i18n@... wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why does input have to be by keyboard?
> It doesn't, as I pointed out several times.
> Michael is proposing one possible implementation. There are manymany
> other possible implementations.
> Developing products is always about making choices and trade offs due to
> constraints in time,money, and market factors. don't worry, there is
> plenty of opportunity to build the other choices as the constraints
> become looser. They may already be loose enough now, which is why ME has
> encouraged others to come up with actual KB plans instead of sniping
> about it.
> >
> > You continue to not comment on the handwritten input being discussed by
> > others.
> Nor have you. But since I originally raised the issue, I will say this::

Was I talking to you?

> I see no need to replace ME's efforts at all. It is fine. Any other
> efforts can co-exist,be they KB, handwriting, something else entirely.

And what did ME zip right to? Voice recognition software!!!! Sheesh.

> > Continuing to repeat it does not make it so.
> Others have conceded that there are subpopulatins who can use Michael's
> plan as is.
> Is it possible your concern is political (related to "cultural
> imperialism" dimension) rather then engineering or writing system based?
> If you want to "save the Vais" that is fine, but please just say so if
> it is your bias or not.

Obviously it's political!!! What else could it be, when it's a question
of imposing imperialist cultures on indigenous peoples??

> > It sure would be nice if other languages could be spared the creation of
> > jargon that appears to be endemic to computer engineers.
> Definitely not going to happen. Languages evolve over time to reflect
> their environment, and lately environments that have been heretofore
> isolated are becoming less so. The Bible notwithstanding,I don't think
> any of us are prepared to argue that all languages are static and
> originated exactly as they are.


Computer terminology does not need to be jargon.

This is far more true in this area than in what is called the "ordinary
language movement" in law, which thinks contracts and such can be drawn
up in such a way that ordinary people can read them easily. The legal
language tradition in English has evolved over nearly a millennium and
carries with it an immense body of interpretation and precedent. This
does not exist in computer vocabulary, which is all of around a half
century old.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...