Talk:List of Latin-script alphabets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Latin alphabets)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


There are a number of things in this article that I feel could stand to be improved:

  • The rationale for the article 'the' in the title was somewhat poorly explained in a post by an anonymous user. There are a few possible new names listed there. I, personally, would go for the first line in the article, Variants of the Latin alphabet.
  • The selection of alphabets seems to be arbitrary. Some alphabets are included in the first table whereas others are listed in the 'Miscellanea' section. I can't think of any reason as to why alphabets like the Dinka or Hawaiian alphabets shouldn't be included.
  • The "Notes" section is a mess. A lot talk about digraphs, etc. and how diacritics are used in the various alphabets. Perhaps making sections that specifically address these would be better. Also, there are a lot of links from higher up on the page. Would it make sense to make only one link from the first mention of the language to reduce the clutter?
  • Is there a better way of organizing the three, main tables? Earlier, someone broke them into three, which made it slightly easier to browse, but it still looks messy.
  • It's minor, but how would one categorize ʻOkina? It's a letter in Polynesian languages that doesn't really have an equivalent in the basic Latin alphabet. It's possible there are similar cases elsewhere.

All in all, is it possible that this article is trying to take on something far too large for a single article? Just as an example, the charts on the article have three variants of the letter R. But the article on the letter (the template at the bottom) lists 16 variants. One of them is listed as being used in only one language which, in turn has most of the standard Latin alphabet (no Q or X), adds two letters (Ǝ and Ɍ), and has two digraphs (SH and NY). And this is just one language.

Sorry about the length, and thanks for your input!

-Nameneko (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents' worth from a cursory glance -- I think that no matter how this is organized it will be confusing to some one. It is a tad overly ambitious but is really no more than a highly expanded version of a table that can be found in almost every print encyclopedia. It may be nice to make each of the languages' names link to the article about that language's alphabet or, if there is no such article, the main article about that language.

As is stated in the introduction the article contains information that is contributed by editors. As such it is limited in its scope by the limits of the contributors' knowledge. If an editor knows about a language that is not listed I do not think any of the preceding contributors will complain about its inclusion.

The "Notes" section seems to me to be very well done. The article is about languages whose alphabets have letters derived from the Latin alphabet. This section shows what each language does with certain special cases.

As for your minor point, ʻOkina, if, as you say, it is not derived from the Latin alphabet, it would be omitted. The article is about languages whose Alphabets (are) derived from the Latin (alphabet), isn't it? JimCubb (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Variants of the Latin alphabet" also seems good, but I moved to Latin-derived alphabet since that's the name of the Category:Latin-derived alphabets (pluralized). I added counting stuff to the first table and extended the intro. TalkChat (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing alphabets[edit]

Lebanese Latin Alphabet[edit]

The lebanese writer and poet Said Akl developped a Latin Alphabet for Lebanese Language and published several books and periodicals in it. Today it is mainly used in internet and for chat. I think it should be added: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


needs to be added, and only contains 13 letters. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)




The letter Ʀ/ʀ is not mentioned once in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comorian Latin alphabet[edit]


Hey folks,

Can we add the Comorian alphabet to the "Latin-derived alphabet" article like the Swahilli language alphabet was added onto the list?

Posted by PK2. 7:43 PM, Sunday, 5 July 2009

The page is not protected, you can make the changes yourself. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dotless/Dotted I[edit]

They're too marginal to include as part of the basic modern letters; they're national variants of basic forms like Norwegian slashed-O, and should be removed the main chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish glyphs is wrong[edit]

I have no source to back me up, but, obviously, neither have the previous person who contributed the data for Swedish.

ÅÄÖÉÜ is correct.

À is missing (used in only one word "à", same use as English @).

Ü is used in one word, müsli, many word books (but not the current SAOL) recommend the spelling mysli, musli is also common.

Á and È is not part of simple Swedish spelling, they are only used in loan words when the writer use fancy (lazy?) spelling and in foreign names (since nobody seem to care about changing the spelling in them to Swedish any longer, Swedified spelling of foreign names was still the norm at least until the early 1960's, although French and German names kept most of their foreign glyphs). If Á and È is included, then about 40 or so other glyphs should be as well.

