Should Farsi go back to manichean / Soghdian?

Dec 2017
161
America
#91
i.e. I'm sure many people would feel more comfortable with a direct set of characters clearly corresponding to each sound in their language, whether mono-phonemic or diphthong.
And the Latin script does exactly that with Persian. Maybe familiarize yourself with the language before entering a debate that you are far out of your depth in. The Latin script is at least as suited to Persian as it is to English. Don't get where someone completely clueless on the language and its script is getting such brazen opinions from.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#92
And the Latin script does exactly that with Persian. Maybe familiarize yourself with the language before entering a debate that you are far out of your depth in. The Latin script is at least as suited to Persian as it is to English. Don't get where someone completely clueless on the language and its script is getting such brazen opinions from.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
And I never suggested the Latin alphabet was ideally suited to the phonology of English either ... although it seems more reasonable for Persian to revert to its own alphabet than English, namely for reasons mentioned earlier in this thread.
 
Dec 2017
161
America
#93
And I never suggested the Latin alphabet was ideally suited to the phonology of English either ... although it seems more reasonable for Persian to revert to its own alphabet than English, namely for reasons mentioned earlier in this thread.
You didn't mention any reasons. You just made vague incorrect statements without backing them up.

So English should return to Futhark?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#94
You didn't mention any reasons. You just made vague incorrect statements without backing them up.

So English should return to Futhark?

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
The futhorc did not include sounds (e.g. alveolar approximant) present in NE.
So no, although the adoption of one or two letters (e.g. eth & ash) would do no harm.

Persian, on the other hand, could ostensibly revert to a logogram-free version of its old alphabet (just how Egyptian alphabet came to evolve).
 
Dec 2017
161
America
#95
The futhorc did not include sounds (e.g. alveolar approximant) present in NE.
So no, although the adoption of one or two letters (e.g. eth & ash) would do no harm.

Persian, on the other hand, could ostensibly revert to a logogram-free version of its old alphabet (just how Egyptian alphabet came to evolve).
Old Persian cuneiform wasn't even a proper alphabet, much more complicated than Latin/Arabic/Cyrillic and lacked some sounds in Modern Persian such as the voiced velar fricative and voiceless velar fricative. So if Persian should adopt a primitive outdated cuneiform, then English should adopt Futhark.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#96
Old Persian cuneiform wasn't even a proper alphabet, much more complicated than Latin/Arabic/Cyrillic and lacked some sounds in Modern Persian such as the voiced velar fricative and voiceless velar fricative. So if Persian should adopt a primitive outdated cuneiform, then English should adopt Futhark.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
*futhorc ≠ futhark*

Inventing new letters that cannot be derived from logograms of Old Persian is still possible though.
 
Dec 2017
161
America
#97
*futhorc ≠ futhark*

Inventing new letters that cannot be derived from logograms of Old Persian is still possible though.
The same new letter inventing strategy applies to Futhark, yet you didn't consider it plausible for English. Basically; if Persian should return to cuneiform, then all Germanic languages should return to Futhark, Celtic languages should return to the Ogham script and Turkic languages should return to the Orkhon script.
 
Jul 2011
579
western Europe
#98
The same new letter inventing strategy applies to Futhark, yet you didn't consider it plausible for English. Basically; if Persian should return to cuneiform, then all Germanic languages should return to Futhark, Celtic languages should return to the Ogham script and Turkic languages should return to the Orkhon script.
If the Persian people feel more comfortable with a modernized version of their ancient alphabet, then they should opt it ; however in the absence of a hyper-Brexit effect, I can't really see that happening for English language (by the way who's original alphabet was the futhorc, not futhark).
 
Dec 2017
161
America
#99
If the Persian people feel more comfortable with a modernized version of their ancient alphabet, then they should opt it ; however in the absence of a hyper-Brexit effect, I can't really see that happening for English language (by the way who's original alphabet was the futhorc, not futhark).
Persians obviously wouldn't want to return to a more primitive/outdated alphabet when the only people that would support such a thing are a minority of Western Europeans that have zero familiarity with Persian phonology and non-Latin scripts. The discussion was what made practically more sense.

Persian returning to its own alphabet would practically make as much sense as Germanic languages (inc. English) returning to Futhark, Celtic languages returning to Ogham, Turkic languages returning to Orkhon, and every other language returning to the script it was first written in.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
 

Similar History Discussions