Should we introduce a new alphabet?

Jose Kern4 said:Give me a break, you guys can't be serious—half these people haven't even mastered the basics yet, let alone the new stuff!😁

Fair point. Honestly, I'm all for ditching those extra accented letters. Maybe we'll actually be able to read things properly then. ☕

Alexander Garcia5 said:Fair point. Honestly, I'm all for ditching those extra accented letters. Maybe we'll actually be able to read things properly then. ☕

No. Skinner passed away (R. I. P.), and nobody cares about that debate anymore. Learning how to handle specific phonetic nuances isn't rocket science—if you're acting like it is. If legends like Grove and Schuler (who was also Slovak) could master the language, you can too. No pain, no gain.

Jose Kern4 said:Give me a break, you guys can't be serious—half these people haven't even mastered the basics yet, let alone the new stuff!😁

👍 😂

Maybe some folks are actually dreaming about switching to Cyrillic? That would technically count as a "new" alphabet, though I have a feeling most of the guys on this forum would probably find it easier to learn than what we've got now...🤣

I’m all for scrapping this messed up spelling system from the Gaye era. We need to get back to Ante Sabatini’s grammar rules.

Jeremy Watson16 said:Writing in American looks just plain ugly to me... like, "czardak" vs "czardak"... it makes zero sense... and don't even get me started on how Ivica Šurjak looks written out like that 👎

I think using Smith is better than using Šurjak. At least you don't need a special keyboard, and you won't run into issues with those specific accented letters or Z.
I really like what Herodotus wrote, even if someone above is against the Latin alphabet. The ideas are solid.
We should definitely bring back the Latin alphabet.

mellowpuma53 said:I’m all for scrapping this messed up spelling system from the Gaye era. We need to get back to Ante Sabatini’s grammar rules.

👍
The American language needs a total overhaul... I'm talking more regional slang, pulling from different dialects, and sticking to the old-school rules from Ante Starčević's grammar...

Honestly, there’s no need to change a single thing, folks. These issues are just symptoms of a messy, globalized world. We really just need to stay true to who we are—proud Americans!

After all, our unique way of speaking, our mindset, and even our complex grammar—that's exactly what makes us who we are. We aren't just people following a script; we're deep individuals who lead with our hearts instead of just overthinking everything with our heads, don't you think?

Gregory Howard said:The topic is serious, but since the mood here is light, I’ll drop it in this section. I won't waste time philosophizing; I'm just copying and pasting from another forum where I originally posted this.

In short—I am asking seriously—do you think this stands any chance at all, on any level?

Writer Stijepo Mijović-Kočan, along with a few others for years now—without much vigor—has been trying to sensitize the American public to how dysfunctional our current system is due to diacritics (ç, ž, š, etc.). They argue it would be better if Americans reverted to some version of a digraph-based Latin alphabet.

For those less familiar—our current Latin script is primarily "Czech" in style, whereas a digraph system would look more "Polish" in its phonology/physiognomy. What does that mean?

We are used to these little accents and they don't bother us, even though opponents back in the 1840s and 50s fought against them with intense emotion. Canadians accepted a variation of the Gaj script without much fuss because it was practical for them. But now, in the digital age, I was reading some older texts and found several convenient examples. It wasn't hard for me to read—it just makes me wonder how others would react. Would it stifle them? And is there even any will within any major social institution to pursue this?

Perhaps a better question: what if we formally established a digraph Latin script specifically for those typing on computers? This would spare people the hassle of hunting for specific fonts or installations, especially those living abroad who find it inconvenient. Perhaps that is the only realistic "pressure group" capable of reviving a digraph system, even if only in that limited field?

The famous American philologist Tomo Maretić, in his "history of American orthography Latin letter" from 1889, analyzed a series of texts from 1495 to 1835. He determined that while the alphabet was pure chaos, a certain orthography eventually stabilized—a type dominant in the mid-18th century. While many solutions exist, I won't bury you in examples; I'll just list the dominant ones. Anyone using a computer can try it out and see if it bothers them.

