From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 07:16:42 CDT
Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
> At 9:43 AM -0700 5/1/04, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> For the record, I agree that Old Canaanite would be a better name.
>> The reason for this is not primarily to be more Semito-centric, but
>> rather to represent better the range of languages covered. For the
>> same reason, Latin script should not be called English script,
>> because English is only one of many languages using it.
>
>
> Of course, Latin is also only one of many languages using the Latin
> script. Of course, the name "Latin" also has the nice political
> property that it's nobody's first language and only one very unusual
> state's official language any more (Vatican City). But is there some
> reason we call this the Latin script instead of the Roman script?
Roman Script to me is opposed to Latin Script, Uncial Script, Fraktur
Script (all seen as scripts by Daniels & Bright).
P. A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT