Missing Kazakh Latin letters (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

Michael Everson wrote: > Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself > and 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş. Philippe Verdy wrote: > The three versions of the Cyrilic letter i is mapped to 1.5 > (distinguished only on lowercase with the Turkic lowercase

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2018/02/21 12:15, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: I absolutely disagree. There’s a whole lot of related languages out there, and the speakers share some things in common. Orthographic harmonization between these languages can ONLY help any speaker of one to access information in any of

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2/21/2018 11:45 AM, David Starner via Unicode wrote: On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy via Unicode wrote: “Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Philippe Verdy: > > I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es, mobiles, > and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render them as > monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the colorful > extensions of OpenType made for them. See

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > “Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English word attested back to 1590. > Curmudgeony may be identified as misspelled by Google, but it's got a bit of usage dating back a hundred years. Wiktionary's entry

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2/21/2018 9:23 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode >: Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-) Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in dictionaries. Probably alocalUS

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode : > Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-) > Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in dictionaries. Probably a local US jargon or typo in your strange word.

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2/21/2018 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: 2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled Hosny : Now if he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it would

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled Hosny : > Now if he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it would > have been a lot more obvious, but we already established that the world > does not need emoji. > No, I don't need emojis. Any emoji means all or nothing, they

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

CORRECTION: The Turkish dull-I letter for the sound /ɨ ~ ɯ ~ ɤ/ DOESN’T HAVE A DOT ATOP IT It’s simply written as , while the normal I letter for the sound /ɩ ~ i:/ DOES HAVE A DOT ATOP THAT—and is written as <İ i>. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Robert Wheelock

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

The whole *ASCII apostrophe* thing for Qazaqi (Kazakh) could be avoided by using a Turkish-based orthography; this way, /h/ can still be distinguished from /x/, /u/ from /w/, ... ! ·<Ä Ö Ü> for front rounded vowels /æ ø y/ ·<Ş J> for laminal fricatives /ʃ ʒ/, and <Ç C> for laminal affricates /tʃ

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Sorry, but such English subtle interpretations are not in my mind, don't suppose everyone uses the second degree everytime something is posted here, these are just unneeded diversions causing trouble, it does not make the thread clear to follow. 2018-02-21 5:15 GMT+01:00 James Kass

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Philippe, it was a jest. (Good one, too!) On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2018-02-21 5:01 GMT+01:00 Anshuman Pandey via Unicode : >> >> > The good news is that the thread title question is moot. >> >> Yes, now let’s please return

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

2018-02-21 5:01 GMT+01:00 Anshuman Pandey via Unicode : > > The good news is that the thread title question is moot. > > Yes, now let’s please return to discussing emoji. > Or NOT !!! This is NOT at all the same topic

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 9:49 PM, James Kass via Unicode > wrote: > > Michael Everson wrote: > >> Orthographic harmonization between these languages can ONLY help any >> speaker of one to access information in any of the others. That expands >> people’s worlds. That would

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Michael Everson wrote: > Orthographic harmonization between these languages can ONLY help any > speaker of one to access information in any of the others. That expands > people’s worlds. That would be a good goal. Wouldn't dream of arguing with that. Expanding people's worlds is why many of us

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

That's true, this area is a mix of cultures and ethnies, some of them in troubles/conflicts, and creating additional linguistic problems, or trying to block communication between them will not help make the situation more peaceful. So yes the "divide to conquer" is a probable intent, but also the

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

I absolutely disagree. There’s a whole lot of related languages out there, and the speakers share some things in common. Orthographic harmonization between these languages can ONLY help any speaker of one to access information in any of the others. That expands people’s worlds. That would be a

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

A desire to choose their own writing system rather than have one imposed upon them is understandable. If they also want it to be distinctive, who could blame them?

