choc_pud wrote:Oh, I wasn't suggesting that English be written definitely with the Cyrillic script, more that as an intellectual exercise I was wondering how you'd go about it.
choc_pud wrote:Hmm, an interesting way of "simplifying" the English spelling. What you've done there is introduce more homophony and greater ambiguity in spelling; the only one I would vouch for is the changing of <would> to <wud>.
choc_pud wrote:Tegwaritis, ey?
choc_pud wrote:Finish has a similar problem when writing German loan words, as the Germanic ü looks, when handwritten, very similar to the native Finnish ii.
Yep, I said that ... but now I don't know what exactly I've meant probably the fact, that those did not change much since 5th century, according to wikipedia. Yes they are newer than the Greek, and Latin and that is exactly why I was wondering, so it should have been the same old question "why the other didn't follow Latin instead of strange experiments?". The scolars, who made up the new systems back then were probably aware of Latin and Greek.choc_pud wrote:Why do you say "But they were invented a long time ago, so it is hard to expect much"?
choc_pud wrote:Cyrillic, which is almost as bad!
choc_pud wrote:What is your opinion on the Ghurmurki script
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest