Depends on how you define regular really but Turkish alphabet also doesn't map 1-to-1 with IPA sounds we can transcribe Turkish language with. Of course, this v

Depends on how you define regular really but Turkish alphabet also doesn't map 1-to-1 with IPA sounds we can transcribe Turkish language with. Of course, this very much depends on regional accent, but overall Turkish accents are pretty consistent that they present both /c/ and /k/ sounds yet they're both transcribed as [k] since it's obvious which sound should be produced for a native speaker (depends on the vowel). Similar anomaly exists for [g] where there are palatal and velar varities. I think the concept of language fitting an alphabet is flawed. As I mentioned in my sibling comment, although GP considers digraph usage more natural than diacritics, many alphabet designers preferred the opposite. I.e. they turned English digraphs into their own diacritics. Does this make the modified alphabet more suitable for the language? I don't know if there is an objective way to answer that. If there is, let me know. Realistically, any of the worlds' languages would be usable with any of the alphabets.