--- In
qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
>
> At 21:09 +0000 2005-10-08, suzmccarth wrote:
>
> >Legacy standards? - or is there a difference because of the
> >difference in language families? That is why Tamil is so different
> >from other Indic scripts. It is from the same *script* family
> >historically but there are so many conceptual differences.
>
> It has no major structural differences, however, which is why it has
> been encoded like the rest of them.
That is the point. The scripts are related, the languages are not. So
they may look the same but users of the script think of them
differently.
However, I was just googling for Mandombe and came across your
exchange in the Unicode-Afrique list.
You say,
"Est-ce qu'il y a des utilisateurs de cette «
écriture » ? Des enfants qui l'apprennent dans
l'école ? Je connais ce matière, mais la question
reste... n'est-ce que le klingon soit plus « vrai
» comme candidat pour le codage dans l'ISO/CEI
10646 ?"
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Unicode-Afrique/message/921
I could not believe my eyes but you then repeated it here.
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Unicode-Afrique/message/929
Let me get this straight. Mandombe, the script "For the Blacks" is
less real as a cnadidate for encoding than klingon? The Mandombe
script, used for the Kikongo language, spoken by several million
people, is less *real* than klingon, a mythical lexicon of insults,
written for the most part in the latin script.
Do you ever intend to learn the difference between language and
script, between reality and fantasy, and add a little courtesy? I
notice Ogham is encoded and Shavian, etc etc. Is this how Unicode
works?
But there is more. You then say,
"Cet écriture, comme chose trop
compliqué, illisible, etc, me semble qu'un
candidat pour le PUA. Il faut montrer qu'une
écriture est vraiement utilisé."
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Unicode-Afrique/message/931
What does it matter how this script *seems* to you - with your vast
background in the acquisition of literacy. 'Complicated and
unreadable' I can guarantee you that it is not.
You go on,
"At 15:06 -0700 2005-09-03, Patrick Andries wrote:
>Que connais-tu ? Je ne pas sûr de comprendre.
Mandombe : écriture négro-africaine. Manuel
d'apprentissage à l'usage des apprenants,
Kinshasa 1996, par David Wabeladio Payi.
J'ai lu cette livrette. C'est un écriture
construite, comme éxpliqué à
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_construite
(voir aussi en anglais
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language
et bien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_script
Mais comme système d'écriture pratique, c'est
plus que douteux comme candidat pout le jeu
universel de caractères. Mais si vous voulez
utiliser le PUA, voir
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/
--
Michael Everson *
http://www.evertype.com
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Unicode-Afrique/message/934
You defend your position that Mandombe is unsuitable for encoding by
referring to the *Constructed Language* page in wikipedia. Will you
ever recognize the difference between language and script?
Then you refer to the artificial script page, where Hangul is also
mentioned as a borderline case. Would you unencode Hangul to be
consistent. Happy hangul Day!!
Michael, is this how Unicode works?
Suzanne
>
> --
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>