Re: and how are they encoded?

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> suzmccarth wrote:
> >
> > --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
> > >
> > > > > So Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac are not abjads?
> > > >
> > > > Unvocalized, they are. Add the points, and they're alphabets.
> > >
> > > Most modern Arabic and Hebrew texts, however, are neither fully
> > pointed
> > > nor fully unpointed: rather, they are strategically pointed

with

> > matres
> > > lectionis.
> > >
> > > > > He said he was misled by the way *Unicode* encodes

Ethiopic:

> > one code per
> > > > > sillable, as it does with genuine syllabaries such as

katakana

> > or Cherokee.
> > > >
> > > > Well, Unicode has nothing to do with script typology! It just
> > does
> > > > things as they're convenient. Doesn't it have to handle
> > syllabically the
> > > > Indic scripts that have idiosyncratic treatments of -u, for
> > instance (I
> > > > think Malayalam is one of them)?
> > >
> > > No. All nine Indic scripts are encoded in exactly the same

way,

> > and all
> > > presentation issues are left up to the script engine or font
> > engine.
> >
> > I was suddenly enlightened. Peter Daniels doesn't know how things
> > are encoded in Unicode and what terms are being used.
>
> and he doesn't care ... he doesn't need to know how the computer-

jocks

> get the scripts to come out right on the screen.

Personally, I think you should know. If someone tells me that Tamil
is coded as *an* abugida, then you need to know that he does not
mean that Tamil is encoded like *the* abugida. About lack of
syllabic codepoints "That isn't terribly helpful" a "syllabic
keyboard is conceptually brilliant" That was my original point. I
don't want to cause you too much pain but I think we are saying the
same thing here. Now I understand that the coding isn't so
important but the keyboard still is.

Suzanne

>
> > Here goes:
> >
> > Korean - encoded by phoneme and syllable
>
> (what does that _mean_??)
>
> > Cree - the pepipopa - encoded by syllable
> >
> > Ethiopic - the abugida - encoded by syllable
> >
> > Indic scripts, including Tamil - the Akhsaramala (which refers to
> > the V and CV components) - encoded by phoneme only, no syllables
> >
> > So a few months ago I went to a Unicode member's website and I

read

> > that the Tamil script is an abugida. Well, I think okay, let's

have

> > it - where is it? I was thinking that this was said becase Tamil
> > might be treated by Unicode like the Abugida. However, I

understand

> > now that it was not meant that way.
> >
> > I am hoping that Unicode members will be encouraged to say

something

> > like 'Tamil, and Indic scripts, have an Aksharamala and the

aksharas

> > will be displayed if you have a USP10.dll version 471.' Now that
> > would be useful information.
> >
> > Does this begin to explain why Suzanne is so confused? None of
> > this "you are a only a user so why do you care what goes on

behind

> > the scenes?" Instead how about "the aksharas will be displayed

by

> > the USP10, please check to see if you have one." If Unicode

members

> > could use the term Aksharamala, I would think that those of us

who

> > use Indic scripts might feel more at home.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...