Talk:Digraphia

Hindi and Urdu example of digraphia?

It seems like Hindi and Urdu might be the example with the largest number of world wide speakers. From the Wikipedia article on Urdu:

"Urdu is often contrasted with Hindi. The main differences between the two are that Standard Urdu is conventionally written in Nastaliq calligraphy style of the Perso-Arabic script and relies heavily on Persian and Arabic as a source for technical and literary language,[7] whereas Standard Hindi is conventionally written in Devanāgarī and draws on Sanskrit.[8] "

--Davefoc (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu/Hindi was added to the lede as an example of digraphia. The purpose of this comment no longer exists. --Davefoc (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian digraphia

Serbian is much better exemple of synchronic digraphia becouse all Serbs use both cirilic and latin alphabet, no metter where they live. This example was earlier here in this topic, but now is gone. Who knows why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.135.155 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian is the first example in the Synchronic digraphia section. This seems like it might be adequate to address the issue raised above and perhaps this issue is closed. --Davefoc (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digraphia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian is synchronic.

Inner Mongolia in China officially still uses the traditional Mongolian script.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin vs Roman

The terms "Latin script" and "Roman script" are synonyms, but it's really not a good idea to have them mixed in the one article without any explanation. I've consolidated on "Latin" since it's the primary title of the article explaining both those term, as well as the term used in related ISO standards (especially ISO-646, ISO-8859, and ISO-10646). Martin Kealey (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digraphia vs bicameralism

What distinguishes true digraphia from simply having multiple graphic forms for "the same" letter? Why do we not consider the use of upper and lower case Latin or Greek letters to be a form of digraphia? What about Japanese Hirogana and Katakana scripts?

Some Latin letters take noticeably different forms when italicized: f & z may acquire tails, and k & l may acquire loops. (However neither of those occur in the oblique typeface preferred by Wikipedia for rendering ....)

Having tried to read very old handwriting, I find that the shapes are so foreign to me that it feels like I'm reading a different language; does the difference between standard roman typefaces and cursive handwriting not count as digraphia? Why or why not? Martin Kealey (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]