Braindroppings: Changing the Alphabet

December 16, 2004

Changing the Alphabet

Again, the ever-present question of whether we should change the Persian alphabet to Latin and the arguments for and against it has come out. I am participating out of feeling obliged to do so, but I know neither side can convince the other.

Somehow, the question is always posed by the third world countries and their populations. Europeans don't feel the obligation of updating their age-old writing systems to make it easier to read. The French never worry about writing ten letters and reading only two. Why are we worried? Colonial thinking about our own lands?

Anyway, what would the reaction of the English speaking audience of this weblog be to a proposal to change the English alphabet to something more fitting for this Anglo-Saxon based language? After all, I am sure Devenagari is the best suited alphabet for English. It has a full set of vowels that can show the "ou" in Labour and differetiate it from the "ou" in mouse. They also would not mix-up the 'g' in German with the 'g' in grain, neither would there be a problem with representing the difference between the 's' in season and the one in set and the one in pressure and the one in usual.

So, how popular do you think a proposal to change the English alphabet to Devanagari would be?

Posted by Khodadad at December 16, 2004 03:35 AM

Comments

Glad your server problem is fixed, Khodadad! :) I saved my comment just in case, so here it is again:

I would find it practically impossible to change from the Latin alphabet to something else. However, I have noticed that many Iranian bloggers write Persian words in the Latin alphabet. One of them called this "Farglish". I guess this is because not all Persian speakers have the software to actually write in Persian script. It seems to me that Persian speakers would be proud of their language and want to keep their own written alphabet. Who is behind wanting to change it?

Posted by: David at December 19, 2004 12:10 PM

Nice to meet you Khodadad! I am referred to your blog and in particular to this post by David. I am very much against changing the language. I think one of the most important elements in defining one's identity is the language they speak that of course comes from the region they were brought up in. I think instead of wanting to change the language, they should promote more good translators to translate the literature masterpieces to English or other languages to increase the universal recognition of our culture. but I agree with you, it would be super difficult for either side to convince the other.

Posted by: koozeh at December 19, 2004 12:43 PM

I also believe that a language's alphabet should not be changed. The idea of moving an alphabet towards simplicity takes away its authenticity and sophistication. For example, I like how Farsi has 3 S's, 3 Z's, 2 H's and so on. Yes, it makes it more complicated (and sometimes redundant just like the French alphabet that is not pronounced), but I think the beauty of a language and its sophistication lies in these little details. Which makes me think, I have to start typing Farsi instead of "Fenglish" when I comment on Farsi weblogs! ;) Khodadad, I enjoy reading your posts; added you to my blogroll.

Posted by: Ehsan at December 19, 2004 11:52 PM

Khodadad, at long last, I have labored and produced a new post. So far every post that I have written is longer than the previous one. I may need to be placed in editorial restraints! :)

Posted by: David at December 20, 2004 06:45 PM