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.