovianski have no diphtongs. So if he want to write писание or коня he will have to write pisan'e, kon'a or писанье, коньа.
Edited by wannabeme, Sep 5 2010, 10:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
There are two things I don't understand.

First, there is not a single orthography in the world that has both ń and ľ. So we are mixing an element from Polish with an element from Czech/Slovak. Yet, nobody calls this "creating a hybrid". And it's not: both elements were brought together because they look alike, and it only makes sense to use the same diacritic for denoting the same ting. It's also because there is no other way, because no language has all the characters we need in one alphabet. Indeed, Sorbian comes closest, but even Sorbian misses a few. On the other hand Serbian does have љ and њ, but it has nothing for the remaining five. However, љ and њ are clear contractions of л/н + ь, so it would be no more than logical that a Serbian-based orthography would also use contractions with ь for the remaining soft consonants. Well, it actually does have ћ and ђ, but everybody complains Russians can't understand those. Montenegrin has recently adopted acuted с and з, but they don't solve the issue either, they aren't even in Unicode. So what we are doing is simply: separate the ligatures and apply the ь to all soft vowels. That is exactly the same thing we've been doing for the soft vowels in Latin. It is clear and systematic. And whereas the Latin-writing orthographies don't have to their disposition at least 3 or 4 of the soft consonants, in the case of the Cyrillic-writing orthographies it's only one. So why is everybody suddenly screaming blue murder over combining ј and ь? It's no more a hybrid than the Latin solution!

Secondly, and this is especially to Gabriel. This is your own introduction of the Slovianska Gazeta, one of the flagships of Slovianski:

"СЛОВИАНСКА ГАЗЕТА јесть вебсајт писани посредствем јазик Словиански-П. Много сто милиони Словјани розумејут јего непосредно и безусилно. Словиански-П употребја слова взата из руски, польски и ине словјанске јазики. Идеально дльа путованје!"

Gabriel, are you aware of the fact that - apart from a few grammatical and lexical differences, of course - this is exactly the solution I am proposing for the dictionary? I find it a little odd that you have been actually using the very same orthography you are now opposing so vehemently!

EDIT: And w.r.t. Ukrainian characters like є... with all due respect, but for the average person who isn't into Ukrainian himself, this just looks like a weird e, nothing else. And what for? Only because йе looks bad? And God forbid that we'd ever apply an orthography that does not coincide with that of one of the national languages - even though that's exactly what we do with the Latin orthography? Well then, Ukrainian won't help us out either, because it has only four j + vowel ligatures. Besides, these ligatures are much more impractical than the Serbian ones: the latter coincide with phonemes, while the Russian/Ukrainian ones represent sometimes 1˝ phoneme and sometimes 2.
[čć]
Edited by IJzeren Jan, Sep 6 2010, 01:27 AM.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gabriel Svoboda

About the first thing: I don't scream blue murder whenever I see a hybird. But I do scream whenever I seem a hybrid larger than necessary. You know, we need seven soft letters. For the Latin alphabet, it means that if Slovianski adopted

- Polish solution (ń, ś, ź), we would have to adopt 4 additional hybridising letters (ď, ľ, ŕ, ť)
- Sorbian solution (ń, ŕ/ř, ś, ź), we would have to adopt 3 additional hybridising letters (ď, ľ, ť)
- Czech solution (ď, ň, ř, ť), we would have to adopt 3 additional hybridising letters (ľ, ś, ź)
- Slovak solution (ď, ľ, ň, ť), we would have to adopt 3 additional hybridising letters (ŕ, ś, ź)
- Croatian-Slovenian solution (lj, nj), we would have to adopt 5 additional hybridising letters (in this case probably dj, rj, sj, tj, zj)

It is quite clear that Serbian-Czech-Slovak solution is the best. Yes, it is a hybrid. Being the best doesn't mean being good, but nothing better is possible. The impossibility of a good solution should not mean we are free to adopt an even worse solution.

Let's look at Cyrillic. If Slovianski adopted

- Serbian solution (ља, ња), we would have to adopt 5 additional hybridising letters (for example дьа, рьа, сьа, тьа, зьа)
- Russian solution (дя, ля, ня, ря, ся, тя, зя), we would - bingo! - have to adopt exactly 0 additional hybridising letters

It is obvious whis solution is the best (and even good at the same time).

