0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?
Philippe Verdy via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Tue Feb 20 20:19:48 CST 2018
I call that more isolationism: If I can uncerstand the political reasons
for not looking like Turkish, why then do they use the dotless i in this
last version (not distinguished however from the dotted i in capital) ?
This is not just a transliteration, this is also a proposal to do at the
same time an simplification of the orthography by reducing the alphabet.
They'll have the troubles with people's names and new cases of homonymies,
causing adminsitrative difficulties for these people... When other
countries are now going to the inverse direction (accepting to extend their
alphabet by adding more letters or distinguishing variants, and then treat
ortrhographic simplifications not globally but on selected lists of terms
studied by their local linguistic authorities, and otherwise allowing or
demanding simplifications only on selected applications), here it is the
reverse: create an alphabet that will not look like Turkish, not like
Russian, not like other Eastern European languages, and also not like their
own national language, clearing a singificant part of its history. All the
difficulties coming at the same time and that will cost them a lot, because
there's no place at all for transition and adaptation !
2018-02-21 2:19 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:
> Stalin would be very pleased. Divide and conquer.
> > On 21 Feb 2018, at 01:15, Garth Wallace via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> > AIUI "doesn't look like Turkish" was one of the design criteria, for
> political reasons.
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:07 PM Michael Everson via Unicode <
> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> > 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>
> > >
> > > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode