5 ms·

Do they? Both alphabets are almost identical, but Cyrillic has many "standardised" sounds that don't appear in the Latin alphabet (Ж "zh", Ц "tz", Ч "ch", Ш "sh

Do they? Both alphabets are almost identical, but Cyrillic has many "standardised" sounds that don't appear in the Latin alphabet (Ж "zh", Ц "tz", Ч "ch", Ш "sh") while I don't think there isn't anything the other way around. The biggest difference is that Latin scripts tend to create new sounds by adding diacritics or digraphs while Cyrillic scripts tend to create new letters — IMO the second way is better for non-Slavic languages.

jjtheblunt 4y ago
RISC vs CISC, really.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  The Hangul script is the most compositional of them all. It marks individual features, that get combined together to form consonants and vowels.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    +100 for Hangul. Its a script that was actually designed, and it shows. The learning curve is actually not steep at all. But it was invented too late, and lacked an expansionist empire, or a widespread religion, to bring it to enough neighboring peoples.
gsich 4y ago
Depends on the target language, with german: Ц -> Z Ш -> Sch Ч -> Tsch one could argue that german should also have one character for the "sch"-Sound instead of 3.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Diacritics exist, and German happily üses them. So the Czech variant, where č = ч, š = ш, ž = ж looks fine to me. The postfix-h notation was a good idea, but the fact that e.g. "ch" is interpreted differently in English, German, and French derails it instantly :(
  - troad 4y ago
    I wish East Slavic languages were more consistently transliterated into something like Czech. I don’t understand the trend to transliterate into English, where you end up with hard to parse compounds like “shzh” and idiosyncratic mixes of Ys, Is, Js, not to even mention the various acutes and apostrophes…
    - Asooka 4y ago
      We don't have Czech letters on our keyboards. That is pretty much the entire reason - it's hard to impossible to type these characters on a standard US QWERTY keyboard, so we don't. Plus the DOS systems will probably balk at them as well.
      - nine_k 4y ago
        You don't need Czech letters on your keyboard; I don't have them on mine. That's the beauty of diacritics: they are compositional. I use compose key to type various letters like é, č, ö, ø, æ, ï, etc on my plain American ANSI keyboard. OTOH to type fast, you might want a more ergonomic input mechanism. (But I won't dive into the rabbit hole of really ergonomic keyboard layouts; if you're curious, search for KMonad, and think about e.g. the convenience of having modifier keys right in the home row.)
        the_gipsy 4y ago
        Do you use kmonad to customize those mappings? I happen to write in Spanish and German, for which the us-international layout is just perfect. But I did customize my xkb for some other keys, and I used to use kmonad before.
        nine_k 4y ago
        If I wrote a ton of German, or Swedish, or Czech, I'd likley create a layer dedicated to these letters with diacritics, just to access them in 2 keypresses rather than in 3.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

RISC vs CISC, really.

zozbot234 4y ago
The Hangul script is the most compositional of them all. It marks individual features, that get combined together to form consonants and vowels.
- nine_k 4y ago
  +100 for Hangul. Its a script that was actually designed, and it shows. The learning curve is actually not steep at all. But it was invented too late, and lacked an expansionist empire, or a widespread religion, to bring it to enough neighboring peoples.

gsich 4y ago

Depends on the target language, with german: Ц -> Z Ш -> Sch Ч -> Tsch one could argue that german should also have one character for the "sch"-Sound instead of 3.

nine_k 4y ago
Diacritics exist, and German happily üses them. So the Czech variant, where č = ч, š = ш, ž = ж looks fine to me. The postfix-h notation was a good idea, but the fact that e.g. "ch" is interpreted differently in English, German, and French derails it instantly :(
- troad 4y ago
  I wish East Slavic languages were more consistently transliterated into something like Czech. I don’t understand the trend to transliterate into English, where you end up with hard to parse compounds like “shzh” and idiosyncratic mixes of Ys, Is, Js, not to even mention the various acutes and apostrophes…
  - Asooka 4y ago
    We don't have Czech letters on our keyboards. That is pretty much the entire reason - it's hard to impossible to type these characters on a standard US QWERTY keyboard, so we don't. Plus the DOS systems will probably balk at them as well.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      You don't need Czech letters on your keyboard; I don't have them on mine. That's the beauty of diacritics: they are compositional. I use compose key to type various letters like é, č, ö, ø, æ, ï, etc on my plain American ANSI keyboard. OTOH to type fast, you might want a more ergonomic input mechanism. (But I won't dive into the rabbit hole of really ergonomic keyboard layouts; if you're curious, search for KMonad, and think about e.g. the convenience of having modifier keys right in the home row.)
      - the_gipsy 4y ago
        Do you use kmonad to customize those mappings? I happen to write in Spanish and German, for which the us-international layout is just perfect. But I did customize my xkb for some other keys, and I used to use kmonad before.
        nine_k 4y ago
        If I wrote a ton of German, or Swedish, or Czech, I'd likley create a layer dedicated to these letters with diacritics, just to access them in 2 keypresses rather than in 3.