About the second thing: Yes, I had once used exactly the same orthography you are proposing now. But I have never been satisfied with it, I just thought it was the best possible solution, I wasn't aware of the possibility to utilise east Slavic Cyrillic in a consistent and easily transliterable manner. When you came back in 2008, you presented such a possibility, so I happily threw out the previous worse solution. That's why I feel your current proposal as going backward to an illness I thought Slovianski had already undergone. It's like if you proposed to exhume the 2006 Slovianski-S - would you be surprised if I vehemently opposed it now, even though I used it myself four years ago?

Quote:
 
And w.r.t. Ukrainian characters like є... with all due respect, but for the average person who isn't into Ukrainian himself, this just looks like a weird e, nothing else.


Which is great - it's better that it looks as a weird e, than if it looked as a weird unknown character.

Quote:
 
And what for? Only because йе looks bad?


Exactly.

Quote:
 
And God forbid that we'd ever apply an orthography that does not coincide with that of one of the national languages - even though that's exactly what we do with the Latin orthography?


With the Latin orthography, we adopt the alphabet that has most required characers, and fill in the small number of gaps. With the Cyrillic alphabet, you propose to completely ignore the alphabet having all required characters, and to use the alphabet having only a small number of them, with the need to fill in a large number of gaps. Who cares the east Slavic orthography has no such gaps.

Quote:
 
Well then, Ukrainian won't help us out either, because it has only four j + vowel ligatures.


No problem, йо is attested.

Quote:
 
Besides, these ligatures are much more impractical than the Serbian ones: the latter coincide with phonemes, while the Russian/Ukrainian ones represent sometimes 1˝ phoneme and sometimes 2.


This is just how a majority of Slavs write, and with respect to Common Slavic, it is not less logical than the fanatical concept of piši kao što govoriš i čitaj kako je napisano making things more difficult than easy sometimes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Gabriel, after all this discussion and Drazen's input, I thought that we should not be so blind and ask the opinion of Southern Slavs, how я ю are common to them.
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Before this gets out of hand, I want to underline the fact that I was just sharing a few ideas. I have been working on Slovianski very intensively over the last few months and in the process I have come to a few new insights. There are mostly the result of my work on Naučni Slovianski, which made me see things in a different perspective, and of the thoughts I got while creating dictionaries in several of the official orthographies.

Slovianski's phonology has been flawed from the beginning. Back in the old days, I proposed a system in which Й/J and Ь/' were basically the same thing. That was meant to be a simplification of sounds like Ń, Ľ, Ś and the like. It was quite simple, really: Slovianski had just the normal 25 sounds (22 letters + 3 with hačeks), and palatalisers were treated as a separate phoneme for reasons of convenience. For aesthetical reasons, J was represented as ' when it was preceded by a consonant and not followed by a vowel, so we had PJAT' instead of PJATJ. The apostrophe was, in fact, a little J (or actually an I, because that's what we were using those days). It could be anywhere in a word: pjat', kraj, jezero, ljubit', stojati. And it would be up to the speaker how he'd pronounce it: as t', t-j, or even t. Of course, this is not how things really work in Slavic; it is an approximation, a simplification.

You're right, it was actually me who insisted on using Я, because йазик looks horrible. OTOH it was not me who started talking about distinguishing between D' and DJ, and I to tell you the truth, I was more than surprised when I returned after a long break to find out that people were suddenly writing l'ubit' and t'agnut' (but still: pjat'). And in no time, Slovianski had acquired seven new phonemes. Thus we adopted the rich consonantal system from Russian and kept the simple vowel system from South Slavic, which is of course asking for trouble. Introducing Y could actually have saved us a lot of problems, but for some reason the subject was pretty much taboo. Oddly, while Y was considered to be something extremely hostile towards South Slavs, nobody seemed to have the slightest problem with the introduction of soft vowels that are completely absent in South Slavic.

