From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Latin alphabet
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:32:38 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Apr6.151935.1746@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
<In article <8877@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
<> In article <1992Apr3.213258.1731@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
<> [in response to daliels@Xerox.com, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A
<> Derzhanski) and horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)]
<>>
<>>You guys are missing the point.  The topic began with discussion of an
<>>appropriate orthography for a hitherto unwritten language of Taiwan.  
<> 
<> True, that's how it began, but not how it continued.  We were replying
<> to an article in which you were saying that the Latin alphabet was the
<> best choice for any language in the world, for no better reason than
<> that all - well, most - typewriters and computers were equipped for it
<> and for nothing else.
<
<OK, then: I claim that Latin is the most suitable alphabet for any
<new orthography of any language simply because as the world's most
<widely used writing system it makes other languages and cultures
<accessible to speakers of that language, and is best suited to making
<that language and its culture known to the rest of the world.

Fine, I'll make a clarification too.

The sci.lang community was discussing the procedure of choosing an
appropriate script as a basis for developing a writing system for some
language.  Now this choice may depend on (1) linguistic factors (such
as the set of phonemes of the language in question, the structure of
the syllable, etc. etc.)  and (2) extralinguistic factors (such as the
access to other languages and cultures that is achieved by selecting
each writing system, the availability of typewriters, etc. etc.)

I claim that if (1) is considered more relevant, and a non-Roman
script is chosen (or an original one is created) on the basis of
linguistic factors, then the factors in (2) will not lead to any
problems that won't be solvable with reasonable effort.  Experience
shows that it can work this way.

On the other hand, maybe (2) is more relevant, and all writing systems
should be Latin-based no matter what the language.  In such case one
can only wonder what this topic is doing on sci.lang.

<>>Cyrillic is simply not an option: it has no status there.
<> 
<> There's no "there".  You were making a universal claim.  <...>
<
<Many of my claims are universal, but this _there_ meant 'in Taiwan'.
<So there!

I seem to remember that the first words of that article of yours were
about the best reason for using the Latin alphabet for a language
_anywhere_ being on our fingertips, but as it is not available here
anymore, I can't check.

<>>The question is how the characters are displayed, not how they are
<>>or will be internally represented on any computer.
<> 
<> Yes.  Well, this particular collection of externally displayed shapes
<> is called the bloody ASCII character set.
<
<Only on computers.  It's not ASCII on a typewriter,

What is the difference?  Non-ASCII typewriters (with accents, eszets,
thorns, eths etc.) are as non-standard as Kana or Greek ones.  If you
want to be sure that the characters you choose will be available on
any Western typewriter you may come across, you should stick to ASCII.

Zhuang uses the Latin alphabet with no diacritics, but with ten (I think)
additional letters.  I wonder how they handle the typewriter problem.

<> Then please explain what it means for someone to be "too backward to
<> use a European alphabet".
<
<I was insinuating that proponents of nonLatin writing systems for nonEuropean
<languages might (but need not) be guilty of such a claim.

Ah, I see.  Well, maybe someone could say that, but in any case I have
never encountered such a claim.  It would carry the presupposition
that non-Latin writing systems are easier to handle, and this goes
straight against what speakers of European languages usually believe.

<> <...> in my
<> experience it is usually native speakers of Roman-written languages
<> that turn out to be too backward to handle any other writing system.
<
<You missed the boat this time.  I can and do handle other writing systems
<(Greek, Cyrillic, Devanagari).  If I take up Japanese I shall try to
<learn kanji and the syllabaries.

I don't understand which boat you are referring to.  What did I say
about _you_, where and when?  Why did I put the "usually" over there?

<>>I will concede
<>>that Cyrillic might be preferable for languages from the former
<>>Soviet Union, but elsewhere?  No way!
<> 
<> You might be interested to learn that the Cyrillic alphabet is more
<> than a thousand years older than the Soviet Union.
<
<I knew that; what does it have to do with anything?

It has to do with the fact that there is no essential connexion
between the Cyrillic script and the Soviet Union.  It was created
after experience had shown that the Greek and Latin alphabets were
inadequate for the Slavic language.  And quite a few of the Cyrillic
orthographies in the Soviet Union actually came to replace older
romanisations, overloaded with diacritics.

<Furthermore, I'll withdraw my concession: I don't think a new Cyrillic
<orthography is reasonable even in the former Soviet Union.  Having
<looked so long to Moscow, nonRussians are now looking westward.

Which means that their choice of a writing system may be determined by
circumstances which are out of the scope of sci.lang.

<At the same
<time, existing Cyrillic orthographies should probably be maintained --
<I say "probably", remembering that Romanian used to be written in
<Cyrillic but now uses Latin.

The "should probably" is logically wrong.  My wording: (1) existing
Cyrillic orthographies should definitely be maintained, and (2)
existing Cyrillic orthographies will probably be maintained.

<Some other groups might want to make the switch too

Of course they may.  Human stupidity knows no limits.

<-- but that's their business, not mine or yours.

Certainly it is their business.  I won't give them any advice, unless
they ask for it.  Besides, I'm only interested in the linguistic
factors which may guide the choice, and I enjoy discussing them on sci.lang.
-- 
---- --- -- -  Long Live the Rose and the Heather!  - -- --- ----
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK