At 23:07 +0000 2005-10-09, suzmccarth wrote:

>>[Tamil] has no major structural differences
>>[from most of the other Brahmic scripts],
>>however, which is why it has been encoded like
>>the rest of them.
>
>That is the point. The scripts are related, the
>languages are not. So they may look the same but
>users of the script think of them differently.

I said nothing about languages at all. The
scripts of India have a set of features which are
very similar, and Tamil does not deviate from
these features in any appreciable way. This is
why we have encoded it (for use in computers) in
the same way as we have done for the other ones.

I said nothing about language, and I am not in
any way confused about the difference between
language and script, as you will accuse me of
later. Indeed, the other scripts used by other
Dravidian languages fit neatly into the same
mould with regard to computer representation.

I am not particularly concerned with how some
(and not all) users of a script "think of it"; I
am concerned with the scripts actual structure,
the way its marks relate to the linguistic
entities which it is supposed to represent.
Often, indeed, users' conceptions about a script
are at odds with its actual behaviour..

>However, I was just googling for Mandombe and
>came across your exchange in the Unicode-Afrique
>list.
>
>You say,
>
>"Est-ce qu'il y a des utilisateurs de cette «
>écriture » ? Des enfants qui l'apprennent dans
>l'école ? Je connais ce matière, mais la
>question reste... n'est-ce que le klingon soit
>plus « vrai » comme candidat pour le codage dans
>l'ISO/CEI 10646 ?"

Yes, I said this. Are there any users of this
"script"? Children who learn it in school? I know
this material, and the question remains: isn't
Klingon a "truer" candidate for encoding in
ISO/IEC 10646?

>http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Unicode-Afrique/message/929
>
>Let me get this straight. Mandombe, the script
>"For the Blacks" is less real as a cnadidate for
>encoding than klingon?

I have seen no evidence that this "script" is in
actual use. Klingon, oddball as it is, has more
evidence available.

>The Mandombe script, used for the Kikongo language, spoken by several million
>people, is less *real* than klingon, a mythical
>lexicon of insults, written for the most part in
>the latin script.

The Klingon script failed to meet the "use" test
for encoding. It does, however, have some use.
Klingon isn't a mythical lexicon of insults. It
is an artificial language with a grammar and
vocabulary that quite a few folks enjoy using.

Saying that Kikongo has several million speakers
is a very different thing from saying that
Mandombe is a viable writing system for it, or
that it is suitable for encoding.

>Do you ever intend to learn the difference between language and script,

You don't have any idea what you are talking
about, if you think I do not know the difference.
Indeed, I have just demonstrated it. Did you miss
it? I'll say it again: Saying that Kikongo has
several million speakers is a very different
thing from saying that Mandombe is a viable
writing system for it, or that it is suitable for
encoding.

>between reality and fantasy, and add a little courtesy?

Just because some guy in Africa invents a script
for a language does not mean that it is a
particulary good or useful script. Lots of people
invent scripts. Lots of invented scripts are
(potentially) good or useful. Some of those, like
Tengwar and Cirth, will certainly be encoded.
Some of them will never be, because they fail the
use test. Many which fail the use test are simply
unsuitable for "real" use.

Just because some guy in California invents a
neat and tidy script like Ewellic doesn't mean
that it is a particularly good or useful script
either.

>I notice Ogham is encoded and Shavian, etc etc.

Ogham is, of course, encoded because it is a
historical writing system, devised in Ireland to
represent a variety Primitive Irish. There are a
number of rather dull historical texts written in
monumental Ogham, and a number of rather more
interesting texts in the manuscript tradition
from antiquity to the 19th century, and has its
enthusiasts today. Shavian, likewise, has a
particular place in the literature associated
with the orthography of the English language,
also with regard to the prize left by a renowned
Irish writer.

>Is this how Unicode works?

This question appears to make no sense given the context.

>But there is more. You then say,
>
>"Cet écriture, comme chose trop compliqué,
>illisible, etc, me semble qu'un candidat pour le
>PUA. Il faut montrer qu'une écriture est
>vraiement utilisé."

Yes, I said that. This script, as something
over-complex, illegible, etc, seems to me to be a
candidate for the PUA. One must demonstrate that
a script ie really used" to encode it formally.

>What does it matter how this script *seems* to
>you - with your vast background in the
>acquisition of literacy.

It is your assumption that I know nothing about
the acquisition of literacy. But you wouldn't
know one way or another.

>'Complicated and unreadable' I can guarantee you that it is not.

It is an appallingly complex and illegible
writing system, in my opinion, with all its
subtle little twists and turns. I cannot imagine
an eleven-year-old taking notes in history class
in this dreadful scrawl. There is nothing organic
whatsoever in the design of this writing system.
Perhaps your background in ductus and legibility
is wanting here.

>Mandombe : écriture négro-africaine. Manuel
>d'apprentissage à l'usage des apprenants,
>Kinshasa 1996, par David Wabeladio Payi.

That's the title of the book of which I have a photocopy.

>J'ai lu cette livrette. C'est un écriture
>construite, comme éxpliqué à
>http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_construite
>(voir aussi en anglais
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language
>et bien
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_script

Yes, I said this. It's a constructed script. Then
I gave two pointers, one in French and two in
English, to the Unicode-Afrique list for the
benefit of people who did not know what a
constructed script was.

>You defend your position that Mandombe is unsuitable for encoding by
>referring to the *Constructed Language* page in wikipedia.

You are mistaken. The French Wikipedia has no
dedicated page on Artificial Scripts, so I gave a
pointer to what was available; to assist
interested Franophones with an introduction to
the concept. I also gave a link to the English
version of that same subject matter, as well as a
link to the Artifical scripts article.

>Will you ever recognize the difference between language and script?

If you think that I do not know the difference
between language and script, you are badly
mistaken. I have never demonstrated such
ignorance. You're skating pretty close, though,
because you're not paying attention and you're
jumping to false conclusions.

>Then you refer to the artificial script page, where Hangul is also
>mentioned as a borderline case. Would you
>unencode Hangul to be consistent. Happy hangul
>Day!!

"An artificial or constructed script (also
conscript or neography) is a term for new writing
systems specifically devised by specific known
individuals, rather than having naturally evolved
as part of a culture like a natural script",
according to that Wikipedia article. Looks as
though you didn't really read this.

>Michael, is this how Unicode works?

This question appears to make no sense given the context.

Mandombe is an artificial script or conscript.
It's also a nasty complicated mess and I can't
imagine that it has much hope of being
particularly useful to millions of Kikongo
speakers. Did you read what Denis Jacquerye wrote
about it in Unicode-Afrique?

"Même si les caractères semblent compliqués, le
système est lui-même assez simple. Chaque
caractère est une voyelle, ratachée à une
consonne si nécessaire, avec un signe diacritique
pour marquer les diphtongues. Malheureusement il
me semble que l'ensemble des caractères ne couvre
que le kikongo. Il faudrait donc l'adapter pour
qu'il soit correctement utiliser dans d'autres
langues africaines. Une simplificiation serait
aussi grandement utile."

"La particularité du Mandombe, que certains
reconnaitront comme ingéniosité et originalité,
est que chaque syllabaire est le résultat d'un
transformation géométrique d'un autre. Certains
syllabaires subissent une rotation, d'autres une
symmétrie et d'autres les deux."

Bah. This isn't a practical writing system. It's
a puzzle, a game. Nothing wrong with that, of
course. But it's a conscript, until real use
proves otherwise.

And that's how Unicode works. Have a look at the roadmaps.
--
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com