suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > suzmccarth wrote:
> but now see how Unicode is a significant player in script
> > > standardization.
> >
> > And we see from the attitudes expressed here that they don't give
> a damn
> > about "native" sensibilities.
>
> Whoa! Unicode responds to language communities. There is no doubt
> about that. The problem is that language communities are complex
> entities.

But one of Unicode's principals says they have to do romanization.

> I enjoy using Unicode products. But I do see Unicode as having a
> process that the public should particpate in and become knowledgable
> about. I am just participating in a very small way in that process.
>
> And I certainly didn't say that Christianity contributed to script
> instability - nonsense. I was responding to your remark that the
> Cherokee script had a sacred function. I attributed that, rightly or
> wrongly, to the 'medicine man' tradition as recorded in Walker's
> article. I *thought* that is what you were talking about.

You suggested that "native" or pre-Christian religion would contribute
to "script stability," whatever that is.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...