Hacker News Reader

Comment by mohamedkoubaa | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why people look down their noses at Arabizi

Because people don't want to abandon hundreds or thousands of years of culture for a completely solvable problem.

I don’t know either, but I am aware that in glyph based languages (and this article makes the case that Arabic has some glyph-like features), there is considerable social discussion about the equivalents, like pinyin. Detractors worry that sound-based (where sounds are based on the latin / western orthography) approaches to writing change something fundamental in people’s brains as distinct from more native versions.

In Chinese for instance, you can use a keyboard that combines radicals - parts of a character, or you can use a keyboard that combines phonemes. Those seem likely to change literally how you think in your language. There may be related concerns for Arabic.

That said, one of the complaints in the blog is that two different codepoints render to the same exact letter / phrase / word — this is not a problem unique to Arabic in Unicode, and there are known approaches: I’d expect (I’m not a Unicode expert by any means) that more work on the tech stack for rectification (I’m sure there’s a technical Unicode word for this process of matching codepoints for e.g. search and uniqueness of rendering) would likely be useful for Arabic, and relatively seamlessly flow in many places.

> I’m sure there’s a technical Unicode word for this process of matching codepoints for e.g. search and uniqueness of rendering

That’d be Unicode Normalization. I don’t have an opinion on the best source for more details, so here’s a link from unicode.org https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/

I don’t know enough to know whether or not there are still Arabic-specific issues, either in the spec or the implementations.

The example in the article of copy/paste/search is interesting. I think it’s equally likely to be a RtL issue as a normalization bug, but I haven’t done anything significant with either topic.

I would push back about Arabic being glyph based, it's a phoneme rendered beautifully on paper. a modified latin script could faithfully reproduce it semantically except that readers won't be able to stop and smell the roses. Arguably, once someone is accustomed to reading a script, they don't think or care about the aesthetics much, and if they did, that's a bad property for information density anyways

I looked at Arabizi and the numbers are really annoying for formal text etc. Finglish is better in my opinion, however it causes problems like being able to read the same text in two ways. like "dar". The a can be like 'a' in 'dad' or it can be 'a' like in 'car'. with different pronunciation it means 'door' and 'gallow' which can be very annoying in Arabic languages that unlike Persian write _ُ_ِ_ٌ_ً_ٍ_ّ_. Instead of numbers it uses combinations like 'kh' for 'خ', 'gh' for 'ق' and 'غ'. In some methods they use 'aa' for 'a' sound like 'bar' and single 'a' for 'a' sound like 'lad'.

Probably because it's a work around and not what most people want to do. Imagine someone telling you you have to type English in Cyrillic. I know if I could no longer type out Chinese characters and had to use pinyin it would feel very odd and like something was taken away.

For a while, Arabizi was wildly popular and universally used on feature phones. When mobiles became smarter, it was used less. Japanese has romaji and Mandarin has pinyin. Arabic's Arabizi would increase literacy rates and solve all these digital problems.

The vast majority of Japanese and Mandarin speakers are also not in favour of replacing their current writing systems (which give them a link to thousands of years of their own history) in favour of simplified systems. I suspect it is the same for Arabic speakers.

Romaji/pinyin are widely used for typing the actual written scripts. They're not seen as alternate written scripts outside of edge case scenarios(like chats in FPS)

I generally agree with what you're saying, but there is rather famously a simplified form of chinese that was designed specifically to increase literacy rates.

Japanese also underwent simplification post-WW2, but there is important context here.

In both cases, the original plan was for Chinese characters to fall out of use entirely via gradual simplifications, but in both cases the simplifications stopped soon after the first planned stages and it seems very unlikely it would be a popular initiative at this stage. Basically what happened in both cases was the equivalent of a spelling reform, not the elimination of a writing system.

In the case of Japanese, it seems there is some regret around simplification because characters not in the 常用漢字表 do not have the component simplifications applied that the standardised characters do (for instance, 攪拌 is more commonly used than 撹拌 despite the 覚 component being the "modern" simplified form -- and there are characters with no simplified form like the first character in 艱難, first character in 辻褄, or 迄).

Romanization is a separate issue to using fixed glyphs.

There was a theory in the XIX / early XX century that full literacy was impossible without the Latin script but such claims are ridiculous especially for Arabic which is an alphabetic script already. China has higher literacy rates than Vietnam, for example.

I don't think the many composition rules of Unicode are really necessary, though. Maybe as an extension for academic work or artistic compositions but not for computing.

If all we had were movable types, all of these language users would find a way to write their language that wouldn't require a Turing-complete computer on each glyph. Now the Unicode gods pander to some of these computer-hostile scripts making the users of different scripts feel slighted.

It's aesthetically revolting and allows for multiple renderings of the same word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com