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

I call that more isolationism: If I can uncerstand the political reasons for not looking like Turkish, why then do they use the dotless i in this last version (not distinguished however from the dotted i in capital) ? This is not just a transliteration, this is also a proposal to do at the same

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Stalin would be very pleased. Divide and conquer. > On 21 Feb 2018, at 01:15, Garth Wallace via Unicode > wrote: > > AIUI "doesn't look like Turkish" was one of the design criteria, for > political reasons. > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:07 PM Michael Everson via Unicode

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

As well, the Latin letter "c/C" is not used, just for the digraph "ch/Ch". But two distinct Cyrillic letters are mapped to Latin "h/H", when one could be mapped to Latin "x/X" with almost the same letter form to preserve the orthography. The three versions of the Cyrilic letter i is mapped to

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Not using Turkic letters is daft, particularly as there was a widely-used transliteration in Kazakhstan anyway. And even if not Ç Ş, they could have used Ć and Ś. There’s no value in using diagraphs in Kazakh particularly when there could be a one-to-one relation with the Cyrillic

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Michael Everson: > Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself > and 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş. I would have argued in favor of digraphs for G' and N' as well if there already was a decision for Ch and Sh. Many European orthographies use the

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself and 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş. Groan. > On 20 Feb 2018, at 19:40, Christoph Päper via Unicode > wrote: > > Apparently the presidential decree prescribing the new Kazakh Latin >

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

We'll probably never know which factors influenced the decision, but apparently some kind of message got through.

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

May be we've been heard... Now this makes better sense. But I wonder why they did not choose the caron over C and S, like in other eastern European languages; they are very well supported since long and cause no problem... 2018-02-20 20:40 GMT+01:00 Christoph Päper via Unicode

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Apparently the presidential decree prescribing the new Kazakh Latin orthography and alphabet has been amended recently. The change completely dumps the previous approach of digraphs with an apostrophe in second position in favor of an acute diacritic mark above the base letters for vowels Á/á,

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

> > Note the French "touch" keyboard layout is complete for French (provided > you select the one of the 3 new layouts with Emoji: it has the extra "key" > for selecting the input language in all 4 layouts) > > But the "full" (dockable) touch layout in French which emulates a physical > keyboard

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 23:30:59 +, David Starner via Unicode wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: > > > This pattern exists across the board at the two companies; the Windows API > > hasn’t changed all that much > > since Windows NT 4/95, whereas

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > This pattern exists across the board at the two companies; the Windows API > hasn’t changed all that much since Windows NT 4/95, whereas Apple has > basically thrown away all the work it did up to Mac OS

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

> On Jan 30, 2018, at 3:20 AM, Alastair Houghton > wrote: > > The “alt” annotation isn’t on the latest keyboards (go look in an Apple > Store if you don’t believe me :-)). Interesting! Apple’s documentation shows these keys mostly with “alt” and “⌥”.

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On 30 Jan 2018, at 05:31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > OnMon, 29 Jan 2018 11:13:21 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote: >> >>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: >>> >>> >>> the Windows US-Intl >>> does not allow to write French in a

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

I have always wondered why Microsoft did not push itself at least the five simple additions needed since long in French for the French AZERTY LAYOUT: - [AltGr]+[²] to produce the cedilla dead key (needed only before capital C in French) : this is frequently needed, the alternative would be

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

OnMon, 29 Jan 2018 11:13:21 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > > > the Windows US-Intl > > does not allow to write French in a usable manner, as the Œœ is still > > missing, and does not allow to type German correctly

RE: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:11 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > Prior to this thread, I believed that the ratio of Windows users > > liking the US-International vs Mac users liking the US-Extended was > > like other “Windows implementation” vs “Apple implementation”

RE: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

(b) it doesn't ship with Windows Of course that is not a "luxury." Knowing that third-party options are available, let alone free and easily installed ones, is the luxury. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

RE: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

Marcel Schneider wrote: > Prior to this thread, I believed that the ratio of Windows users > liking the US-International vs Mac users liking the US-Extended was > like other “Windows implementation” vs “Apple implementation” ratios. For many users, it may not be a question of what they like, but

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

> On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode > wrote: > > > the Windows US-Intl > does not allow to write French in a usable manner, as the Œœ is still > missing, and does not allow to type German correctly neither due to > the lack of single angle

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:56:25 -0800, Mark Davis replied to Doug Ewell: > > It is not a goal to get "vendors to retire these keyboard layouts and > replace them" — that's not our role. (And I'm sure that a lot of people > like and would continue to use the Windows Intl keyboard.) Instead of

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Mark Davis wrote: > > One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in >> http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html >> we are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those, >>

