Michael Everson wrote:
>
> At 09:10 -0400 2003-09-16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Your (new) suggestion that there is something wrong with the Unicode
> >> encoding of the Arabic script puzzles me, because it works very well
> > > for the representation of all of the languages listed here and many
> >> more.
> >
> >I know nothing of its encoding. But its label is stupid.
>
> You shock me, sir. The epigraphic Arabic script which evolved into
> the "script" Arabic script received letter-extensions from some other
> languages, but the intrinsic structure of the script remains the same.
>
> Similarly, the epigraphic Latin script evolved variant letterforms
> such as the capital/small letter distinction, italics and bold and
> all, also received letter-extensions for other languages.
>
> There are not "better" names out there than "Arabic" and "Latin" out
> there to describe these scripts. "Islamic" palls and isn't accurate
> in any case.
>
> Sorry to disagree with you, but I don't think your objections make any sense.

"Roman" alphabet makes sense for the cover term. "Latin" doesn't.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...