[I'm still 140 messages back, so this might already have been covered.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that are
really the same language but are treated separately (a) for political reasons
and (b) because Cyrillic is used to
Doug Ewell wrote:
Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that
are
really the same language but are treated separately
This question about languages being "really" the same or no turns out to be
a rather moot one from a linguist's viewpoint, even more so once the
Doug Ewell frug:
Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that are
really the same language but are treated separately (a) for political reasons
and (b) because Cyrillic is used to write the former and Latin to write the
latter? Are there any linguistic or
Douw Ewell wrote:
Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two
"languages" that are
really the same language but are treated separately (a) for
political reasons
and (b) because Cyrillic is used to write the former and
Latin to write the
latter? Are there any linguistic
in a bit I'll have to say something about all this Klingon silliness.
--
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein ochtarach; Baile tha Cliath 2; ire/Ireland
Mob +353 86 807 9169 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Vox +353 1 478 2597
27 Pirc an Fhithlinn; Baile
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:38:04PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that are
really the same language but are treated separately (a) for political reasons
and (b) because Cyrillic is used to write the former and Latin to write
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:39:09AM -0800, J%ORG KNAPPEN wrote:
Did you know, the Slovak was reconstructed in the 19th century
in order to make it more different from czech?
Not true. Written documents dating back to the Middle Ages clearly show
that Slovak has been virtually unchanged since
Arsa Michael Everson:
At 13:05 -0800 2001-02-27, Timothy Partridge wrote:
How come the Klingons only have one
language and script? :-)
The victors successfully assimilated the conquered.
--
Michael Everson
Sure they can assimilate? I'm reliably informed that they only cling on.
mg
--
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:57:33 -0800 (GMT-0800), G. Adam Stanislav
wrote:
A group of Anglos
[snip]
Just recently someone said in this forum that Slovak is the same as
Czech. What's the point of even trying when foreign experts know our
languages better than we do?
No, someone (Keld Jrn
In a message dated 2001-02-26 22:41:53 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Klingon thing is a symptom. I was very enthused about Unicode
when I first discovered it. Alas, it turned out to be just another
"internalization the English way": We'll be happy to speak any
G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
Just recently someone said in this forum that Slovak is the same as
Czech. What's the point of even trying when foreign experts know our
languages better than we do?
Not so. An opinion was expressed. Here's the quote:
I believe slovak is the same as czech.
At 03:40 -0800 2001-02-27, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
At 03:13 27-02-2001 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, have we determined yet whether ANY existing character set standards,
including those designed by Slovaks or Slovak speakers, includes a separate
code point for "ch"?
No character set
D]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 03:55
Subject: Re: Klingon silliness
[snip]
John,
You have combined two unrelated quotes. I never said Keld was an Anglo.
I said Unicode was designed by Anglos.
And since Slovak and Czech do not share the sam
In a message dated 2001-02-27 04:17:48 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No character set standard was ever designed by Slovaks. However, Slovak
linguists have always treated "ch" as a separate character. As they
do "dz" and "dz" with caron, but those are encoded in
"G. Adam Stanislav" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
I believe there are other *human* scripts that need to be encoded
in Unicode before Klingon (is Mayan encoded yet, for example?).
I sympathise with the general sense here, but Mayan isn't a great example.
Mayan is dead, as are many other
Doug Ewell wrote:
Adam mentions the Latin digraphs encoded for DZ at U+01F1/2/3
and for DZ with caron [...]
This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters.
CH, SH, SHCH, and ZH leap to mind; there may be
It has always been my impression that the dz and other digraphs were
included ONLY because they existed in standards that were used as source
material by the Unicode designers. Such digraphs would not have been
encoded otherwise.
