4 ms·
I think it would be easier if everyone just spoke and wrote English, we’re already halfway there. We can all go back to 7-bit ASCII. :) The irony is English is
by kayodelycaon 2y ago
I think it would be easier if everyone just spoke and wrote English, we’re already halfway there. We can all go back to 7-bit ASCII. :)
The irony is English is simultaneously the best and worst option. It can incorporate things from almost any other language while making spelling them correctly impossible. Good luck memorizing adjective order and the nearly infinite number of idioms. A lot of them come from British sailors.
- dsego 2y agoWhen you think about it, they didn't use cursive for printing presses for a reason. Cursive is good for hand writing, block letters are good for print or carving into stone. See how the technology dictates the form. If the writing system can't be represented as an array of codes, maybe either the writing adapts to the limitations in some way (call it digital letters or whatever) or the digital representation needs more work. But you can't say that if printing presses don't solve human handwriting, it's ghoulish and authoritarian, like one commenter concluded.
- kayodelycaon 2y agoI was being sarcastic. :) The whole point of Unicode is to encode languages. We already handle Arabic, which means we should be able to handle most languages. Even if we can’t convert a language into codepoints, we have the ability to record sound and images in resolutions beyond human acuity. You’re right the technology dictates form. The computers represent English different than print. Due to the limitations of previous technology, indented paragraphs are less common than an empty line between paragraphs. Same with single-width or double spaces after periods.