On 2003.07.15, 21:42, Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There must be a kind of `dot' for the i and a kind of `breve' sign
above the u.
Some older German esperantists do this, which is quite weird since
u-breve in Esperanto is a different letter. (Actually I always found
that usage
On 2003.07.15, 23:01, Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The normal handscript is roughly like (use proportional font to see
it):
Excuse me, but this is senseless. One would have to use precisely the
same font settings (not only typeface!) as you to get it right. OTOH,
using a
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 20:17 +0100 2003-07-15, Thomas M. Widmann wrote:
But if that criterion is applied, surely Georgian Xucuri/Khutsuri
should be separated from Georgian Mxedruli/Mkhedruli: Although
there roughly is a one-to-one correspondence between the two, and
Thank you, Michael, Ken and others.
I wasn't aware that the Samaritan script is in current use. In that
case, and assuming that the modern users do not see this alphabet as a
variant of Hebrew (or Syriac or Arabic), it should indeed be encoded
separately in Unicode.
On the argument that the
At 22:16 -0400 2003-07-14, John Cowan wrote:
Latn has more letters than Latg does, because it's had to add more;
I have made thorns and eths in Latg. ;-)
Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's
ancestor.
You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not
On 15/07/2003 02:58, Michael Everson wrote:
... My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain that no one who was
could easily read a newspaper article written in Phoenician or
Samaritan letters.
Agreed (though my native script isn't Hebrew either) - excluding of
course those who have made a
What is Latg vs Latn?
Thanks - David
Latn has more letters than Latg does, because it's had to add
more; Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not
than Latn's ancestor. Some Latg characters are hard to
identify if all you know is Latn. But we don't encode them
separately.
At 07:02 -0400 2003-07-15, David J. Perry wrote:
What is Latg vs Latn?
Latg is the Gaelic variant of the Latin script; Latf is the Fraktur
variant of the Latin script; Latn is the generic Roman default.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Michael Everson said:
My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain
that no one who was could easily read a newspaper article written in
Phoenician or Samaritan letters.
Surely that is not an argument for encoding a separate script, is it? Most
German people I know can't read the German
Michael Everson scripsit:
Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's
ancestor.
You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not a
separate script.
VVELLIFYOVCOVNTANCIENTROMANSTYLEASORDINARYLATINSCRIPTTHENYES.
Some Latg characters are hard to
At 08:42 -0400 2003-07-15, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Michael Everson said:
My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain that no one who was could
easily read a newspaper article written in Phoenician or Samaritan letters.
Surely that is not an argument for encoding a separate script, is
At 09:22 -0400 2003-07-15, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's
ancestor.
You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not a
separate script.
Michael Everson responded:
At 08:42 -0400 2003-07-15, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Michael Everson said:
My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain that no one who was
could
easily read a newspaper article written in Phoenician or Samaritan
letters.
Surely that is not an argument
On 15/07/2003 06:22, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's
ancestor.
You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not a
separate script.
On 15/07/2003 08:26, Michael Everson wrote:
At 07:53 -0700 2003-07-15, Peter Kirk wrote:
Nope. The Aramaic ranged far beyond the middle east and itself -- not
Hebrew -- was the forerunner of Syriac, Manichaean, Sogdian, Mandaean,
Parthian, Avestan, Pahlavi, and other scripts.
Aramaic is not
Michael Everson scripsit:
The two letters share not a single formal feature.
Yes they do. The ring and ear of the top part of a Times g are
equivalent to the flat line of the Insular g, and the bottom part is
the same for both, give or take loopiness.
You can find a similar mapping from
On 15/07/2003 07:21, Michael Everson wrote:
What is this thread for? We're going to encode Phoenician. It is the
forerunner of Greek and Etruscan. Hebrew went its separate way. The
fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence isn't important. We
have that for Coptic and Greek too and we are
On 15/07/2003 08:18, John Cowan wrote:
... Or consider Fraktur I and J capitals.
The name of Rudolf von Ihering, the great 19th-century German
jurisprudent, is frequently transliterated (there is no other word)
Jhering
It is still common e.g. on road signs in Germany today to see capital I
Message-
From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician
At 08:42 -0400 2003-07-15, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Michael Everson said:
My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain
At 12:05 -0400 2003-07-15, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
We disunify Glagolitic, and rightly so too. But that does not mean
that there are not intermediate cases that ought to be unified, and
without definite criteria, it's hard to know what to do.
Just grok them? :-)
Nope,
At 07:53 -0700 2003-07-15, Peter Kirk wrote:
VVELLIHOPEVVEVVILL... ahem... Well, I hope we will count ancient
Roman as Latin script rather than add to Unicode yet another new
script which is almost identical to an existing one. But then it
would make more sense than proposals to add new
Michael Everson scripsit:
If I see a Gaelic-style G and fail to recognize it *as* a G, that's
quite different.
