From: Tulasi (tulasird@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2010 - 22:39:12 CDT
Jony -> A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z
?
You mean ALL CAPS again like UNICODE :)
Van -> Do you mean historically or pragmatically?
Actually something that will include all letters/symbols now
considered Latin-script
Otto Stolz -> Not exactly a definition: What the Unicode standard says
on this issue, is here:
There might be someone who already defined Latin script!
Europeans have produced lot of scholars.
Tulasi
From: Jonathan Rosenne <jr@qsm.co.il>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:05:11 +0300
Subject: RE: Latin Script
To: unicode@unicode.org
How about
A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z
?
There are also some extensions, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet for general background.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
> Behalf Of Tulasi
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 11:27 AM
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Latin Script
>
> How do you define Latin Script?
From: vanisaac@boil.afraid.org
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:18:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: tulasird@gmail.com, unicode@unicode.org
From: Tulasi (tulasird@gmail.com)
> How do you define Latin Script?
Do you mean historically or pragmatically? Historically, it is an
adaptation of the Ionian Greek (or is it Doric?), via Etruscan, for
the purpose of writing Latin, and later extended by the addition of
alternate letterforms (J, W, Þ, and the lower case) and diacritics to
the use of western European languages and globally to indigenous
languages in primary contact with western European languages that use
the Latin alphabet.
Pragmatically, it is the collection of characters that are used in
languages in conjunction with the primary collection of Roman derived
letterforms as an alphabetic script. This means that the syllabic
Fraser Lisu is not Latin script. Neither is Cyrillic, even though it
has imported Dze and Je - the basic Latin alphabet does not constitute
the core of Cyrillic usage.
Typographic tradition also plays a part - Greek would probably be a
lot more ambiguous if it hadn't developed typographically among
Byzantine scribes. Latin typography developed primarily among
post-Roman and Carolignian scribal traditions, with offshoot
blackletter and Italic scribal traditions that have secondary status
in the modern script. Greek and Cyrillic don't share this history, and
as such, even though they are structurally similar, they have evolved
along different lines and constitute distinct scripts. The fact that
you don't find languages that mix the two up is evidence of these
schizms. The border languages choose one or the other, or they have
two different orthographies that use each script independently of the
other.
Van
From: Otto Stolz <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:50:23 +0200
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Am 2010-06-06 10:26, schrieb Tulasi:
> How do you define Latin Script?
Not exactly a definition: What the Unicode standard
says on this issue, is here:
7.1 Latin
<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch07.pdf#G4321>
And a few words, e. g. “well-known”, are also here:
6.1 Writing Systems
<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch06.pdf#G7382>
Best wishes,
Otto Stolz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2010 - 22:46:56 CDT