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:11:06 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > We can only hope that now, CLDR is thoroughly re-engineering the way > > international or otherwise extended keyboards are mapped. > > I suspect you already know this and just misspoke, but CLDR doesn't >

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

Mark Davis wrote: One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html we are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those, but to also serve as a resource that vendors can draw on. Would you say, then, that

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html we are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those, but to also serve as a resource that vendors can draw on. Mark On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Doug

Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

Marcel Schneider wrote: We can only hope that now, CLDR is thoroughly re-engineering the way international or otherwise extended keyboards are mapped. I suspect you already know this and just misspoke, but CLDR doesn't prescribe any vendor's keyboard layouts. CLDR mappings reflect what

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:02:47 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:54:57 +0100 (CET) > Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > The US-Intl is so weird “you canʼt just leave it on all the time” as > > reported in: > > > >

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:54:57 +0100 (CET) Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > The US-Intl is so weird “you canʼt just leave it on all the time” as > reported in: > > http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML017/0558.html I did (except when I was using a

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:52:46 +, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:22:37 +0800 > Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > > > >I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly > > >intuitive for accented Latin-1 characters. > > How common is the US International

In the mean time, in France (was Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

In the mean time, in France, a municipality is refusing to let a baby be registered with an apostrophe in his Breton name while several babies have had apostrophes in their names in recent years : 2017 N'néné (F), 2017 Tu'iuvea (M), 2016 D'jessy (M), 2015 N'Guessan (F), 2015 Chem's (M), 2014

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2018-01-26, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > Some systems (or admins) have been totally defeated by even the ASCII > version of ʹO’Sullivanʹ. That bodes ill for Kazakhs. The head (about to be ex-head) of my university is Sir Timothy O'Shea. On the student record

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

In cold-metal days, many were driven to resort to “M‘Donald” for lack of a superscript “c”. > On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:08:51 + > Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote: > >> Ah!

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:08:51 + Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote: > Ah! Yes That is a battle I gave up a long time ago. The database > here can only handle ASCII. I have stopped trying to get the systems > people here to convert the database to UTF-8. Some systems (or

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Ah! Yes That is a battle I gave up a long time ago. The database here can only handle ASCII. I have stopped trying to get the systems people here to convert the database to UTF-8. A few days ago I asked the systems people if they were going upgrade their MS mail server to handle non ASCII

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

But your outgoing "From" address doesn't seem to have an accent!? On 26-Jan-2018 13:58, "Andre Schappo via Unicode" wrote: > > Talking of typing names correctly. Few people bother to type the acute > accent in André. > > This academic year, for the first time ever, I gave

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Talking of typing names correctly. Few people bother to type the acute accent in André. This academic year, for the first time ever, I gave the following challenges to my web programming class of 143 students. I gave these challenges in the first lecture. ① learn how to write my name

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Philippe Verdy wrote: > I agree, and still you won't necessarily have to press a dead key to > have these characters, if you map one key where the Cyrillic letter > was > producing directly the character with its accent. [...] > > However, if you can type one key to produce one latin letter with

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

My apologies for the typo. There's no excuse for misspelling someone's name (especially since I live in Switzerland, and type German every day). Thanks for calling my attention to it: the doc has been updated. Mark Mark On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Andrew West via Unicode <

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Just a remark for fun: - You'll also note that this talk is all about the apostrophe, and if Kazakhstan wants to introduce it in 2019, that year will match exactly the code point U+2019 [ ’ ]... - This year 2018 is also the year to discuss and reverse the apostrophe decision, and it matches the

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Such example shows that ignoring umlauts makes the document counterintuitive. Nobody is able to infer that "Paper" refers to a person here or if he actually meant a paper sheet/article... At least he should have written "Paeper" which would be more correct (if "Christoph Päper" is German, the

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Philippe Verdy wrote: So there will be a new administrative jargon in Kazakhstan that people won't like, and outside the government, they'll continue using their exiosting keyboards [...] Newspapers and books will continue for a wihile being published in Cyrillic [...] Yes, it will be a

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 23 January 2018 at 00:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > Regular American users simply don't type umlauts, period. Not even the president of the Unicode Consortium when referring to Christoph Päper: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18051-emoji-ad-hoc-resp.pdf Andrew

