Хере из эн экземпл оф текст траскрайбед фром латин то кириллик.
Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
361–370 of 422 posts
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
That you can do transliterations doesn't make it a good idea. > French (accents can be dropped) What? No! See for example https://french.stackexchange.com/a/24410
Surely it is incorrect to drop them, but the result is still intelligible. Same for the "hacek" and accent (carka) in Czech for example. In Italian, however, accents are only on the last letter of a word so they are usually replaced with apostrophes if your keyboard lacks them (in fact even on an Italian keyboard È is usually typed as E'; most word processors autocorrect it).
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#363Why wouldn't Kazakhstan use pure 26-letter Latin alphabet? There is a big advantage in using the same keyboard that English language uses.
Using pure 26-letter Latin alphabet means using multi-letter combinations to represent particular sounds and/or using same letters to represent very different sounds in different contexts. Both things feel very ugly. I am not really familiar with non-european alphabets but Č (Czech, Croatian, Latvian) looks much better and easier to read than CH (English), CZ (Polish), TCH (French) or TSCH (German, I'm not even sure…
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not that bad. They've added 9 of their own to 33 of Russian Cyrillic for a total of 42 when using it for Kazakh. Now they're gonna add 6 diacritics and two digraphs, that's much less already. Compare this to even Polish that has: 1. 9 additional letters: ą, ć, ę, ł, ń, ó, ś, ź, ż. 2. Technically no x, v nor q, but everyone knows their sound so casually or artistically you can use them, just not in 100% or…
The source of the diacritical mess in Polish is that it is a Slavic language rendered in a Latin orthography. Cyrillic is a good start for Slavic languages. Latin is a good start for Romance languages. Arabic is a good start for Semitic languages. When you start from an orthographic base of a related language, you don't need as much of these shenanigans. Persian, by the way, is in the same boat as Polish: a language…
The writing split in Slavic languages also follows closely some West/East (historical and contemporary) and Catholic/Orthodox (it depends, Czechs turned largely atheist by now from Catholicism but Poles, Russians, etc. mostly remain in their religions) splits more than anything, e.g. West Slavs have Latin and prevalence of Catholicism, East Slavs have Cyrillic and prevalence of Orthodoxy, South Slavs are a mix of the two and it shows, e.g. Croatia is more Catholic and more Western and it has the Latin alphabet, Serbia has Orthodoxy and both writings, Bulgaria has Orthodoxy and Cyrillic, etc.
Technically even Cyrillic which should fit Russian perfectly has things like И and Й which are two related sounds, because it really makes sense that a related sound has a similar letter with just a diacritic mark.
Even the Japanese hiragana and katakana have diacritics and digraphs, even though it's a fully bespoke (yes, based on Chinese characters and some Indian Buddhist scripts but they were modified and adapted very extensively and barely look like the originals from which they were evolved from and it was over a thousand years ago) system that evolved in Japan (an island nation), got a few official revisions to clear it up and is specific to only the Japanese language (and Okinawan and Ainu, but that's secondary and due to Japanese presence and didn't affect its design).
It's similar with Polish, for example ź is like z but with sort of wheezing the air under your tongue and through lower teeth instead of on top of it (sorry for the bad explanation, you can compare Polish letters and their bases on Google Translate or something and you'll hear the similarity of the sound).
There were attempts to Cyrillize Polish[0] and Latinize Belarusian[1] but they were shoddy at best and done by an occupants so that didn't go well.
The only funky thing in Polish that is better done in Cyrillic is digraphs (but then Russian has ть and we have a single letter ć, which is visible in base form of many verbs, like in Russian делать and Polish robić). Polish has cz and sz while Cyrillic actually has real letters for those sounds: Ч and Ш (Cyrillic also has Щ that sounds like sz and cz chained together like in szczęście but we don't consider that combination to be one letter or a quadgraph or anything like that). The digraphs also aren't a problem because they (IIRC, maybe there's some words and I can't think of it because I'm native) never appear like that naturally, if you get s before a z, it's a sz sound. Because of this it's not really an exception but a rule, if you gave a Pole a paper with just SZ or CZ or RZ on they'd do that one sound, not try to pronounce two letters.
Digraphs (in addition to j, w and y, leading to wafelek jagodowy by Ashens) might be one of the hardest things for learners actually because people try to hack they way through Polish using their language and they go with trying to slur the digraphs together while they are a different sound altogether from the two letters (it depends, like rz is ż, but sz or cz is like a soft or swishing s or c, but nothing of a z, sz and cz actually do sound like sh as in shoot and ch as in chain from English and they also have nothing to do with that h, then again h is sometimes silent like in honor and sometimes voiced like in holy..) that make it up so it sounds very off. They are also not that easy to pronounce, one Polish tongue twister is "w Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie" and I once heard an African immigrant to Poland say how when he first came to Poland he felt like everyone is rustling and swishing all the time at him (which is actually accurate with regards to some diacritics), then again, his Polish was really good (he could pass for a native if he wanted IMO) so it's possible.
