Peter the Great gets on latinizing as a hobby horse?
Peter "Latinized" shapes of the letters in Russian alphabet but that's approximately as far as even he could realistically go.
Peter the Great gets on latinizing as a hobby horse?
Peter "Latinized" shapes of the letters in Russian alphabet but that's approximately as far as even he could realistically go.
Peter "Latinized" shapes of the letters in Russian alphabet but that's approximately as far as even he could realistically go.
Ukrainian alphabet (AFAIK) is not Latin and neither is Belarussian. There are couple letters which look like Latin but they existed in the Russian alphabet until the communists removed them. But the answer to your question is "most probably no". Condition of Wladislaw's accession to the throne of Moscow was his conversion and if at some point he decided to "get back", he would be most probably killed, as happened to the false-Dmitri I: the main reason for his assassination was his attempt to establish what was considered "Latin habits". Outright "unconditional" conquest was pretty much impossible (King Sigismund tried it) and probably completely impossible as something sustainable.
Which means we need to go back farther
No, I mean these alphabets here for Ukrainian and Belarusian, which are based on Polish orthography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_Latin_alphabet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Latin_alphabet
A Russian version would look similar to those proposals.
All Slavic languages can be done without diacritics. Just use extra letters.
That's roughly what Cyrillic was about, starting from a Greek base of course.
Sorry for ambiguity - I did not mean adding extra letters to the set.
I meant using letter combinations. I will use Polish as an example as I know it best and I do not know how to write Cyrillic
Today "ć" and "ś" are used for nifty ways of pronouncing c and s respectively, but instead of using the accent above these just as well could be written ch and sh. I know that ch is used in parallel for h - but then this could be simplified
Thus the "grading would be e.g. "s" - "sh" - "sz". Same for c ch and cz. For the three z sounds - z, ż and ź - besides zh either zz or maybe zx. Or to use x - which is not used, as Polish uses "ks" - for ź. Portuguese uses "x" for "sh", so why not ...
The ł could be replaced with lh or ll.
The nasalised sounds - ą and ę - could be doubled aa and ee.
I there really, really must be two ways of writing the sound "u" - ó and u - then oo instead of ó.
The same can be used for Russian - and there it would be even simpler, with no ą ę ś ć to bother with.
S and sh, z and zh, l and lh, some letter to replace the "soft-" and "hard-mark" - anything more?
Dutch also manages to be diacritic-free.Of course it can be done like this. After all, English manages without diacritics, and it has about eighty-something phonemes represented with 26 letters. Now, of course I wouldn't recommend English as a model for how to spell anything, but combinations of letters do work. A minor problem with your proposal is that some digrams may be ambiguous in Polish: the "sh" digram in particular might mean both the ś sound and the combination of plain s with h, which is possible in Polish.
However, there may be workarounds, as always.
Dutch also manages to be diacritic-free.
Frankly I did not think about the possble "plain s with h" combination as it is not that common. So, I suppose it would be "learn by route" in this case.
better use letter "x" instead of both ch/h, then you have letter "h" left to use as soft-sign, like in Portuguese, in digraphs. Also "y" could be used for both "j" and "y" without confusion ("j" must be followed by vowel or follow vowel, "y" must follow consonant, can't be followed by vowel, except for rare compounds, and combination "jy" is impossible in Polish, so there would not be confusion) so you can use "j" to replace "ż", instead of ą,ę just use om/on and em/en combination. And you have Polish without diacritics.Sorry for ambiguity - I did not mean adding extra letters to the set.
I meant using letter combinations. I will use Polish as an example as I know it best and I do not know how to write Cyrillic
Today "ć" and "ś" are used for nifty ways of pronouncing c and s respectively, but instead of using the accent above these just as well could be written ch and sh. I know that ch is used in parallel for h - but then this could be simplified
Thus the "grading would be e.g. "s" - "sh" - "sz". Same for c ch and cz. For the three z sounds - z, ż and ź - besides zh either zz or maybe zx. Or to use x - which is not used, as Polish uses "ks" - for ź. Portuguese uses "x" for "sh", so why not ...
The ł could be replaced with lh or ll.
The nasalised sounds - ą and ę - could be doubled aa and ee.
I there really, really must be two ways of writing the sound "u" - ó and u - then oo instead of ó.
The same can be used for Russian - and there it would be even simpler, with no ą ę ś ć to bother with.
S and sh, z and zh, l and lh, some letter to replace the "soft-" and "hard-mark" - anything more?
No surprise. Cyrillic script is best adapted to phonology of Slavic languages (palatalization, lots of frictative and affricate consonants), it was designed for it, many letters are useless in Turkic Kazakh language.What a coincidence: Kazakhstan will make the switch! http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180424-the-cost-of-changing-an-entire-countrys-alphabet
Ukrainian alphabet (AFAIK) is not Latin and neither is Belarussian.
The change in Kazakhstan has nothing to do with linguistic reasons, since Cyrillic works better with the Kazakh language than the Latin alphabet. It's pure nationalism.No surprise. Cyrillic script is best adapted to phonology of Slavic languages (palatalization, lots of frictative and affricate consonants), it was designed for it, many letters are useless in Turkic Kazakh language.
No surprise. Cyrillic script is best adapted to phonology of Slavic languages (palatalization, lots of frictative and affricate consonants), it was designed for it, many letters are useless in Turkic Kazakh language.