3 ms·
To me non-accented Latin characters + apostrophes seems way more computer friendly than accented characters. Sure, Unicode is supposed to be everywhere, but in
by donatj 9y ago
To me non-accented Latin characters + apostrophes seems way more computer friendly than accented characters.
Sure, Unicode is supposed to be everywhere, but in practice it’s simply not. On top of that a more limited character set not requiring any sort of IME or special layer shift keys is way way easier to type.
- abrowne 9y agoBut better than diagraphs? It may be my bias as an English speaker/writer, but I'd pick sh over s’, for example. The vowels are trickier, and just doubling them like Finnish would turn s’i’i’e into shiiiie, so you might need something (an apostrophe ;-) ?) to divide the syllables. I still like shii’iie better, but that's just one word.
- jablan 9y agoSo, when deciding an alphabet for a language, you would go with computer-friendliness as a key metric? Also, what does "computer friendly" mean? How would you break the word "s’i’i’e" into graphemes? "s’" is a single phoneme, but is it a single letter? Does "s’i’i’e" contain letter "s"? If so, why don't we hear it? If the Kazakhs already have the unique opportunity to reform their alphabet, they should do it right and make it phonetic. Introducing apostrophes is simply stupid, and, if not now, they will get rid of them immediately after the emperor dies.