>"It just looks wrong" is the best I can come up with, but I think it's that they tend to lose detail along the way.
Depends on the source script. For Cyrillic->Latin the changes are minute. Most characters have a 1:1 mapping.
Depends on the source script. For Cyrillic->Latin the changes are minute. Most characters have a 1:1 mapping.
Cyrillic also has a couple soft vs hard annotation single characters, which I'm not able to explain well in terms of their cousin western European but still Indo-European languages.
So you get horrendous spellings if using Latin characters for the Slavic sounds, like you see in Polish.
(Disclaimer: i'm a native English speaker who had years of western european linguistics, also took Russian and had a Polish grandfather).
I would consider that as 1:1 mapping while technically being 2 characters in most latin languages.
I'm not sure where you get this from.
Several Slavic languages (Czech, Slovenian, Croatian, etc) use Latin-derived alphabets and managed to preserve their pronunciation with 100% fidelity. The Polish orthography is not the only solution to this, and I think it's a stretch to regard Croatian spellings as "horrendous". I am, of course, biased. But the number of characters in a word in Croatian maps 1:1 with its Cyrillic spelling, for example.
I mean they use multiple letters for a sound (or diacritics which is neater in my opinion) is all I'm saying, like modern english does for voiced and unvoiced "th" whereas older germanic had eth and thorn glyphs, and iceland still uses them.