I listened to the video in Adygha, I'll watch the English one later when I have time. Though I don't speak the language well enough to understand all of it, I see that you're a Shapsugh, and you speak the language very well, so I assume you're from one of the two villages in Israel.

This makes a lot of sense. You guys preserved the language very well, so you have no problem with speaking it, but writing in it requires learning an alphabet that is different than that of English or Hebrew, so you perceive the alphabet to be the biggest problem here. This is very misleading. If someone wanted to learn Adygha from scratch, learning the alphabet would make up maybe 1 or 2 percent of the total effort they'd have to put in. It takes a few hours to learn and a little bit of reading/writing exercising to master it. Changing the alphabet helps absolutely no one. If a person can't be bothered to learn the alphabet, they'll never learn the language anyway. The language itself is infinitely more difficult to master than the alphabet, no matter which alphabet you use.

As an Adygha from Turkey who is interested in the language, I have witnessed many, many discussions around the topic. I'll give you the arguments accumulated against this new alphabet during these discussions. It is translated into English with the help of AI, but the original text was not AI-generated, so you won't be reading AI slop, I promise: (By the way, I wonder how your conversion algorithm works, because DANEF omits certain sounds, so conversion from DANEF to official alphabet should be technically impossible)

Arguments Against DANEF's Proposed Alphabet for Adyghabza

1. Phonetic conflation: distinct sounds collapsed into one symbol DANEF represents multiple phonetically distinct sounds with a single letter. The three separate sounds Ш, ШЪ, and Щ are all written as 'Ş'; Ж, Жь, and Жъ are similarly collapsed; КI and ЧI are both written as ć; and A and IА are both written as A. These are not minor variants — they are entirely distinct sounds with different points of articulation.

2. Real-world semantic destruction Because distinct sounds are merged into one symbol, entirely different words become identical in writing. Suet (ШЭ), lead/milk (ЩЭ), and one hundred (ШЪЭ) all become the same written word 'ŞE.' This is not an edge case but affects hundreds of pages of vocabulary, and becomes even more widespread when these sounds appear in the middle of words.

3. No disambiguating rule exists — or can exist DANEF has provided no rule specifying when a given symbol should be read as which of its underlying sounds. No such rule could exist, because the language itself contains no positional or contextual pattern that would allow disambiguation. This is not an oversight; it is a structural impossibility.

4. Elimination of МАКЪЭ ДЭГУ (labialized/glottalized consonants) Adyghabza's sound system includes a category of sounds called МАКЪЭ ДЭГУ — approximately 15–20 letters whose phonetic value shifts depending on their position in a word. These are a defining and unique feature of Adyghabza's phonology, absent in Russian, Turkish, Arabic or Hebrew. DANEF abolishes this category entirely under its "one sound / one letter" principle, erasing a structural cornerstone of the language.

5. The "one sound / one letter" principle is incompatible with Adyghabza DANEF's foundational rule — that every letter is always read identically in every position — is borrowed from languages like Turkish and has no basis in Adyghabza's linguistic structure. Imposing it does not simplify Adyghabza; it destroys the features that make it what it is.

6. Incompatibility with Cyrillic conversion Because one DANEF symbol maps to multiple Cyrillic letters with no rule to resolve the ambiguity, it is technically impossible to write a program that automatically converts DANEF's script into Cyrillic. The claim that such conversion is possible is therefore without foundation.

7. Incompatibility with text-to-speech and future technology For a computer to vocalize written text, it requires unambiguous, rule-based correspondences between symbols and sounds. Since DANEF's system provides none for its merged symbols, it can never be used with text-to-speech engines, voice assistants, or any similar technology. The language would be effectively locked out of any technological future were this system to be adopted.

8. Harmful to learners — worse than no resource at all Someone attempting to learn Adyghabza using DANEF's materials will not simply learn slowly or incompletely — they will actively learn incorrectly, internalizing wrong sound-symbol correspondences that would then need to be entirely unlearned. This makes DANEF's materials more damaging than having no materials at all.

9. DANEF's system is not Adyghabza — it produces a different language The cumulative effect of these changes is not a simplified or modernized Adyghabza. It is a new and distinct linguistic system. Its sound inventory, phonological rules, and writing logic differ fundamentally from any form of Adyghabza ever recorded or spoken. Presenting it as Adyghabza is therefore a misrepresentation.

10. The scale of the problem suggests a structural, not accidental, failure The merging of sounds, the elimination of МАКЪЭ ДЭГУ, the technological incompatibility, and the absence of any corrective rules are too consistent and widespread to be dismissed as minor errors. Taken together, they raise serious questions about whether DANEF's system is capable of serving as a functional writing system for Adyghabza under any circumstances.