Is the Latin alphabet based or would you prefer it not to be the script of your language? for those who don't use Latin...

Š

Why?

>our

Because they’re retarded. Didn’t read his post?

What's the point of using diacritics if we can have separate letters?
The fact that diacritics are not used is indicated as an advantage of Cyrillic. But the Latin alphabets have already created enough new letters to work without diacritics and letter combinations. And yes, Ƨ already exists and is used in the Latin alphabets, it's not a toy.

t. John Singhrandhi

There's nothing wrong with digraphs, the only issue is that you guys should've reserved one or two letters for them.

>Why not just use sh
Because it can get confused with /sh/.
Also give this a check: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_phonology#Consonants
A single set of digraphs doesn't do the trick alone. Polish currently solves this by a mix of digraphs and diacritics, but that's kinda unoptimal.

>The fact that diacritics are not used is indicated as an advantage of Cyrillic.
Plenty non-Slavic languages use Cyrillic with diacritics.

Not him, but abugidas like those on the Indian subcontinent are unironically better writing systems than the Latin alphabet imo

Holy cope. You must be Indian. Your country is cucked by English so you don't know how Latin alphabet truly works.

ᚽ𐌻ᚼ ᱥ᛭𐌸

An abugida is pretty much an intermediate between an alphabet and an abjad, sharing pros and cons with both sides. It performs fairly well for CV languages, but once you hit too many "naked" consonants an alphabet is simply more practical.

inb4 in case the only language you know that uses the Latin alphabet is English: I strongly recommend you to give Italian, Spanish, or Finnish orthographic rules a check. I'm saying that because English and its gsjksdfhklfjsd-like spelling is an outlier.

Latin is good but I wish we have diacritics to make pronunciations clearer

>Latin is good but I wish we have diacritics to make pronunciations clearer
Flip your flag and you'll get as many diacritics as you want. (Just don't look at Vietnamese. Don't.)

the only one we really need is é to distinguish /ə/ from /e/

Plenty of those languages use digraphs as well - Cyrillic does not protect you from retarded alphabet creators. The point is that while most Latin-writing European languages restrict themselves to the standard 26-letter set, Cyrillic-writing languages are free to add as much Һh's and Ӡӡ's as they want. It's a purely psychological thing, but it does affect the way the final result looks like.

Repurposing some old letter would also work. From a quick glance could work, if not for the loanwords. Or alternatively just as you said

That's likely the result of lazy arse linguists saying "my job is to create an orthography. DONE - if simple or convoluted, not my problem", or even "notations" becoming standard.
What surprises me the most though is how underutilized is for those languages - sure, soft/hard is uncommon outside non-Slavic languages, but nothing prevents you from using instead of or other crappy ad hoc solution.

Blane the dutch for multiple pronunciations of e

???
e is pronounced in many ways in indonesian too

>ь
Historical convention matters. ь was originally a short i in Old Slavonic. Using it for something totally unrelated would be very weird.

>was originally a short i in Old Slavonic
about that... this is something that many linguists agree with, but in reality there's no way to really prove it.