6 ms·

Sincere question: if Russians have first made the modern computer (and therefore the de facto language of computing is Russian and Cyrillic), are you okay with

Sincere question: if Russians have first made the modern computer (and therefore the de facto language of computing is Russian and Cyrillic), are you okay with only using Cyrillic as the sole script?

p-e-w 4y ago
> if Russians have first made the modern computer (and therefore the de facto language of computing is Russian and Cyrillic) The first part of this sentence does not imply the second. The world's first programmable computer was in fact created by a German. That doesn't make German the language of computing. > are you okay with only using Cyrillic as the sole script No, because Russian/Cyrillic lacks the properties that make English/Latin so useful as a universal language/script: * Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. * English is far more widely spoken and read than any language written in Cyrillic. * The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. That's an extremely important property and immediately predisposes English for the role it has today. There are objective arguments for English as a universal language for computing. This isn't just "cultural imperialism" or something. English is not my first language, but if I try to imagine my first language being used in its place, I immediately see dozens of serious issues that would arise, all of which are non-issues with English.
- vore 4y ago
  I think you are doing some backwards reasoning based on the prevalence of English in computing to justify why we would only need the English alphabet. > * Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. There may be standard transliteration systems for non-English alphabet languages, but there are often multiple standard transliteration systems (e.g. Russian, Arabic). Also, Chinese transliteration is pretty gobbledygook without diacritics that aren't present in the English alphabet (and kind of gobbledygook even with diacritics). > * English is far more widely spoken and read than any language written in Cyrillic. What if the de facto language of computing was Mandarin instead? > * The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. That's an extremely important property and immediately predisposes English for the role it has today. The Latin script used by English is exactly all the letters you need to write English. Many other languages written in Latin script either have more (e.g. Spanish, Norwegian), or fewer (e.g. Italian, Serbian), or have different rules for certain things (e.g. Turkish).
  - p-e-w 4y ago
    > What if the de facto language of computing was Mandarin instead? Mandarin isn't "widely" spoken. It's spoken by a large number of people, almost all of which reside in a single country. This makes it utterly useless as an international standard. And the Chinese writing system would have been far too complicated to become the foundation of computing. We're talking a couple dozen characters vs. tens of thousands. Only recently did it even become possible to accurately represent the whole gamut of Chinese writing using digital systems.
    - vore 4y ago
      Sure, I agree that far fewer people would want to use Mandarin as a lingua franca compared to English, but that's not really a computing-specific thing but more a reflection of its cultural dominance in general. That said, technology follows the needs of people, not the other way round. If we were living in a parallel reality where Mandarin had the cultural cachet of English, I'm positive we would have immediately subjugated computers to deal with Chinese characters ;-)
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Mandarin isn't "widely" spoken. It's spoken by a large number of people, almost all of which reside in a single country. This makes it utterly useless as an international standard. The norm for international communication is that zero people on either side speak the language. Internal communication anywhere in Achaemenid Persia took place in Imperial Aramaic, which was spoken by some subject peoples in the west of the empire. International communication between Mitanni (speaking an unnamed Indic language) and Egypt (speaking (Afroasiatic) Middle or Late Egyptian) took place in (Semitic) Akkadian. International communication between Japan and Korea took place in classical Chinese, spoken by neither side and unrelated to the languages spoken in either. Similarly, international communication between Vietnam and China took place in classical Chinese, spoken by neither side (though closely related to the languages spoken in China). Treaties between early modern Russia and China could not be concluded in classical Chinese, so they were concluded in Latin, spoken by neither side. It just isn't an expectation that international communication will use a language that is spoken by any party to the communication. This is for the obvious reason that anyone who wants to join the conversation uses whatever is already in use, even if the language currently in use has been dead for a thousand years.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. Well, it's not true by any measure. It is not the case that almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latinate script. > The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. This isn't true either. Why would an Italian consider the weird English letter 'j' more universal than the weird French letter 'ç'? The French might not mind 'j', but what are they supposed to think about 'w'?
- zinekeller 4y ago
  > There are objective arguments for English as a universal language for computing. This isn't just "cultural imperialism" or something. English is not my first language, but if I try to imagine my first language being used in its place, I immediately see dozens of serious issues that would arise, all of which are non-issues with English. The "objective arguments" you're saying is simply hand-waving on the fact that the English (and Americans, which mainly descended from English pioneers) have spoken English. I should remind you that French is still the primary language of diplomacy (even it looks like English has replaced it) and French has also a robust transliteration system to many languages (and in some cases which is even better than how English handles it due to its fewer phonological edge-cases), mainly because it also have historically controlled some parts of Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, and have a serious diplomatic force for areas which the French haven't bothered to conquer with. Now, the question is simply what if Cyrillic is the lingua franca of the computing world, and you've never answered it directly. You instead doubled-down on the supposed benefits of the standard English and alphabet which is not what I'm asking. You might not have an answer here, being that it's hard to imagine that alternate reality, but I should remind you that a lot of people globally have significantly different scripts and doesn't know any Latin letters. Sure, the Chinese knows it, but it doesn't apply to many other people in Asia and Africa.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  >No, because Russian/Cyrillic lacks the properties that make English/Latin so useful as a universal language/script: Which is in particular? >Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. Combination of historical circumstances and you confusing cause and effect. You can write english in cyrilic. >English is far more widely spoken and read than any language written in Cyrillic. See above. >The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. That's an extremely important property and immediately predisposes English for the role it has today. Why? It makes english almost the only language you can write properly. This is a bad property.
xcdzvyn 4y ago
Yes? Cyrillic would only take a few weeks to accustom to.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  I really meant that for the GP, but just to put it on the record I'm also answering in the positive.

