suruvaippa wrote:and for Turkic languages I'd need a harsher superlative of "ugly" to describe it.
What would you prefer Turkic languages to use?
Moderator:Forum Administrators
suruvaippa wrote:and for Turkic languages I'd need a harsher superlative of "ugly" to describe it.
Levike wrote:suruvaippa wrote:and for Turkic languages I'd need a harsher superlative of "ugly" to describe it.
What would you prefer Turkic languages to use?
suruvaippa wrote:Levike wrote:suruvaippa wrote:and for Turkic languages I'd need a harsher superlative of "ugly" to describe it.
What would you prefer Turkic languages to use?
Turkish, Azeri etc. in Latin script look fine to me.
hayoshan wrote:Really, you like the Latin alphabet, so do you dislike the Arabic alphabet?
vijayjohn wrote:hayoshan wrote:Really, you like the Latin alphabet, so do you dislike the Arabic alphabet?
Suruvaippa never said anything about the Arabic alphabet and was talking about Cyrillic.
hayoshan wrote:vijayjohn wrote:hayoshan wrote:Really, you like the Latin alphabet, so do you dislike the Arabic alphabet?
Suruvaippa never said anything about the Arabic alphabet and was talking about Cyrillic.
That is why I asked it, many Turkic languages use the Arabic alphabet for writing. For the central Asian Turkic languages, the Arabic is the best in every form.
suruvaippa wrote:hayoshan wrote:vijayjohn wrote:hayoshan wrote:Really, you like the Latin alphabet, so do you dislike the Arabic alphabet?
Suruvaippa never said anything about the Arabic alphabet and was talking about Cyrillic.
That is why I asked it, many Turkic languages use the Arabic alphabet for writing. For the central Asian Turkic languages, the Arabic is the best in every form.
I do like the Arabic alphabet aesthetically, but I did not mention it in this context because I lack the ability to differentiate Turkic languages versus other languages that use Arabic script.
vijayjohn wrote:I have a soft spot for Nasta'liq.
suruvaippa wrote:vijayjohn wrote:I have a soft spot for Nasta'liq.
I can't help but think it looks like a blend of Arabic calligraphy and musical notation.
mōdgethanc wrote:Turkic languages don't look great in any script, but at least Latin script makes sense for them. Arabic script looks the best for them, but makes no fucking sense at the linguistic level. Cyrillic is practical, but ugly as shit. Therefore, Latin is best.
hayoshan wrote:in the shape of a wolf
http://i.imgur.com/tpwnqip.jpg
hayoshan wrote:wolf
Vlürch wrote:I'd agree if the ugly doubled letters were taken care of somehow.
vijayjohn wrote:Vlürch wrote:I'd agree if the ugly doubled letters were taken care of somehow.
How are those any uglier than the ones that exist when it's written in Roman script, too?
Nope. Those languages look like shit.Vlürch wrote:Personally, I think Cyrillic isn't that bad; it can even look pretty cool, at least in the context of Kazakh and Kyrgyz.
It would be pretty easy to make one that looks good. I would just use umlauts for the fronted vowels because the Russian system of transcribing them with /ja, jo, ju/ looks shitty.On the other hand, imagine if Finnish was written in the Cyrillic script. It would be hideous
What? It's possible to be more practical than Finnish? I think Finnish looks great.Honestly, it wouldn't even be hard to make it look cool and be practical (more practical than the current Finnish alphabet, actually; I mean, it looks like shit)
Ew no. Those random-ass letters that were probably created by some Soviet apparatchik look like shit.Personally, though, if Finnish Cyrillic was more of a thing, I'd prefer <ә ө ү> for <ä ö y> and <є ї ң ґ> for <je ji ng g>.
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests