---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: gfb hjjhjh <[email protected]> Date: 2015-10-23 20:17 GMT+08:00 Subject: Re: Terminology (was: Latin glottal stop in ID in NWT, Canada) To: Marcel Schneider <[email protected]>
writing other languages in Latin alphabet is still called romanization not latinization. 2015-10-23 19:34 GMT+08:00 Marcel Schneider <[email protected]>: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:53:15 +0100, Richard Wordingham < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I think you're making the mistake of assuming that the Unicode Standard > > is written in English, rather than some jargon that is confusingly like > it. > > The idea that some technical specification is not written in good English, > is generally an illusion produced by the very nature of the content. More > specifically about TUS, I have a strong confidence about accurate > expression, that happens to be illustrated by the following quotation from > the incriminated chapter (highlighting uppercase added): > > >>> Additional information can be found throughout the other chapters of > this core specification for the Unicode Standard. However, because of the > need to keep extended discussions of scripts, sets of symbols, and other > characters READABLE, material in other chapters is not always labeled as to > its normative or informative status. > http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode8.0.0/ch03.pdf#G22672 > > > I would like an English translation of Chapter 3 'Conformance', > > I guess that there may be some need of a *manual*, in the spirit that led > the French translator to adding annotations. > May you please quote some examples of what you wish to see expressed in a > different way? > > > 'Latin script', in so far as it is translatable, translates into > > English as 'Roman alphabet'. > > I know your expertise from previous threads, but I've no means to adhere > to the equivalence you put between a script and an alphabet. > The delusion I point out in quotations about "Roman alphabet," or > alternately but way worse, the hypocrisy, is that while a handful of > diacritics are certainly supported in order to spell French names in a > reasonable and legible way, and while the æ and œ letters can scarcely be > registered as "ae" or "oe" in Canada, other letters of the Latin (well, > say, Roman) script are excluded, refused, and banned. And that is justified > by telling people that a glottal stop isn't part of the Roman alphabet. "é" > isn't neither, as this character is not a part of the alphabet, just to > take the one that is on *all* Canadian traditional keyboards. Nor is œ, > which is on none of them [but on Canadian Multilingual Standard]. Agreed, > I haven't been there to look into their data base and at the cited printer. > > > In the language of the TUS, the word > > 'alphabet' has a more restricted meaning, whereby, for example, the > > Thai alphabet is not used for the Thai language! The Thai alphabet is, > > however, used for the Pali language and is promoted for Pattani Malay. > > When the characters of the Thai alphabet are used for the Thai > > language, they are used as an 'abugida', not as an 'alphabet'.) > > Again, I do know nothing about Thai, but if in TUS an abugida can be > addressed to as an alphabet if the same is used as such, it seems to me > that the word 'alphabet' has a pretty extended meaning in TUS. > > In any case, isolating an arbitrary subset inside our Latin script and > promoting it as the so-called Roman alphabet to get some pretext for > refusing that compatriots or strangers bear their real and choosen names, > [quote] IS A SERIOUS INSULT [/quote]. > > > > Additionally, at the age of Unicode, this results in being as well an > insult to the whole work of the Consortium. > > Marcel >
