Dan_ad_nauseam wrote:There's nothing inherently stupid about grouping syllables in blocks,
As I see it, sometimes character grouping and their forms was historically preconditioned by banal economy of paper, or simplicity of fabricating the print plates for example. So at closer view the historical aspect of its usage can be versatile. And it can become kind of a retorical question, is it stupid or not, especially if I discuss artistic side of the writing. I would say, nothing inherently stupid in the existence itself (some time ago there were no writing at all, by the way), but in our media era seems very strange to make it an official tool for millions of people, don't you find? So that is the salt of the anecdote.
Dan_ad_nauseam wrote:IMHO, different scripts work for different languages. Romanization doesn't do well for Mandarin because of the prevalence of homophones.
If romanisation will be made by same "profis" who drawn tons of diacritics for Vietnamese, then new ancdotes will be born Actualy there is a roman with a pack of diacritics they use in China, but I am not sure about details. Different scripts work for different languages? They all kind of work. And how different then? I don't quite understand your idea... Still the graphical representation is primary. The physics of text acquisition, even in theory, can not depend directly on the encoded data. The number of glyphs to use and its bindings - yes, those can vary with its particular usage, but it is all, and even punctuation, is kind of secondary to the graphics itself. So it is not enough, just to draw stupid diacritics around the letters to expand the alphabet, it is nonsence. And it all exists in various forms!