From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Latin alphabet
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:43:29 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <8906@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

[much omitted]
> 
> 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.

Flesh and blood linguists dealing with real people whose concerns are
not solely scientific can perfectly well deal with such issues under
the sci.lang rubric.  Of course any system can be made to work.  The
question is simply: which will work best for the people who have to
use it for a whole range of purposes?

[Connolly wrote, Derzhanski replied, Connolly replied, Derzhanski
 countered]
> <>> 
> <>>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.

The difference is that ASCII is a conversion of certain characters
into numeric codes.  Capital A = 65 ($41), lower-case a = 97 ($61),
Control-A = 1 ($01), etc.  This has nothing to do with writing systems
and certainly nothing to do with typewriters (at least, non-electronic
ones).  Not all computers use this code (IBM mainframes and the old
Sinclair micros are conspicuous exceptions), yet they have exactly
the same 26 letters, each in two cases.  Unusual characters can
be assigned ASCII codes, but there's no standard system for doing so.
On my word processor, I've assigned thorn to $F0 and edh to $EF.
Unfortunately, I don't know anyone else who has.

By the way, if you're in congitive science dealing with computer
types, shouldn't you know this already?

[stuff omitted]

[Connolly foolishly wrote:]

> <>>I will concede
> <>>that Cyrillic might be preferable for languages from the former
> <>>Soviet Union...

[Connolly thought better of it]

> <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.

Isn't that usually the case?  Has even one writing system ever been
adapted because of sci.lang?  Much as I love linguistics, it's not
the only consideration!

> 
> <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.

I stand by my formulation.  (1) seems wrongheaded (let people choose
the best system, old or new), and (2) is probably incorrect.  How
long before "Moldavian" goes Latin again?  Will the Turkic languages
stay Cyrillic if Turkey isn't?  But time will tell.

> <Some other groups might want to make the switch too
>             
> Of course they may.  Human stupidity knows no limits.

Insufferable arrogance, I say.

--Leo Connolly