Should we introduce a new alphabet?

Honestly, anyone who actually gives this kind of thing any serious thought has got to be on something heavy...

What do you mean, "adaptation"??!! Our language is our identity! It’s ours to use however we want... I mean, what would people even say if they had to deal with all those extra marks and accents over letters like (l, t, etc.)? It just doesn't make sense.

Who even needs to learn this stuff now...😂 We don't even have flying toilets yet, and now we need this too?😂

...The point is to understand one another—even if it's slow—and stay true to ourselves. If we have to sacrifice that, then what's the use?

Always for Old English... it's my favorite script.👍

Jack Lee77 said: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)

Interesting idea. But people would revolt if they thought it was the Americanization of the English language.

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

It’s bizarre because there’s no precedent. People were just as outraged back in the 1830s over the "horned and tailed" spelling systems used in old New York journals. 😂

Seriously though: alphabetical classifications wouldn't be an issue—where a name like Navarro automatically precedes Novak—and there would actually be some practical benefits.

But there isn't a single social group out there willing to back it up...