3 added 333 characters in body
source | link

Turkey's post World War I leader, Mustapha Kemal, or "Ataturk" switched to the Latin alphabet as part of a mandate to break from the immediate, humiliating, and "Sultanic" past. A similar initiative was the move of the capital from Istanbul to Ankara.

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was illiterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was illiterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.

Turkey's post World War I leader, Mustapha Kemal, or "Ataturk" switched to the Latin alphabet as part of a mandate to break from the immediate, humiliating, and "Sultanic" past. A similar initiative was the move of the capital from Istanbul to Ankara.

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was illiterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.

2 deleted 15 characters in body
source | link

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was ilemphasized textilliterateliterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was ilemphasized textliterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was illiterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.

1
source | link

Something like 8%-10% of the Turkish population was literate in 1927 (I couldn't find any earlier figures). So perhaps 90% of the population was ilemphasized textliterate.

Of the literate portion of the population, most knew, or had studied a European language, and would have been familiar with the Latin alphabet. Put another way, there were very few people who were both literate and unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet.

Changing to the Latin alphabet ( a modfied version thereof, actually), would not have rendered "100% of the population" newly illiterate. At most it would have been 8%-10%, and probably far less.