4 ms·

None of those are digraphs or have diacritics, each is a single letter/character Compare with: Š/S (Š = S + diacritic) Nj (this "letter" is made up of two ot

None of those are digraphs or have diacritics, each is a single letter/character Compare with: Š/S (Š = S + diacritic) Nj (this "letter" is made up of two other letters)

troupo 5mo ago
> None of those are digraphs or have diacritics, each is a single letter/character Okay, you got me, these don't have diacritics, but other Slavic languages do. Unicode committee decided that some of these are separate letters (Ѓ, Й, Ё etc.) and some are not (Ў), but still doesn't make these "trivially provable to suit Slavic languages better". > Nj (this "letter" is made up of two other letters) Indeed it is. Invented in 1818. E.g. Russian uses two "нь" for the same thing. My point is, even if I may confuse my linguistic terminology from time to time, is... How does all this make Cyrillic "trivially provable" to be better suited for Slavic languages than Latin script? It's all the same: invent new letters or new letter combinations, or slap a few diacritics on top. And when that is not enough, borrow from Latin. E.g., j in Serbian, ї in Ukrainian and й in Russian for the same sound.
- foobarian 5mo ago
  Some of this was a top-down overhaul of the writing system in the 19th century. Before that it was an awful mess and people just "vibe-wrote" the weird Slavic sounds using latin how they saw fit; try reading some old writings from that era. Or read some modern Polish or Czech text :-D
  - troupo 5mo ago
    So the original claim of "is trivially provable that Cyrillic script is better adapted even to languages which do not use it today" boils down to "in the 19th Century they cleaned up the writing system" (similarly, there was a top-down cleanup of Russian, with Bolsheviks removing ѣ,ѳ, і, ѵ and ъ version of yer)
    - foobarian 5mo ago
      Now that you mention it, there were also several iterations of the original Glagolitic, the angular being my favorite :-)
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]

None of those are digraphs or have diacritics, each is a single letter/character Compare with: Š/S (Š = S + diacritic) Nj (this "letter" is made up of two other letters)

troupo 5mo ago

> None of those are digraphs or have diacritics, each is a single letter/character Okay, you got me, these don't have diacritics, but other Slavic languages do. Unicode committee decided that some of these are separate letters (Ѓ, Й, Ё etc.) and some are not (Ў), but still doesn't make these "trivially provable to suit Slavic languages better". > Nj (this "letter" is made up of two other letters) Indeed it is. Invented in 1818. E.g. Russian uses two "нь" for the same thing. My point is, even if I may confuse my linguistic terminology from time to time, is... How does all this make Cyrillic "trivially provable" to be better suited for Slavic languages than Latin script? It's all the same: invent new letters or new letter combinations, or slap a few diacritics on top. And when that is not enough, borrow from Latin. E.g., j in Serbian, ї in Ukrainian and й in Russian for the same sound.

foobarian 5mo ago
Some of this was a top-down overhaul of the writing system in the 19th century. Before that it was an awful mess and people just "vibe-wrote" the weird Slavic sounds using latin how they saw fit; try reading some old writings from that era. Or read some modern Polish or Czech text :-D
- troupo 5mo ago
  So the original claim of "is trivially provable that Cyrillic script is better adapted even to languages which do not use it today" boils down to "in the 19th Century they cleaned up the writing system" (similarly, there was a top-down cleanup of Russian, with Bolsheviks removing ѣ,ѳ, і, ѵ and ъ version of yer)
  - foobarian 5mo ago
    Now that you mention it, there were also several iterations of the original Glagolitic, the angular being my favorite :-)
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]