Print

Print


2008/6/15 Dmitri Ivanov <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> --- In [log in to unmask], li_sasxsek@... wrote:
> >
> > What I think is more
> > offputting is having two scripts.  There's really no need to have
> > Cyrillic any more than you'd need a Greek version.
> >
>
> Maybe I am a wrong person to ask about it, but for me it is very
> difficult to read LFN in Cyrillic, I have to look at the Roman script
> to understand the sense. I mean this page:
> http://lingua-franca-nova.net/lfnintrorus.html
>
> In Russian, if a word begins with "e", it is read [je]. So   will
> be read [jel jes]. So   would be better.
> The word lingua would be better rendered as , not , to
> avoid stress on "u".
> There are many mistakes in this text written in Cyrillic.
> The Russian text is evidently translated automatically, it's queer.
> An example of a good language presentation in Russian may be found on
> Neo Patwa site:
> http://patwa.pbwiki.com/index-rus
>
> Swasti!

No problems for Bulgarians though, they read it as a standard 'e'
sound. Wasn't the Cyrillic alphabet invented over there in the first
place anyway?

--
http://mithridates.blogspot.com