Talk:Defective script

message: Is Cherokee a defective script? --88.76.224.133 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. ThatGuy30722 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely defective. Cherokee orthography does not indicate vowel length, tone, some aspiration distinctions, the deletion of inherent vowels, and glottal stops. Chaojidage (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherokee 

message: Shouldn't English be the #1 here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.148.150.161 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I'd say French. --nlitement [talk] 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I don't know I think English is worse than French.--Paaerduag (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither English nor French (nor Irish, which before the spelling reforms was in some ways worse than English) are defective scripts. They're simply highly irregular (well, not so much French). English even indicates stress by doubling consonants, though it's not completely reliable. Arabic, on the other hand, doesn't indicate medial short vowels or geminate consonants at all. There's nothing to even be irregular. kwami (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, speaking as an Englishman, may I say that English is in no way defective (excepting the U/S aberration:-)!   The pronunciation of "th" words is also subject to regional variation, but I can't think of a single example where this (or indeed the more frequently observed lack of a written schwa) results in ambiguity of meaning, which is surely the point?Memethuzla (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there's only one example of a minimal pair involving  and : thigh and thy (/θai/ and /ðai/). However, the point remains that the English alphabet has no way of indicating whether an interdental fricative is voiced or unvoiced in all positions. In this small respect, at least, it is defective. garik (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar problem with some of the vowels. English is just so irregular that you forget there is no unambiguous way to write some phonemes. — kwami (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Is the Estonian orthography defective? --84.61.167.221 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad to see you ask your question about an "orthography". It underlines my point that this article about "defective scripts" is misguided. What most are writing about is defective "orthographies". Pete unseth (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Very mislead article. Tircul language (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonian 

message: Per the discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Defective_script, please consider improving the article to address an editor's concerns. TheFeds 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article represents some eager original research, but that is not adequate for Wikipedia. Those who believe this page should be retained should show that the topic is worthy of an article by showing how others have studied and published about it. Pete unseth (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Kwamikagami just went out of his way adding references. I think that pretty much ends the discussion about the article being unreferenced / original research. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you look at the actual references? Just putting some stickers doesn't show that anyone with understanding of scripts and orthographies would call a script defective. A starting point would be to talk about phonemic orthographies or whatever. Write what is expected from an orthography and then analyze what it does. Scripts are just tools - a tool has functionality and it is never defective. Otherwise a hammer could be classified as defective because you cannot use it to display clock time. Tircul language (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the Wikipedia article on Geoffrey Sampson, he is "cited twice as an authority on writing systems in Encyclopædia Britannica." To me, that means he qualifies as "anyone with understanding of scripts and orthographies" and he uses the term "defective script". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Geoffrey Sampson the only person to use this term?68.150.86.232 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the term is used by several of the authors in Daniel & Bright. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In a previous discussion on User talk:Kwamikagami, User:Kwamikagami said a script would be defective if it were originally designed to represent every phoneme but doesn't, which can be remedied through digraphs, diacritics, etc..  So where are the reliable sources to indicate that the creators of the Greek and Arabic scripts were not defective when they were first created?68.150.86.232 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Fails WP:N.  The term "defective script" is used only by linguists to label a writing system as defective if it doesn't represent all the phonemes of a language.  Since language changes, the concept is fundamentally flawed and cannot be used outside opinion.  Lastly, a lack of indepth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources exist for the concept.68.150.86.232 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defective script. Please comment there instead. – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I meant to write "describing" not "discrimination".68.150.86.232 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nov 18 

message: There is no phonemic distinction between Italian [s] and [z] and this is why it's not reflected in the orthography. Many regional varieties (arguably, most of them) do not even have [z] as an allophone. Teangacha (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian /s/