3 ms·

Can you provide argument that a letter was created for Polish for something that was not a phoneme? It has always co-existed with normal L, while it has sometim

• qwerty456127 5y ago
  You probably misunderstood me, I never meant to say Polish Ł and Polish L are the same and have no reason to be distinguished. I meant Polish Ł is a direct counterpart to English L and only differs significantly by the sake of regional/historical shift in accents. The problem is some software just has problems with non-English alphabets because, roughly saying, all the software was meant to only process English text historically and much of it still has not been fixed. Users of non-latin-based alphabets have been accustomed to this and have no problem writing "Иван" as "Ivan" (despite it normally reads even more different in English, more correct phonetic transliteration would be "Eevan"). Heck they even spell "Семён" (~"Semyon", the Russian counterpart to English "Simon") as "Semen" X-). But the users of diacriticized Latin somehow get surprised with this. If I could travel back in time to when ASCII was designed and give the engineers a hint I would ask them to add first-class diacritics to their design so anybody would be able to add the slash for Ł, the umlaut for Ü, Ö or whatever using an extra byte. Sadly, even today we mostly encode Ü as a letter absolutely distinct to U rather than a combination of the latter with the umlaut even though Unicode allows doing this the latter way AFAIK.