From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Latin alphabet
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:57:13 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr8.060340.28281@leland.Stanford.EDU>, richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.084711.1701@memstvx1.memst.edu>, connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
> Thanks for picking up the torch.
> 
> ...
> |> The best argument for using the Latin alphabet for *any* language is at
> |> your fingertips.  You are using a computer with a Latin-alphabet keyboard.
> |> All over the workd -- even where Cyrillic, Greek, Devanagari, Kanji, Arabic,
> |> or Hebrew characters are usual -- computers and typewriters with Latin
> |> letters are available.  Furthermore, through admittedly arbitrary assignments,
> |> combinations of letters can be used to represent any sound in any language.
> |> There is simply no reason to adhere to the principle of one phoneme per
> |> letter, universally applicable to all languages.  An orthography need not
> |> be tantamount to a phonemic transcription!  Most aren't, and they work
> |> just fine, even though they don't agree with each other.
> 
> As pointed out elsewhere, there are plenty of non-latin keyboards around.
> 
> The reason I see for adhering to one letter per phoneme is that it is easier to
> learn.  Think what this means in terms of the number of people learning the
> language for the life of the writing system!  Remember learning to read and
> write English?  I'd rather not have to learn spellings like "through",
> "physics", "xerox", "know" or "gnu" any time soon.

True, of course, but that depends on part on the phonetic inventory of
the language in question.  Digraphs might be preferable if there are
a lot, given the advantages of Latin.  (Note: I say "might", not "would be"
or "are".)
> 
> |> Of course, if you are talking about a system of *hand*writing, my arguments
> |> do not apply.  And yes, I am very fond of other alphabets.  I cringe when
> |> I see transliterated Greek.  But it is wrongheaded to develop a new ortho-
> |> graphy for a hitherto unwritten language which does *not* use the Latin
> |> alphabet, which by now is the de facto universal standard.  To use any
> |> other system, whether existing or invented specifically to suit the
> |> supposed phonemic or phonetic exigencies of the system, is the ultimate
> |> condescension, implying (1) that the speakers of that language are somehow
> |> too backward to use a European alphabet, and (2) that the language is so
> |> inconsequential that no one would ever have occasion to type it on paper or
> |> into a computer for any purpose.  While handwriting isn't dead, its
> |> utility ain't what it used to be.  Don't condemn any Taiwanese to using
> |> ballpoints no matter what!
> 
> Computers, widespread as they are, are out of reach of most of the world's
> population.  Even in the USA, most people can't type.  The availability of
> roman characters on keyboards is a factor, but should not be the deciding one.
> Computers are adaptable.  If you invent a writing system that gains support,
> someone will eventually make a font for it.  (I believe Adobe Systems is
> claiming there are now 10,000 fonts in PostScript(tm) format alone.)  In a part
> of the world "unmodernized" enough to need a new writing system, keyboards are
> probably not that plentiful.

They probably will be much more common soon.  No matter: along the same
lines, a Roman alphabet means instant printability, and it's for the
printed word that most writing systems have been developed in recent
centuries anyway.  Not even Adobe has a font for everyone, though they
try.

--Leo Connolly