← Back to context

Comment by troupo

8 hours ago

> is trivially provable that Cyrillic script is better adapted even to languages which do not use it today, but have to resort to digraphs or glyphs with diacritics

Take a look at the Cyrillic section of Unicode to see your trivially provable claim being trivially disproven. You'll see all the same digraphs, glyphs, accents, graves etc. as used in Latin scripts.

It's also easy to see it easily disproven if you look at all the languages USSR forced cyrillic alphabet on.

7 comments

troupo

Reply
Antibabelic  8 hours ago

To be fair, the parent post was clearly talking about Slavic languages, not "all the languages USSR forced cyrillic alphabet on", which were not Slavic and which required significant modifications to the alphabet.

  • necovek  7 hours ago

    Indeed: most notably, Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin are all unambiguous with Cyrillic, but Latin script dominates, even in officially Cyrillic-first Serbia.

    Again, it is seen as a political tool (pro-West or pro-Russia), when Cyrillic is technically better suited (there is certainly history as well, but that's very mixed up in the region).

    Again, I am saying this as someone who has worked to implement things like full-text search, collation (lexical ordering/sorting) algorithms and tables, fonts and ligatures, functions like uppercase/titlecase/lowercase...

    Eg. an already complex Unicode Collation Algorithm tables can never support exceptions with digraphs like "konjukcija" (nj is usually a digraph, but not here), etc.

  • troupo  42 minutes ago

    Since we're talking about Serbian below, here are some characters from Cyrillic Serbian Alphabet:

    Ђ/ђ

    Ћ/ћ

    Љ/љ

    Њ/њ

    Џ/џ

    Ј/ј

    Various diacritical marks, digraph, a jod... What makes this Cyrillic more unambiguous than the Latin equivalents?