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:59:11 +0530 Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > IMO it's hardly clear that that is or in fact *what* is meant by a > standard keyboard. It meeely seems to me loose political speak to > make it appear as if they are trying to make things simpler for

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Great but then why sticking on a pure western subset (ASCII is mostly for US only). If he wants to be eastern, so choose ISO 8859-2. As a bonus, banning the apostrophe from the alphabet will have be security improvement (thing about the many cases where ASCII apostrophes are used as string

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

I agree, and still you won't necessarily have to press a dead key to have these characters, if you map one key where the Cyrillic letter was producing directly the character with its accent. No surprise for user, fast to type, easy to learn, typographically correct, preserves the etymologies and

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 01/24/2018 09:29 PM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: On 24-Jan-2018 00:25, "Doug Ewell via Unicode" > wrote: I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:31 PM Shriramana Sharma via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > On 23-Jan-2018 10:03, "James Kass via Unicode" > wrote: > > (bottle, east, skier, crucial, cherry) > s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e > sxixsxa, sxygxys,

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 24-Jan-2018 00:25, "Doug Ewell via Unicode" wrote: I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats. Sir why this

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 23-Jan-2018 10:03, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote: (bottle, east, skier, crucial, cherry) s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e sxixsxa, sxygxys, sxanxgxysxy, sxesxuxsxi, sxixixe s̈ïs̈a, s̈yg̈ys, s̈an̈g̈ys̈y, s̈es̈üs̈i, s̈ïïe śíśa, śyǵys,

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

So there will be a new administrative jargon in Kazakhstan that people won't like, and outside the government, they'll continue using their exiosting keyboards, and will only trnasliterate to Latin using a simple 1-t-to-1 mapping without the ugly apostrophes (most probably acute accents on vowels,

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

James Kass wrote: > Heh. We are offering sound advice. If people fail to heed it, that's > too bad. We're offering excellent advice, very well informed. But the leadership has made the decision that it has made. All the news stories say that linguistic experts in Kazakhstan offered similar good

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

ferred any advice on keyboard design, though, so this may be off-topic /phil On Tue, 23/1/18, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: Subject: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character? To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicod

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:51:42 -0700 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > An explicitly stated goal of the new orthography was to enable typing > Kazakh on a "standard keyboard," meaning an English-language one. > Nazarbayev may ultimately be persuaded to embrace ASCII digraphs, >

RE: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Philippe Verdy wrote: > The best they should have done is instead keeping their existing > keyboard layout, continaing both the Cyrillic letters and Latin QWERTY > printed on them, but operating in two modes (depending on OS > preferences) to invert the two layouts but without changing the >

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:22:37 +0800 Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > >I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly > >intuitive for accented Latin-1 characters. > How common is the US International keyboard in real life..? I thought it was two copies per

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

The best they should have done is instead keeping their existing keyboard layout, continaing both the Cyrillic letters and Latin QWERTY printed on them, but operating in two modes (depending on OS preferences) to invert the two layouts but without changing the keystrokes. It would just have needed

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on > whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or > whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats. >

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Doug Ewell wrote, "I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats." Heh. We are offering sound advice. If people fail to heed it, that's

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

>I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly intuitive >for accented Latin-1 characters. How common is the US International keyboard in real life..? Users would still need to manually add them in Windows, or in other computing tools vendors would need to add support for "US

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats. An explicitly stated goal of the new orthography was to enable typing Kazakh on a "standard

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Ukainian should follow the romanisation model used by Serbian which is clear for them and coherent with other uses in Eastern Europe: carons for modified consonnants, and acute accents (sometimes double acute in Hungarian) for vowels. Even if they want support with a legacy 8-bit charset, ISO

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

James Kass: > > (bottle, east,skier, crucial,cherry) > s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e > sxixsxa, sxygxys, sxanxgxysxy, sxesxuxsxi, sxixixe > s̈ïs̈a,s̈yg̈ys, s̈an̈g̈ys̈y, s̈es̈üs̈i, s̈ïïe > śíśa,śyǵys, śańǵyśy, śeśúśi,

