Michael Everson wrote:
> At 14:58 +0000 2005-09-02, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >Michael wrote:
> >
> >>It does not change the sociolinguistic nature of computing in the
> > >early 21st century, freeing users of (e.g. African) syllabic scripts
> > >from the burden of having to learn to read an alphabet.
> > >It's unrealistic to pretend that they will not have to learn an alphabet.
> >
> >Explain why it is unrealistic for a person who uses a syllabic writing
> >system to expect do data input in that writing system?
> Haven't we gone over this? There aren't enough keys. You're going to
> have to use some sort of deadkey system if input is to be by the
> keyboard.

Why does input have to be by keyboard?

> Pressing two keys, whether they are T + A or some other
> non-latin-alphabet-based deadkey configuration, to get Vai syllable
> TA is "input in the writing system", since the immediate reward is
> seeing the syllable on the screen.

You continue to not comment on the handwritten input being discussed by

> >Why do they have to go thru a writing system that uses an alphabet
> >that they would not otherwise use?
> If they are using a computer they will be using the alphabet.

Continuing to repeat it does not make it so.

> >On a purely theoretical level, a thirty person L10N team can produce a
> >desktop in a new language within a year.
> Including terminology development for the whole domain? Expensive in any case.

It sure would be nice if other languages could be spared the creation of
jargon that appears to be endemic to computer engineers.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...