Normally one recognizes it in context. I fail to see your point, however.
You said that the surface unreadability of Gaelic (to the unaccustomed eye)
did not make it a separate
At 09:39 -0700 2003-07-15, Peter Kirk wrote:
But then J was originally a glyph variant of I, and only quite
recently in English have they been fully distinguished as letters.
It's not all that recent, and it wasn't English that made the innovation.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
Peter Kirk responded to Michael Everson:
What is this thread for? We're going to encode Phoenician. It is the
forerunner of Greek and Etruscan. Hebrew went its separate way. The
fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence isn't important. We
have that for Coptic and Greek too and we
On 15/07/2003 11:14, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
What ultimately is important is whether the *users* of a
Unicode encoding for Aramaic would be better served by
treating certain historical texts across SW Asia as variants
of Hebrew (or Syriac) and encoding them accordingly, or
better served by having
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like someone whose native script is Hebrew to comment on mutual
intelligibility, which was the main criterion for separating
Glagolitic from Cyrillic.
But if that criterion is applied, surely Georgian Xucuri/Khutsuri
should be separated from Georgian
At 20:17 +0100 2003-07-15, Thomas M. Widmann wrote:
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like someone whose native script is Hebrew to comment on mutual
intelligibility, which was the main criterion for separating
Glagolitic from Cyrillic.
But if that criterion is applied, surely Georgian
At 11:14 -0700 2003-07-15, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
The main reason for separately encoding Coptic, rather than
maintaining what we now recognize to be a mistaken unification
with the Greek script, is that it is less useful to people
who want to represent Coptic texts to have it be encoded
as a
Is that the script where minimum comes out looking like:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
(Ie, m = /\/\/\, n = /\/\, u = /\/\, i = /\ ?)
NB how the i is dotless. (I can just see the [useless] debate
of whether that should then be encoded as U+0069 or U+0131. :)
No. There must
Subject: Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician
| At 08:42 -0400 2003-07-15, Karljrgen Feuerherm wrote:
Most German people I know can't read the German cursive script used
say 50 years ago. But the characters clearly correspond to the
Latin characters in use today.
Is that the script where
On 2003.07.15, 12:16, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Latg is the Gaelic variant of the Latin script;
Also known as _erse_, I was told.
-- .
António MARTINS-Tuválkin, | ()|
I remember hearing the script called something like 'Sutterlin'--have never
seen it written so no idea how it is spelled... Anyone happen to know?
Is that the script where minimum comes out looking like:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
(Ie, m = /\/\/\, n = /\/\, u = /\/\, i = /\
At 17:34 -0400 2003-07-15, Patrick Andries wrote:
Sütterling ?
Sütterlin. Sütterling is the name of a panda in the Berlin zoo.
( Ludwig Sütterlin, 1865-1917)
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 21:09 +0100 2003-07-15, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
On 2003.07.15, 12:16, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Latg is the Gaelic variant of the Latin script;
Also known as _erse_, I was told.
That's incorrect. Erse is a Scots form of the word Irish. It's
sometimes (but not
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:42 PM, Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. There must be a kind of `dot' for the i and a kind of `breve'
sign above the u. Additionally, the connecting lines between the
characters are wider, something like
/ / \/
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 17:34 -0400 2003-07-15, Patrick Andries wrote:
Sütterling ?
Sütterlin. Sütterling is the name of a panda in the Berlin zoo.
( Ludwig Sütterlin, 1865-1917)
Amusing. The pointer given gave the right spelling (sorry
Werner == Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Werner No. There must be a kind of `dot' for the i and a kind of
Werner `breve' sign above the u.
Might it have been taught differently in different regions? My Prof
was from Berlin. (She and her parents
Patrick == Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Stterling ?
Patrick http://terraaqua.de/schrift.htm
Yes, Id guess that is it, but my Profs vertical strokes werent.
(But then, as I hinted in my reply to Werner, she probably learned it
from here
Michael Everson wrote:
Particularly as they regularly write text in both Coptic and Greek and
this distinction is better expressed in plain text than in the font.
This seems to me to be a key issue: would there be a need to include
words or passages of eany of these early Semitic scripts in
On 14/07/2003 15:15, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/index.html
So those charts are always a good place to start checking
when wanting to know what the status of some obscure
script might be in Unicode.
Glancing through these roadmaps I came across proposals for
Peter Kirk asked:
So is there a real justification for separate alphabets here?
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf
And Michael Everson can, no doubt, provide further
justification beyond this sketch of how the roadmap has
been structured for this script family.
Note that when
41 matches
Mail list logo