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

For me, having to go around justifying my whims would probably take some of the fun out of being an authoritarian ruler. Which suggests that the apostrophe decision can be revised with no explanation expected, even though a simple explanation exists. Changing from the apostrophe to the combining

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Martin J. Dürst wrote, > ... One way to avoid confusion is to use one specific > letter only as the second letter in digraphs. With the current orthography, > they don't use w and x, so they could use one of these. But personally, I'd > find accents more visually pleasing. Me too: (bottle,

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2018/01/23 09:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Any Kazakh/Qazaq student ambitious enough to study a foreign language such as English is already sophisticated enough to easily distinguish differing digraph values between the two languages. English speakers face distinctions such as the

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Phake Nick wrote, > ... and it is not possible for e.g. a regular American > user using Windows to simply type them out, at least not > without prior knowledge about these umlauts. Regular American users simply don't type umlauts, period. Eccentric American users needing umlauts, such as

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:35:16 +0800 Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > There > are language-dependent keyboards for French or German with special > keys or deadkeys that help input these umlauts, but they are language > dependent and it is not possible for e.g. a regular

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

It's probably still too difficult to input a character with umlaut for general people in 2018, like the official Chinese romanization system used the character "ü", but because it's so hard to be input or process many people in many occasion just use "v" instead and more recently standarised "yu"

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:49:46 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > But there's NO standard keyboard in Kazakhstan with the Latin > alphabet. Those you'll find are cyrillic keyboards with a way to type > basic Latin. Or keyboards made for other countries. I believe we're

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

But there's NO standard keyboard in Kazakhstan with the Latin alphabet. Those you'll find are cyrillic keyboards with a way to type basic Latin. Or keyboards made for other countries. So this is not a good reason at all. In fact Kazakstan would have to create a keyboard standard for the Latin

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 19/01/18 15:37, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > May be the IDN could accept a new combining diacritic (sort of > right-side acute accent). After all the Kazakh intent is not to define a > new separate character but a modification of base letter to create a > single letter in their alphabet.

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

"Much ado about apostrophes" If the apostrophe thing doesn't work out, we might also look forward to "The Shaming of the Crew", a play in which the advisory panel gets blamed for not pointing out what they were pointing out all along.

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Announcing: Much ado about apostrophes A Play By William Codesphere Coming soon to a theatre near you... 

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Philippe Verdy wrote, > I don't understand the rationale: ... Maybe there isn't any. As Shriramana Sharma wrote earlier, >> Anyhow, it certainly can be difficult convincing >> non technical political people. And that's an understatement. This article...

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

For the root zone may be, but not formally rejected by IDN, and the Kazakh zone could accept it without problem. It also has the advantage of allowing cleaner collation and contextual text extraction, and it also allows better placement of the combining character with its base in some dedicated

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 1/19/2018 5:42 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: Hmmm that character exists already at 0+0315 (a combining comma above right). It would work for the new Kazah orthographic system, including for collation purpose.  I don't think IDN rejects this combining version. This is also ineligible for

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 1/19/2018 5:37 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: May be the IDN could accept a new combining diacritic (sort of right-side acute accent). After all the Kazakh intent is not to define a new separate character but a modification of base letter to create a single letter in their alphabet. So a

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Michael - Lemme know when you're ready to print. I have a huge bag of leftover apostrophes I can send you. On 1/19/2018 5:51 AM, Andrew West via Unicode wrote: On 19 January 2018 at 13:19, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: I’d go talk with him :-) I published Alice

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

I won’t. > On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:51, Andrew West via Unicode wrote: > > On 19 January 2018 at 13:19, Michael Everson via Unicode > wrote: >> >> I’d go talk with him :-) I published Alice in Kazakh. He might like that. > > Damn, you'll have to

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

2018-01-19 14:47 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson via Unicode : > There’s no redeeming this orthography. This is not a redeeming, the Kazakh government currently has not made any assesment of how to encode their proposed system. Who said that was was proposed by them was an

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Also U+0315 is not part of any decomposition for canonical normalization purpose, so it would remain encoded separately (only subject to possible reordering if there are other diacritics) 2018-01-19 14:37 GMT+01:00 Philippe Verdy : > May be the IDN could accept a new

  1   2   >