0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

[Michael Everson via Unicode]

Not using Turkic letters is daft, particularly as there was a widely-used transliteration in Kazakhstan anyway. And even if not Ç Ş, they could have used Ć and Ś. 

There’s no value in using diagraphs in Kazakh particularly when there could be a one-to-one relation with the Cyrillic orthography, and I bet you anything there will be ambiguity where some morpheme ends in -s and the next begins with h- where you have [sx] and not [ʃ]. 

Groan.

> On 20 Feb 2018, at 20:40, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
> 
> Michael Everson:
>> Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself and 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş.
> 
> I would have argued in favor of digraphs for G' and N' as well if there already was a decision for Ch and Sh.
> 
> Many European orthographies use the digraph Qu although the letter Q does not occur otherwise.