If not for digraphs then you could probably get away with learning pronunciation of each letter and then gluing/slurring those sounds together into a word. It's much easier than English where spelling is often only tangentially related to pronunciation and adding or taking away a letter somewhere else in the word can change pronunciation of other letters. There may be words that have something weird going on but I can't think of any right now (it might be my native bias though so be careful when hacking Polish that way).
Lots of people say that a spelling contest wouldn't work in their language and except for ó vs u, rz vs ż, ch vs h and some cases where it's hard to say if you heard ę or en, ą or om/on, c or dz at the end of a word (and maybe something else I'm now forgetting) etc. that's true in Polish too. If you say something in Polish a Pole can usually write it down on first try without even thinking about it. E.g. there is a few niche jokes about two fake useless devices called bulbulator and przyczłapnik, these two words are never used except for that joke but their spelling makes 100% sense and if someone heard the joke for the first time they could write it down too, no problem.
[0] - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrylica#Cyrylica_polska
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_Latin_alphabet
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also depends on your learning style when it comes to languages. For someone like me, who learns languages more aurally (listening and speaking) than visually (reading and writing), writing systems aren’t that hard to learn but they’re hard to master in terms of reading at normal speed. With any text in a Latin alphabet, in any language, show me the phonology of the language and I can read it aloud at normal speed…
I see your point but it's not that clear cut in my experience because even if two languages share the same alphabet the way it maps to pronunciation can vary wildly. If you take random made up words like "tothon", "ylho", "sturcti" or "boqurkït" and ask English, German, French and Portuguese people to pronounce them as words in their native language you'll get wildly different results. So in a way you have to learn t…
As a practical joke, I once asked a French speaker (who spoke English well) to read this aloud:
Un petit d'un petit
S'étonne aux Halles
Un petit d'un petit
Ah! degrés te fallent
Indolent qui ne sort cesse
Indolent qui ne se mène
Qu'importe un petit
Tout gai de Reguennes.
He was the only person in the room who didn't understand what he was saying.Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Crimea and Georgia, Russia used the argument of defending Russian speaking populations to justify military intervention. Perhaps, they see the Russian language as a threat to their independence?
I think it's hard to understand how people view their ethincity as different from their citizenship for people from countries with a colonial heritage. People who are of Russian ethnicity but live in another country like the Ukraine, or Latvia, or Lithuania, or Estonia, or any number of other former Soviet or Russian Empire states often consider themselves as Russian, they also often feel like they're marginalised in…
And as for "racism" - after invading 4th independent country in last 30 years and occupying its territories Russians have somewhat "bad" reputation and justifiably so.
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#367Adopting a consistent/stable writing system is more important standardizing on Latin. Main goal is to be phonetically consistent with reading. I highly doubt the beauty of expression in Arabic/Hebrew can be represented outside their respective scripts. Bastardizing on Latin does not give Kazaks anything more than Turkey getting the EU membership.
It's ugly, and emotionally loaded language which doesn't bring us towards any bright idea. In majority of languages where Latin is the base for their writing systems, there are diacritics, or other graphical changes. I wonder if you want also to tell French, and German guys that they 'bastardized' Latin, or is it only Kazakh who are not allowed to use the script with additions? Besides, Cyrillic had to be heavily modified for Kazakh also, and I guess any script, which realistically exists in modern world.
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
I visited Tatarstan recently, and as a kazakh I find that they have same problem as we do here in Kazakhstan. Tatars who don't speak their own language or poorly(we call them shala).
Well, that's hardly has anything to do with Russia been bad guy, right? :)
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither is the basics of the Korean writing system (I memorized the writing and pronunciation system in about a day). However, if you want to look up what a word means, is it easier to type in the Latin alphabet or hunt and peck the Korean text? I expect that for most visitors to Korea, they are not going to spend the time to learn the Korean writing system, and rely on the faith that the basic English skills of the…
I would argue that Cyrillic is still easier then Korean. Similar amount of characters, some have similar pronunciation. So you might recognize a word even if you don't know the whole alphabet. (CCCP is somewhat known as an example) Besides, if you know the Greek alphabet (I guess many people here do), Cyrillic is not that far away.
Re: Kazakhstan is changing its alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin-based
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but there is a massive difference between Chinese characters and Cyrillic, Cyrillic can be learned in 1 or 2 hours maximum, it's not the same complexity at all.
I'm Slavic native speaker, was in L'viv for a week, learnt Cyrylic in that time. No way you can learn it in 2 hours. And even if you do - you will be reading it letter by letter, while even foreign latin-based script you can read almost as fast as your own language.
That's what I meant by the big difference between the two. Switching from Chinese characters like Vietnam did isn't the same effect as switching from a Cyrillic alphabet which is much simpler.