From: Mark Davis ☕ (mark@macchiato.com)
Date: Fri Jun 11 2010 - 10:58:16 CDT
Mark
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 23:44, Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark ->
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{sc%3DLatn}
>
> I think I have got the answer to my question in above link. Thanks Mark!
> Any letter/symbol has LATIN as part of its name should be pat of
> present day Latin-script.
>
That is an incorrect assumption. The script property information is in the
UCD, and does not align completely with "names that contain LATIN". Here is
the precise comparison (for Unicode 5.2):
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/unicodeset.jsp?a=[:name=/LATIN/:]&b=[:script=Latn
:]
As you see, there are 357 differences.
(The [:*property*=/*value*/:] syntax lets you use regular expressions for
the values, for tests like this.)
>
> Is there any new letter/symbol added to Latin-script after creation of
> Unicode?
>
Absolutely, and in almost every release of Unicode (
http://www.unicode.org/history/publicationdates.html). Here are the
Latin-script characters grouped by Age (that is, first version in which they
appeared).
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[:script=Latn:]&g=age
(Search in your browser window for "Age=" to get the different counts.)
As you see, there were 838 Latin characters in Unicode 1.1, compared
with 1,244 total in Unicode 5.2.
>
> Thanks to all for answering my question, especially Jony has answered
> with classic-definition of Latin-script (Latin-script did not have
> lower-case letters until probably late 8th
> century).
>
> Tulasi
>
>
> From: Mark Davis < mark@macchiato.com>
> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:26:43 -0700
> Subject: Re: Latin Script
> To: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
>
> For definitions, there are many references. For Unicode characters, the
> Standard defines a property in http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/ and
> http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Scripts.txt. Here is the current list:
>
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{sc%3DLatn}
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 20:39, Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 : Fri Jun 11 2010 - 11:05:19 CDT