Michael Everson <email@example.com> writes:
> The thing is, Azerbaijani and Turkish are very similar languages, and it
> makes very good sense for them to be written in the same alphabet; that's
> why the Azeris changed so quickly. The further east you go, the less true
> this is, though that doesn't mean that Latin isn't better suited to Turkic
> languages than Cyrillic is.
I don't know much about Turkic languages, but it is my impression
that all very fairly close to each other, except for Chuvash. For
instance the Kazakh capital used to be called Alma Ata, "apple father",
and the one difference to Turkisk is that "apple" is "Elma". "Ata"
is the same.
(The Kazakh capital is now Astana, previous Aqmola, previously
Tselinograd. And Alma Ata is now Almaty.)
Then again, the Slavic languages are about equally close to each other,
and they are written in two different scripts. At least. (Witness
Bulgarian and Maceodnian which ortographically are quite dissimilar.)
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:13 EDT