On 08/14/2002 12:45:22 AM Kenneth Whistler wrote: >But even at the time, as the record of the deliberations would >show, if we had a more perfect record, the proponents were clear >that the "interlinear annotation characters" were to solve an >internal anchor point representation problem.
I recall at the UTC meeting in Jan 2000 (I think it was 2000) there was discussion of adding non-character code points for internal use by programmers, and I remember Tex suggesting that it might be better to identify the specific functions for which internal-use codepoints might be needed, as had been done in the case of things like the IA characters. In other words, at that time, it seems that they were understood by everyone present to be intended for internal use by programmers only. >I recall at the time I pointed out that >as a linguist I had routinely made use of 4-line interlinear >annotation formats, In our Mexico branch, they adopted a scheme that allowed for up to 14 lines of aligning annotations. Multiple-line annotation is familiar in the scholarly linguistics sector. The complexities go beyond merely having multiple lines; e.g. there is the need to represent non-linear associations (for discontinuous morphemese, such as vowel infixes in Semtic languages, or the am...ing and have...en of English). As Ken says, >this simple anchoring scheme couldn't >even begin to represent such complexities in a usable fashion. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