It's not that I dislike those 7 soft consonants, because they make things quite complete, and there's a nice kind of logic in the fact that all alveolar/dental consonants have their softened counterpart. But if we'd really have decided to go for simplification, we shouldn't have done that. It's either a rich consonantal system, a rich vowel system and an orthography that can write it, or just 5 vowels and 20 consonants, possibly with additional LJ and NJ only, and an orthography anybody can write. That would have been fair for the South Slavs, especially the Bulgarians. And we shouldn't complain about mora or puta in that case. Let's face it, it's not like we really NEED those soft consonants. The dictionary has 10 occurrences of Ś and 5 occurrences of Ź, and it's not like Slovianski would suddenly become a lot harder if we just used Z and S here. Ŕ isn't that common either. We have words like boŕba, deveŕ, zveŕ, januaŕ, bŕuho, moŕe and buŕa, but all in all, not more than 20 of them. We could do without them; an average text probably wouldn't even be affected at all.

But now that we have these phonemes, we need a way to write them. The Latin alphabets have several options for expressing palatalisation, and if it hadn't been for ś/š and ź/ž, we might have used hačeks instead. Everybody can use the apostrophe in both cases, because it looks kind of similar to the apostrophe in ť or ľ, as well as to an acute. However, in Cyrillic there is only one way to represent ŕ: рь. How would a Serbian or Macedonian write that? Зверј - ugly and incorrect! Звер' - wrong, because Cyrillic doesn't use apostrophes that way. Звер6, because of the similarity in form to ь? Retarded! So is there any other solution but ь? Yes, there is. Just leave it out and write звер. And there goes your regular grammar, because how are we going to explain a genitive зверја? Unless other orthographies will have zvera too, that would imply grammatical differences between the orthographies, something we can't have either.

Serbs, however, CAN write звер as long as they know it is an "cyr-asciification" of зверь. And that is not too much asked: to read Slovianski you don't need to know it, but to write it, you have to. So why on Earth would рь imply that я/ю must be used as well, only because now all of a sudden we are restricted to the rather tought orthographical rules of Russian?

In my opinion, Slovianski orthography/-ies should have the following characteristics:
1. It must be understandable (!!!)
2. It must be writable on any Slavic keyboard (!!)
3. It should logical, match phonology etc.
4. It should not be offensive (like йа, for instance)
5. If possible, it should be easily transliterable

If Dražen says that a lot of Serbs won't understand ю, я and є, that should be enough reason for NOT using these letters. Especially since nobody protested against NOT using ћ and ђ for the very same reason. Besides, adopting the Russian system in toto has one other disadvantage, related to е/э: sometimes it's je, sometimes it's e. Not exactly a typical solution in an auxlang, and hard to handle for those who aren't used to it. A Serbian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian would read език as "ezik", not as "jezik". Did you know my transliteration program has a character counter to determine what kind of orthography is used in order to know how it should be transliterated? Sure, we can use Ukrainian є and ї to handle those awkward йе and йи cases, and йо is well attested (although iopq seems to hate it), but why should we? Serbian ј can take care of each and every occurence of j in the Latin orthography, including cases like Pjotr. A Ukrainian-based orthography would make it look outright alien to Serbs and Macedonians (no less than 6 characters they don't have, half of which they wouldn't even understand), and difficult to handle for Bulgarians and Russians (2 imported characters). Sure, what you win is an orthography that is consistent, existing as a current orthography and fairly easy to transliterate, but what you lose is a hell of a lot more than that. The ј solution means that everybody imports only one character, which is generally understandable for both sides. Sure, дльа may look a bit strange for Russians and Ukrainians, but it's not like they suddenly wouldn't understand it. It would be logical as well, since для is nothing but д+ль+а. And they can always write для if they prefer.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

What I am affraid of is that actually nobody will use this orthography in practice. Yes, it is possible to use transliterator, but there are people who don't have unlimited access to the Internet or they want to write immediately - like on forum or chat. And it is not the pleasure to write in Latin and convert to Cyrillic after. Yes, cyrillic Slovianski is rarely used, but I used it for some my texts and forum posts. Yes, you recommend to use Ctrl+V for the missing symbol, but it would be no news that when you write a long text you use lots of Copy&Paste commands besides multiplying the missing symbol. All this - are problems that users will face trying to use the proposed orthography. You may say: everybody can write the way they prefer - and the result will be that the proposed orthography will never be used. Yes, I am agree that it is the most fair and neutral solution because it includes only the symbols known to all Cyrillic users - but there ARE practical problems. I don't know how to manage with them.
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply