Re: mixed-script writing systems

Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 19:18:31 EST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Dates in Pipeline table"

    On 11/15/2002 12:22:15 PM John Cowan wrote:

    >> So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
    >> completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use
    >> single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across
    >> but not across scripts -- to imply that we need to encode new
    >> Latin delta, Latin theta and Latin yeru? Or, do we say that this writing
    >> system is only *mostly* Latin-based, and that it mixes in a few
    >> from other scripts?
    >The Kurdish precedent suggests the latter (Kurdish is Cyrillic but uses Q
    >W from Latin), but some of us think that was wrongly decided and should be
    >overruled. (IANAL, TINLA.)

    I had thought of that case, and knew that some thought the Q and W should
    be added to Cyrillic, which was one more reason why I wondered what people
    might think in this case.

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485
    E-mail: <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 20:04:50 EST