voron wrote:Russia's decision to enforce Cyrillic in all its territory is apparently based on political and not linguistic reasons and they openly say it. Even in the article that you quoted:
введение латиницы в Татарстане поставило бы под угрозу общую безопасность и целостность России, а прецедент мог бы создать условия для появления подобных тенденций и в других регионах страны.
Are you trying to say that it is not square of incredible idiocy?
So mighty state is afraid of ABC
Russian linguists usually claim that only latin could be because of political reasons but cyrillic is because it fits to every possible language better than every other writing system. Because latin has digraphs and polygraphs diacritics and other "linguistic" bullshit. So their only
decision is that cyrillic is the best and the only possible choice because Stalin said so. Sometimes they do say cyrllic is a political decision but only
in context that any
alphabet is political decision so everybody should write in cyrillic. Or that there is no difference between alphabets at all and make the same "conclusion". But in fact there is no reason in discussion latin vs. cyrillic having such a prohibition! And they also like to talk about "economy" a lot. Without jokes they can say that the reforming of the Russian orthography is a great economy because they don't write Ъъ after almost every single word. I think, they go mad about "optimising" alphabets since that time... They also like to reuse matches or keep gas fired "for economy". So because Russian linguists are "beyond politics"(tm) they avoid to say that cyrillic was 100% politics.
Shark of Capitalism wrote:Some people say that alphabets are just matter of politics (somebody said that he just obeyed the orders) but outlawing alphabets is Stalin's nazi politics!
Shark of Capitalism wrote:But the question in general is important too: like the human rights declaration: we have the right or we haven't?
So if it's political
decision we may do nothing, what do you think?