3 ms·
Cursive didn’t go away with the printing press. Non-romantic languages already “print” just fine too. If ASCII is for some reason needed, most non-romantic lang
by O__________O 4y ago
Cursive didn’t go away with the printing press. Non-romantic languages already “print” just fine too. If ASCII is for some reason needed, most non-romantic languages have a system for romanization. Cursive versions of romantic languages exist in unicode, they’re just neither popular, nor as well designed as languages with demand for script versions.
In my opinion, if any change was going to happen, switching to something similar to the International Phonetic Alphabet would make the most sense. Then any languages would be readable; already easy to encode any language in it, just not the norm.
- wlib 4y agoWhat about a Hangul inspired version of IPA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul
- O__________O 4y agoHangul covers Korean language, IPA covers all languages. For example, some languages use clicks; though to be fair, IPA only currently covers 5 of the 6 clicks. Again, point is not IPA is the solution, but that having a common notation would make learning languages much easier and learning only one written notation would be needed.
- wlib 4y agoI just wanted to use a concrete example of a featural writing system. It would of course not be Hangul if it had to accommodate all phonemes. The other direction to take would be to create a sophisticated (probably ML) model that could enable certain features to be optimized, like speed of syllable recognition. If we are constructing a modern writing system then that would definitely be a good approach.