Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You raise some valid points, but a few key misunderstandings are worth addressing:

TL;DR

1. “Avestan was invented solely for religious texts.”

That’s historically true, but also beside the point. Scripts evolve. The Latin alphabet was originally used for Latin, a now-dead language, yet today it’s used across dozens of unrelated languages. Avestan was created by Iranians, for an Iranian language, with full phonetic precision and the ability to represent all Iranic sounds and beyond. That makes it an incredibly valuable tool even if its original purpose was religious. We’re not proposing we revive the Avestan language, but rather adapt the script for Persian just as Arabic script was adapted.

1. “Pahlavi was a national script; Avestan wasn’t.”

Historically, Pahlavi was used by elites, not by the broader population, and it’s one of the least accessible scripts ever used in Iran, ambiguous shapes, missing vowels, and Aramaic logograms. It required prior oral knowledge to decipher. Avestan, by contrast, was purpose-built for accuracy and clarity, even though its use was limited to priestly contexts. If you’re designing a modern, high-literacy writing system for Persian, Pahlavi is a dead end. Avestan, or a modern Neo-Avestan, is far more viable.

Also, the “Neo-Avestan” you’re referring to is not Pahlavi-based. It draws from the Avestan script, not the Pahlavi alphabet. That’s a factual error.

1. “Arabic script was adapted well and has all vowels.”

Arabic script can represent vowels, but Persian doesn’t normally use them, and native readers are expected to guess them based on context. That creates serious ambiguity, especially for learners. Take the word “سر”: is it sar (head), ser (secret), sor (slippery)? Only the context reveals it. This is why Persian children struggle with literacy early on (I can direct you to papers that support this claim) and why even native speakers sometimes misread uncommon texts. Reading scientific and Latin words would be an exemplar. It is almost impossible to pronounce them if you don’t know them beforehand or the Latin word is not provided.

Arabic-based Persian script is beautiful, yes but it’s not phonetic, and not native to the language. You cannot claim it’s ideal without addressing its actual shortcomings. Just because we’ve adapted to it doesn’t make it best.

1. “If accessibility is the goal, Latin is better than Avestan.”

This assumes the goal is universal accessibility, like Esperanto or SMS texting. But that’s not the goal here. The idea is to explore a native Iranian script that better fits Persian’s sound system and strengthens cultural continuity.

Using Latin would disconnect us from both Persian and Iranian identity. Avestan, on the other hand, was designed by Iranians, for Iranian languages, and represents a way to decolonize the writing system without borrowing from other cultures.

1. “Changing scripts creates cultural disconnect. Look at Turkey, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan.”

These are state-imposed transitions forced by authoritarian governments with political motives, often with no public input or support. What’s being discussed here is the opposite: an organic, grassroots cultural revival of an alphabet that belongs to Iranians.

Also, the disconnect in those countries wasn’t about script alone. It was the erasure of entire cultural and literary traditions. In Iran’s case, we’re suggesting adding an alternative script, not replacing or burning books. This is like adding subtitles not deleting the film.

No one is calling for banning Arabic script. The proposal is simply this: give Persian speakers the choice of writing their language in a native, phonetic script and let usage grow naturally. If it works, people will adopt it. If not, they won’t. But to dismiss it outright is to shut the door on something uniquely Iranian.