Re: Cyrillic letters for /T/ and /D/

On 22/02/08 20:41:58, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Tristan McLeay skrev:
>
>  > In any case, I thought it was a long-standing and
>  > continuing tradition for new Cyrillic-based alphabets to
>  > create new letterforms for new sounds
>
> Yes, this was the practice of *Soviet Union linguists*, but
> see my proposed condition:
>
>  >> /D/? The idea is that a 19th century alphabet maker was
>  >> able to turn existing lead types upside down to create
>  >> new symbols, but not to add diacritics or wholly new
>  >> shapes.
Yes, I read that (I'm not dumb), and intended my comment as questioning
*why*. Why does the 19th century alphabet maker want to avoid creating
new shapes or adding diacritics? (I also didn't know that the practice
was started by Soviet Union linguists; in fact, I thought it had begun
earlier, from the example set by the different letters in use by
different Slavic languages including Russian.)

--
Tristan.

Reply