Since everyone almost everyone can google and Unicode version 4 has
been put up on the internet, one should not be surprised to see it
as a resource in a grade 4 classroom. I stumbled on it
unintentionally. Therefore, whoever writes the Unicode manual must
realize that by posting it, it has entered public domain.

Anyone in any language community can check and see what their own
language has been called and how it has been encoded. So if the
consensus has been that Cree is a syllabary then most if not all
Cree would expect to see Cree listed as such, not as an abugida.
There would be no reason for members of any language community not
to check and see how Unicode has listed and coded their langauge.

Respectfully, I think John Nichols *and* the Cree and Inuktitut
First Nations of Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nunavut would need to
be consulted about changing the classification of Cree. There are
also many Cree linguists in the sense that they are mambers of the
Cree community and linguists. However, since I have done much of
this work, albeit before the arrival of the term abugida, why repeat
this exercise?


I am not aware of Hank Rogers familiarity with Cree in more than a
book sense. I believe he has read about it. John Nichols represents
one opinion in the debate. He uses Rogers earlier writing system
classification. Nichols is knowledgable but leaned toward the
interpretation of Cree as part of the phonographic primary class
along with the alphabet, (and Japanese, Cherokee, Korean, etc.) My
question would be, which writing systems are not primarily
phonographic?

This reflects Hank Rogers earlier presentation of writing systems as
being of two primary classes, phonographic and logographic. I don't
find this particularly useful. I would like to ask Peter Daniels if
he finds these two categories useful.

There are other important people to consult. The Cree School Board,
Bertha Metat of the Oji-Cree Cultural Centre, Ken Harper in Iqaluit,
Alison Stairs, Barbara Burnaby, Marguerite McKenzie, The Bartletts.
The Anglican Diocese of Moosonee. F. Ahenakew. And many, many more.
Each and every Cree nation. I think you will find that these people
are not uninfomed about writing systems and have concerns about what
the Cree language is called. (BTW The syllabary is often
called 'the Cree language').

Truthfully I had more or less accepted the use of the term ideograph
in Unicode, as a term which I thought reflected the use of the Han
characters across cultures and I assumed that there were good
institutional and historic reason for using the term. But I
wondered what the reason would be for using the term abugida.
Institutional? It didn't seem to reflect the interests of any
particular language community or institution. If it is used in a
purely linguistic sense then it does not reflect coding. What is it
supposed to illuminate? It does not enable the reader to compare it
to Ethiopic or Cree.

I did not in May have any intention of discussing The Unicode
definitions. First, because the CKJ section was of no particular
concern to me. However, it did make me wonder about the use of
terminology in general.

It was only in response to repeated accusations that I was confused,
and I admit that freely, that I started to explain *why* I was
confused. Certainly abugida can be googled on the internet. However,
last year I tried to google 'alpha centauri' (the real star)and
found thousands of results which had nothing to do with the real
star 'alpha centauri'. Certain things which are of no particular
importance can have a life of their own on the internet. I
sincerely hope that google hits does not become the measure of all
things. I think that the term will have to wait until a consensus
had been reached and it has broader acceptance.

BTW In the 1960's Canada adopted the metric system and it has only
been integrated into everyday use for a limited set of domains.
Forty years later I still measure my room width in feet and inches.

I will be travelling for a few weeks and do not expect to have more
than occasional internet access.

Suzanne McCarthy

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@...> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Unicode Standard," whoever that is, screwed with the
definitions they
> >>>found in my book (or, possibly, prior articles). Why should I
try to get
> >>>them to unscrew with what was plainly before their eyes?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Why, for the same reason you're correcting them here: because it
bothers
> >>you to see inaccurate information disseminated. It bothers you
enough
> >>to correct it here, why not correct it where it can make a
difference
> >>and reach more people? And if it doesn't bother you, why are you
> >>correcting it here?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >(a) We've been told that nothing will be changed no matter what
anyone
> >says;
> >
> >
> Didn't Michael *just now* ask (very politely) for your help in
reviewing
> and *fixing* problems?
>
> >(b) I am not "correcting" it here; I am pointing out that my
intentions
> >were, at the least, distorted.
> >
> >
> Say it where it can do some good.
>
> >(c) We know that at least one user was confused by the distortion.
> >
> >
> Say it where more people can become un-confused: help fix the
book. Or
> else quit complaining. If it's not important enough for *you* to
help
> make it right, why should anyone else care?
>
> ~mark