Re: Unicode definitions of script types

suzmccarth wrote:

>
> 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.

Obviously, since the term "abugida" did not exist before 1988, was
published in 1990, and was published in a reference with wide
circulation only in 1996.

> 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

?? Are the speakers of the Turkish language consulted when it is labeled
"agglutinative"? of the Georgian language when it is labeled "ergative"?

> 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?

What exercise is who repeating?

> 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?

No writing system is 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.

I don't know of any publications by Hank Rogers; the book I mentioned is
not yet available.

Of course the fact that some writing systems denote meaning, while most
don't, is of the highest interest and utility.

> 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.

"Consulted" for what?

> 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').

Is that a good thing? Is the roman alphabet ever called "the English
language"? When Cree syllabics are adapted for an Athapaskan or Inuit
language, are they 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.

How many times do I have to say it? The Gelb fallacy is resolved by the
recognition that "syllabaries" don't develop out of "alphabets" -- but
abugidas can develop out of abjads.

> 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.

What is the "it" being compared with Ethiopic or Cree? The term
"abugida" "illuminates" the history of writing, my only concern. As you
already tut-tutted, I don't give a good g-d damn about "coding."

> 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.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...