On 2015-10-23 20:17 GMT+08:00, gfb hjjhjh wrote: > writing other languages in Latin alphabet is still called romanization not > latinization.
The legacy wording is due to the very comprehensive cultural phenomenon that was originally referred to. Today, referring to the “*Roman* alphabet” is mainly adding an antiquated touch to the functional confusion between a script and an alphabet. IMO when we still think in terms of ‘Roman alphabet’ instead of ‘Latin script’, we seem somewhere not to have been given the opportunity to grow up into the age we are living in. Here are the guilty word processors, that have ‘italic’ as a toggle to streamline the UI, so that users canʼt learn how to call “put it back to ?????”. Then, accurate expression is challenged in English by compound semantics: ‘scripture’ implies holiness, and ‘script’ implies handwriting, while the hypothetical “writ” would be a confusing tongue twister. But ‘script’ for ‘writing system’ looks good to me, and certainly to all people familiar with Unicode thanks to some training. Thanks to the Unicode Consortium! Looking at how many Northern Americans are still missing the point, we get another reason not to believe that Africans could be less trained about Unicode than peeople on other continents are. Best, Marcel
