----- Message d'origine ----- De: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > In this condition, why couldn't Latin glyphs be among > > > these, when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract > > > character set covered by all scripts in the Tifinagh family? > > > > Because it is best to use Tifinagh glyphs as representative glyphs of the > > Tifinagh script? > > No: the simple reason is the choice of the "representative" glyph, which > will probably be accurate for one cultural convention but completely wrong with > another, as that glyph represent another phoneme coded at a different > place where another "representative" glyph is used, which may also be > wrong. I understood your objection. I answered this is rare and names help. > Look at the phonemic meaning of the glyph that looks like two triangles, > pointing top and bottom to each other. Look at the glyph which looks like a > moon crescent (open on right side) with a dot in the middle... Which > phonemic value do they have? This depends on cultural conventions, and it > really looks as if there was not _one_ but several distinct Tifinagh scripts > using the same glyphs but with incompatible phonemic values... 1) Could you tell me what the values of those characters are for you and in which varieties of the script ? I know of this sand-glass character but I have a single suspicious source giving me this as having a different value from the traditional one. I'll happily collect a second source (en priv� si tu veux) to list ambiguities. Could you also be specific for the half-crescent? 2) As mentioned before, characters have a name and it can be used to uniquely identify the character if need be (i.e. the referential glyph is only a help and may not be sufficient to uniquely identify a character). > > But I agree that chosing the representative glyphs > > may become a sensitive issue if the Tifinagh script is to be unified, each > > school might feel offended that its preferred glyphs were not chosen in > > ISO/IEC 10646. This does not necessarily mean that Tifinagh should be > > encoded with an easy Latin mapping in mind. > > I'm just suggesting that if the phonemic encoding model is used, I don't know if this is what will be chosen (note that this is different from your name-based scheme you suggested a few messages ago). > the choice > of "representative" glyphs will create confusion, as it will privilegiate > one interpretation of the glyphs and not the other one. Polemics are already > present on the Internet because of the choice of interpretation that has > been made by Morocco, which excludes other interpretations. Could I have a pointer ? Tu peux me l'envoyer sous courriel priv�. P. A.
