Date:  Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:20:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710212020.PAA29073@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Ilya Ketris <ilya@QUITE.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ilya Ketris <ilya@QUITE.NET>
Subject:      Re: Dvorak (& Lojban)
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <E0xNjWV-0003wv-00@ferret>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 855
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 21 15:20:20 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, John Cowan wrote:

> Edward Cherlin wrote:
>
> > One has the same problems with Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, kana, etc.
> > keyboards. I got a Russian typewriter in college, and learned to touch type
> > without disturbing my English typing skills.
>
> I don't think that's a case in point.  It's one thing to get a
> keyboard mapping for a different script into one's fingers, such
> that \greek{t} triggers a different finger from \cyrillic{t} or
> \latin{t}.  It's quite another thing to have 2 or 3 layouts
> for the *same* Latin letters in the fingers, such that each

        Why is it another thing?  I touch-type in cyrillic,
        and cyrillic A, O, T, E, K etc. are just the same as
        their latin counetrparts (they look same, they sound similar)
        and still there is no confusion between two different modes.

--