Sincere question: if Russians have first made the modern computer (and therefore the de facto language of computing is Russian and Cyrillic), are you okay with only using Cyrillic as the sole script?

p-e-w 4y ago

> if Russians have first made the modern computer (and therefore the de facto language of computing is Russian and Cyrillic) The first part of this sentence does not imply the second. The world's first programmable computer was in fact created by a German. That doesn't make German the language of computing. > are you okay with only using Cyrillic as the sole script No, because Russian/Cyrillic lacks the properties that make English/Latin so useful as a universal language/script: * Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. * English is far more widely spoken and read than any language written in Cyrillic. * The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. That's an extremely important property and immediately predisposes English for the role it has today. There are objective arguments for English as a universal language for computing. This isn't just "cultural imperialism" or something. English is not my first language, but if I try to imagine my first language being used in its place, I immediately see dozens of serious issues that would arise, all of which are non-issues with English.

vore 4y ago
I think you are doing some backwards reasoning based on the prevalence of English in computing to justify why we would only need the English alphabet. > * Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. There may be standard transliteration systems for non-English alphabet languages, but there are often multiple standard transliteration systems (e.g. Russian, Arabic). Also, Chinese transliteration is pretty gobbledygook without diacritics that aren't present in the English alphabet (and kind of gobbledygook even with diacritics). > * English is far more widely spoken and read than any language written in Cyrillic. What if the de facto language of computing was Mandarin instead? > * The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. That's an extremely important property and immediately predisposes English for the role it has today. The Latin script used by English is exactly all the letters you need to write English. Many other languages written in Latin script either have more (e.g. Spanish, Norwegian), or fewer (e.g. Italian, Serbian), or have different rules for certain things (e.g. Turkish).
- p-e-w 4y ago
  > What if the de facto language of computing was Mandarin instead? Mandarin isn't "widely" spoken. It's spoken by a large number of people, almost all of which reside in a single country. This makes it utterly useless as an international standard. And the Chinese writing system would have been far too complicated to become the foundation of computing. We're talking a couple dozen characters vs. tens of thousands. Only recently did it even become possible to accurately represent the whole gamut of Chinese writing using digital systems.
  - vore 4y ago
    Sure, I agree that far fewer people would want to use Mandarin as a lingua franca compared to English, but that's not really a computing-specific thing but more a reflection of its cultural dominance in general. That said, technology follows the needs of people, not the other way round. If we were living in a parallel reality where Mandarin had the cultural cachet of English, I'm positive we would have immediately subjugated computers to deal with Chinese characters ;-)
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Mandarin isn't "widely" spoken. It's spoken by a large number of people, almost all of which reside in a single country. This makes it utterly useless as an international standard. The norm for international communication is that zero people on either side speak the language. Internal communication anywhere in Achaemenid Persia took place in Imperial Aramaic, which was spoken by some subject peoples in the west of the empire. International communication between Mitanni (speaking an unnamed Indic language) and Egypt (speaking (Afroasiatic) Middle or Late Egyptian) took place in (Semitic) Akkadian. International communication between Japan and Korea took place in classical Chinese, spoken by neither side and unrelated to the languages spoken in either. Similarly, international communication between Vietnam and China took place in classical Chinese, spoken by neither side (though closely related to the languages spoken in China). Treaties between early modern Russia and China could not be concluded in classical Chinese, so they were concluded in Latin, spoken by neither side. It just isn't an expectation that international communication will use a language that is spoken by any party to the communication. This is for the obvious reason that anyone who wants to join the conversation uses whatever is already in use, even if the language currently in use has been dead for a thousand years.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. Well, it's not true by any measure. It is not the case that almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latinate script. > The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. This isn't true either. Why would an Italian consider the weird English letter 'j' more universal than the weird French letter 'ç'? The French might not mind 'j', but what are they supposed to think about 'w'?
zinekeller 4y ago
> There are objective arguments for English as a universal language for computing. This isn't just "cultural imperialism" or something. English is not my first language, but if I try to imagine my first language being used in its place, I immediately see dozens of serious issues that would arise, all of which are non-issues with English. The "objective arguments" you're saying is simply hand-waving on the fact that the English (and Americans, which mainly descended from English pioneers) have spoken English. I should remind you that French is still the primary language of diplomacy (even it looks like English has replaced it) and French has also a robust transliteration system to many languages (and in some cases which is even better than how English handles it due to its fewer phonological edge-cases), mainly because it also have historically controlled some parts of Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, and have a serious diplomatic force for areas which the French haven't bothered to conquer with. Now, the question is simply what if Cyrillic is the lingua franca of the computing world, and you've never answered it directly. You instead doubled-down on the supposed benefits of the standard English and alphabet which is not what I'm asking. You might not have an answer here, being that it's hard to imagine that alternate reality, but I should remind you that a lot of people globally have significantly different scripts and doesn't know any Latin letters. Sure, the Chinese knows it, but it doesn't apply to many other people in Asia and Africa.
constantcrying 4y ago
>No, because Russian/Cyrillic lacks the properties that make English/Latin so useful as a universal language/script: Which is in particular? >Almost all languages have widely used, standardized transliteration systems into a Latin script. That's not true for Cyrillic. Combination of historical circumstances and you confusing cause and effect. You can write english in cyrilic. >English is far more widely spoken and read than any language written in Cyrillic. See above. >The subset of the Latin script used by English is essentially the common denominator of all languages written in Latin. That's an extremely important property and immediately predisposes English for the role it has today. Why? It makes english almost the only language you can write properly. This is a bad property.

xcdzvyn 4y ago

Yes? Cyrillic would only take a few weeks to accustom to.

zinekeller 4y ago
I really meant that for the GP, but just to put it on the record I'm also answering in the positive.