W and Q is only used in words derived from foreign words or names (such as "walkman" or "quisling"); or in name of places that like to give the, usually false, impression of being old (Q and W was used similar to in English spelling in older Swedish spelling). Use of Z is also rare, but not as uncommon as W and Q; e.g. "zebra", "Zanzibar", "azurblå", "Tarzan", "bazooka". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Swedish uses "Z" also in "zoologi", "zoo", "zoom", "zooma", "zenit", "horizont", it cannot be compared with the rare use of W and Q. But Q was not imported from Norwegian nazist Vidkun Quisling! Silly, a common family name is "Kvist" ("Twig" in English) or combinations of certain trees + "kvist". Many of such family names are spelled with Q [Almqvist, Björkqvist, Blomqvist, Lindqvist, Lönnqvist etc]. So W and Q are typically used in names only. Boeing720 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Color-coding the charts to show whether a letter form is a distinct letter[edit]

While I find the charts interesting, I also find them lacking: One cannot tell which letter forms represent distinct letters in the alphabet they are associated with. Color-coding the charts to show this would be grande, in my opinion. TechTony (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The best-known Latin script based alphabet[edit]

Currently the article says The ISO basic Latin alphabet is the best-known Latin script based alphabet. I have asked for a citation because I suspect that although it is well known among computer scientists and related professions, the general public will no know about it, they will know their native alphabet which means probably the English Alphabet (or Spanish -- not sure of the numbers) is the best-known Latin derived alphabet.

I think this is a classic case of Wikipedia systemic bias: Most Wikipedia editors know about the ISO basic Latin alphabet so therefore everyone does.

-- PBS (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. English or Spanish seems like a much more likely candidate. What is the source for the claim that the ISO basic Latin alphabet is the most well-known? Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What about letter "Æ" ?[edit]

The letter Æ (which still is in use in the Danish and Norwegian alphabets), was also used by the Romans ? Occationally in some English aswell, as for instance "THE CONCISE ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF WORLD HISTORY" , 1958 edition. (New Horizon Books, edited by John Bowle, Hutchison of London Ltd,178-202 Great Portland Street, including 22 academical contributers. Printed in London, Auckland, Bombay, Johannesburg, Melbourne, New York, Sydney and Toronto). The same applies to NHB's "THE CONCISE ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF..."

  • "...World Locomotives and Rolling Stock"
  • "...World Litterature 1900-1950"
  • "...Philosophy & Philosophers"

The list of these encyclopedias are listed at the back of "...World History". I'm also sure of having seen the "Æ" -letter in old roman wrighting, but cannot remember exactly where from. Boeing720 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On the Contrary[edit]

A great addition to this page would be a table consisting of all the alphabets that use no extensions to the 26 "ASCII" letters, but rather do not use some of the 26. I could only find the table consisting of all the alphabets using the 26, separately from this page. |?| JapanYoshi 12:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be difficult to do, because most will use all 26 for foreign words, and some of those words might be assimilated in speech without being assimilated in spelling. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of hat note[edit]

Can Kwamigami explain his removal of "For alphabets used by the Romans see Latin alphabet"? TimurKirov (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved.(non-admin closure). Winged Blades Godric 13:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Latin-script alphabetsLetter inventory of Latin-script alphabets – It's not a simple list, but some tables and it's restricted to the letter inventory, e.g. says nothing about collation or sound values. (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: - Why did you turn it into a contested request [1]? I cannot find any statement of why there could be objection to this move. Where can one put a complete list of Latin-script alphabets that have an article in Wikipedia, irrespective of letter usage, if not on List of Latin-script alphabets? Currently this is not possible, because the title is blocked by content specific to letter inventory. If you agree with moving the current content away from here, then what target title would you suggest? (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is a good enough name, given that we have no other list of Latin-script alphabets, and this is primarily what this is. It is not a list of letters, it's a list of alphabets, with some additional information about letters contained in that list.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Amakuru, the intention is to create a full list, sortable. But the current content is in the way of creating such a list. The current content is several tables, not one list. The alphabets are listed here several times, in several tables. The future list would be one list and it would include all alphabets independent from the letters they contain, sorted by name of alphabet. (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.