Stalin would be very pleased. Divide and conquer.
> On 21 Feb 2018, at 01:15, Garth Wallace via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org>
> wrote:
>
> AIUI "doesn't look like Turkish" was one of the design criteria, for
> political reasons.
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:07 PM Michael Everson via Unicode
> <unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> Not using Turkic letters is daft, particularly as there was a widely-used
> transliteration in Kazakhstan anyway. And even if not Ç Ş, they could have
> used Ć and Ś.
>
> There’s no value in using diagraphs in Kazakh particularly when there could
> be a one-to-one relation with the Cyrillic orthography, and I bet you
> anything there will be ambiguity where some morpheme ends in -s and the next
> begins with h- where you have [sx] and not [ʃ].
>
> Groan.
>
> > On 20 Feb 2018, at 20:40, Christoph Päper <christoph.pae...@crissov.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Michael Everson:
> >> Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself and
> >> 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş.
> >
> > I would have argued in favor of digraphs for G' and N' as well if there
> > already was a decision for Ch and Sh.
> >
> > Many European orthographies use the digraph Qu although the letter Q does
> > not occur otherwise.
>
>