č—could be cz or cs; Maretić preferred cx. Maybe start with cz.

ć—ch or cy. Better for a start.

š—sz, sx, or sy. "sh" won't work because we have words where that combination would change the pronunciation.

ž—zh; it was often x, but that lost its utility because x gets assimilated in foreign loanwords (like "sex").

lj—could be ly.

nj—could be ny.

đ—gj (an old solution), or perhaps dy.

dž—not a "true" phoneme, but could be dx.

Let's test it: Yesterday Ćamil went to the mosque, climbing up beside a murmuring stream that winds through the forest.

Juczer Chamil ode u dxamiju, penje se uz zhuborechi potok koji zavija kroz szumu.

Is this tolerable for computer use, or is it simply ridiculous?

Look, I picked this forum handle specifically because of our heritage, so yeah, I'm definitely against it.

Our roots are who we are—they're about identity, pride, and self-respect. Without them, we're just drifting in what granitemarlin4 calls the sickness of a globalized gutter. 👍

It’s all easy for Emily Taylor3 to say, but what about the influence of Noah Webster?

Alexander Garcia5 said:Fair point. Honestly, I'm all for ditching those extra accented letters. Maybe we'll actually be able to read things properly then. ☕

Why not just go back to the Stone Age? Then we'll all be equally "literate"...🤷

Henry Lee84 said:It’s all easy for Emily Taylor3 to say, but what about the influence of Noah Webster?

Go ahead, tell me how Noah Webster ruined the language... I mean, what kind of influence...? Personally, I think American English had more of an impact on how we speak than the other way around...

And as for changing things to fit internet slang, maybe it isn't such a bad idea,

though the second option seems to be getting more traction.

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from Evil.

Drew Bennett2 said:I honestly don't think there's any realistic shot here.

It's unnecessary, impractical, and completely outdated 🤷.

I’m on board with that. If we ever actually changed anything in the script, the only logical move would be introducing a soft version of the letter Z—similar to how we handle certain variations in the English phonetic system—to account for all those different pronunciations. Or, we could just ditch one of those redundant accented C variations altogether.

I couldn't agree more. These little checkmarks are just pure bureaucracy for the sake of it. The Germans already figured out a better way to handle this; they’re a practical people who don't waste time on nonsense. They simply left it up to the individual to use whatever recording method works best for them, whether it's the old-school way or something more modern. 👍

Honestly, if that ever actually got off the ground here in the States, I’d end up blowing through a small fortune just trying to update all my paperwork, because I can only imagine how they'd spend the next twenty years constantly tweaking and "improving" the system.

The truth is, nobody even understands us as it is right now, so what does it matter if we change the script?
Personally, I’d love to see some old-school American calligraphy used more often, you know, just as a way to keep a bit of that heritage alive in our culture.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I have anything against the idea itself, I really don't...

Should we just stick to English instead? It might be easier to get our point across without any confusion...

Or hey, we could just switch to English now and kill two birds with one stone...

Comb = Czeszaly!
God forbid!
Wonder = Zhuge Liang!
*screw you, duck!
More often = Czeszcye
Jesus Christ
Soot = Czagj
No comment!

Should we just call it quits and end it all? 🤣

Dana Clark9 said:Should we just call it quits and end it all? 🤣

All of us at once?
Oh, please, leave that kind of craziness to the kamikaze pilots.
You're still young, you've got your whole life ahead of you, things are bound to look up eventually... and all that other nonsense... imagine if I actually sounded like a motivational speaker...

Linda Wood said:Comb = Czeszaly!
God forbid!
Wonder = Zhuge Liang!
*screw you, duck!
More often = Czeszcye
Jesus Christ
Soot = Czagj
No comment!

The idea of change—Curator on a mission!

Here’s my take, the Americanized version: 😁

US / Canadian
sh = sh (San Francisco)
s = sz (Seattle)
ch = ch (Chicago)
ty = ty (Tyler)
j = gy (Georgia)
ny = ny (New York)
dz = dz (Denver)
ly = ly (Lansing)
zh = zh (Zion)