Rick
Adam mentions the Latin digraphs encoded for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH, SHCH,
and ZH leap to mind; there may be more. What was the thought process behind
providing these compatibility characters
At 08:33 -0800 2001-02-27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH, SHCH,
and ZH leap to mind; there may be more. What was the thought process behind
providing these
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
This invention originated the can of worms called "titlecase", because it is
not enough to merely declare that dj,lj,nj,dž are "characters" to change the
reality, and this becomes evident in case conversions.
Yes, but then it turned out that titlecase was important in
Tex Texin recently said:
Perhaps the real question is what is the criteria for including or
excluding a fictional script. I have deleted John's mail, but
his criteria applied more broadly than Klingon if I recall.
Should we worry about elvish communication and not Klingon?
Do we apply a
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH, SHCH,
and ZH leap to mind;
These are *English* translitterations. In the *Russian*
translitteration SHCH
Oops, sorry, don't bother to tell me, it starts with an X, not a K.
- Frank
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 09:19:27AM -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
If G. Adam wants to change the situation, it would be far more effective
to work toward encoding some of the important minority scripts and
increasing this list's traffic about important issues rather than
complaining about
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 02:33:23PM -0800, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
All I wanted to do was point out there
are more important things than Klingon.
As for encoding some of the minority scripts: I am not an expert on them,
so I cannot help there. I can help with Slovak, but the only issue I
In a message dated 2001-02-27 10:24:43 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH,
SHCH,
and ZH leap to mind; there may be more. What was
That anyone could seriously consider adding the Klingon script to Unicode
seems preposterous. Even if someone were to provide an "accurate" script, a
sample font, etc that meets the general requirements of a proposal, the idea
is quite silly. I am surprised that the consortium hasn't simply
Let me throw my light weight in with John O'Conner...
It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or 10646. Many members of
both committees know this, and that's why it hasn't moved anywhere in
several years. The question keeps cropping up because that silly proposal
is still "on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That anyone could seriously consider adding the Klingon script to Unicode
seems preposterous. Even if someone were to provide an "accurate" script, a
sample font, etc that meets the general requirements of a proposal, the idea
is quite silly. I am surprised that the
From: "Rick McGowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have said repeatedly over the years, that I will enterain the encoding
of Klingon when the tribble-kissing wimps at the Klingon High Command beam
an armed delegation into a UTC meeting and demand the encoding of their
script. Until then, I see no
Perhaps the real question is what is the criteria for including or
excluding a fictional script. I have deleted John's mail, but
his criteria applied more broadly than Klingon if I recall.
Should we worry about elvish communication and not Klingon?
Do we apply a business case to fictional
If it were up to me alone, I would put that proposal in the bin of things
that have been politely refused. The fact that it has not yet gone to the
great bit-bucket in the sky probably reflects the general esteem in which
the gentlebeing who proposed it is held.
Yes, I think we all highly
Rick McGowan wrote:
I have said repeatedly over the years, that I will entertain the encoding
of Klingon when the tribble-kissing wimps at the Klingon High Command beam
an armed delegation into a UTC meeting and demand the encoding of their
script. Until then, I see no reason to consider
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:02:43PM -0800, Tex Texin wrote:
Perhaps the real question is what is the criteria for including or
excluding a fictional script. I have deleted John's mail, but
his criteria applied more broadly than Klingon if I recall.
Should we worry about elvish communication
At 12:11 26-02-2001 -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or 10646.
Nah, it's not silly. It's offensive.
Back when I suggested that 'ch' be added to Unicode, I received
a ton of replies why that should not be. That despite the fact
in Slovak 'ch' has a
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:35:43PM -0800, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
At 12:11 26-02-2001 -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or 10646.
Nah, it's not silly. It's offensive.
Back when I suggested that 'ch' be added to Unicode, I received
a ton of
At 16:09 26-02-2001 -0800, David Starner wrote:
Bah. Life requires compromise. There are many people working on
Unicode, each with their own reasons. To stop working on Unicode
because someone else finds something a cool idea that you don't is
absurd, especially when that cool idea is going
37 matches
Mail list logo
