orthographic

Latin-using languages ended up going through a very long orthographic simplification and unification process after centuries of divergent orthographic development.

The presence of the apostrophe is an orthographic convention and has nothing to do with language in the least.

It has a different history, an orthographic dimension and also serves as a useful prounciation hint.

They just went for a 2D top-down view and pixelated graphics,but internally they are all rendered using OpenGL/DX and orthographic cameras.

They're just setup with an orthographic projection and they don't rotate the windows at all.

Various idiosyncrasies of an orthographic system are far less important than being able to hear difference between the sounds of a language.

It's my personal theory that the acceleration of this orthographic change has had to do with the increased need to mechanize (and later computerize) writing.

It was actually in 3d but with a orthographic camera.

Ancient Greek clitics are traditionally separated with orthographic spaces (we know they're still clitics because they affect the placement of word accents).

To be fair, the linked post is largely ridiculing the arguments that orthographic reform is impossible and the author would probably agree with you that it isn't.

Now you're just left with a huge swath of the vocabulary where the roots have become indistinct and impermeable since you eliminated the orthographic clues from the writing.

> the characters that are required to type a jophola have no semantic, phonetic, or orthographic connection to the jophola.

"James' bicycle" is an orthographic convention; it's pronounced as if it were written "Jameziz bycycle" (i.e.

Typing two "f" characters in a row has the same obvious semantic meaning as the ff ligature, whereas the characters that are required to type a jophola have no obvious semantic, phonetic, or orthographic connection to the jophola.