--- suzmccarth <suzmccarth@...> wrote: > No
value judgements intended. Just this, When I
> present
> multilingual computing to other teachers I would
> like to say that:
> 1. Some scripts have linear, sequenced blocks of
> letters and some
> have syllable blocks. (This way I do not have to
> use terms like
> syllabaries, alphabets and abugidas.) Normally the
> systems with
> linear blocks are in the first section of languages
> in language
> support and work like a western alphabet.
> 2. There are systems with syllable blocks and they
> are on the
> computer Asian languages, specifically CKJ.

Korean definitely, Chinese I suppose, Japanese is way
more complex.

> 3. Then I have to explain what "complex" means. I
> must make this
> meaningful... so I could say that (besides the bidi
> scripts, we
> understand those) there are writing systems that are
> linear but not
> sequenced by sound production. These systems are
> normally arranged
> into syllable blocks when they are taught to
> children on paper but on
> the computer they are not composed in syllable
> blocks.

I'm not sure about "normally". If you say it's the
case with Tamil I believe you, but Tamil is quite a
bit different to its related writing systems and I
don't know if they have a pedagogic syllabic model.
"Complex script" may be a computer-age term. Basically
it means that the writing system is out-of-sequence
compared to the spoken language (Some vowels written
before the consonant, whereas in speech the vowel
follows the consonant), plus also the presence of
complex ligatures.

> Then when a teacher spells a word out loud to a
> child or provides a
> written model for the child to copy in that language
> the teacher has
> to know that the child cannot use a linear system to
> keyboard the
> letters. (Unless, of course, I can download another
> system than what
> is provided in Uniscribe.) That is a very
> significant difficulty.
> Many children through the years copy an oral
> spelling or written
> model in a linear fashion to input their search word
> into google.
> This truly does affect how children and the less
> literate achieve
> digital literacy.

I understand what you are saying. But it seems you
don't know how such a system would work yourself. It
seems you are trying to convince us of the need -
which is probably true - but if you want a better
input system, just come up with one then present it.
Uniscribe has nothing at all to do with input - for
input you need either a keyboard layout, or an input
Uniscribe is the rendering system. In the old days we
didn't need one but now with many exotic writing
systems we need to convert the "encoded text" into
something visual. Because of ligatures, bidi, etc, we
need a rendering system. On Windows this system is
called Uniscribe. Other OSes have their own systems.

> If there is no argument with this kind of vocabulay
> I will go with
> it. I must add that we have technology curriculum
> goals that start in
> grade 1. This is not a hypothetical discussion for
> me.

Worry less about the vocabulary but do learn the
difference between input, rendering, fonts, encodings,
etc. Interact with the kids and try to visualize an
input system. Don't think about the rendering system
for now. Then tell us about your proposed input

Andrew Dunbar.

http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl http://www.abisource.com

Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now