Fwd: Terminology (was: Latin glottal stop in ID in NWT, Canada)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: gfb hjjhjh <c933103_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2015-10-23 20:17 GMT+08:00
Subject: Re: Terminology (was: Latin glottal stop in ID in NWT, Canada)
To: Marcel Schneider <charupdate_at_orange.fr>

writing other languages in Latin alphabet is still called romanization not
latinization.​

2015-10-23 19:34 GMT+08:00 Marcel Schneider <charupdate_at_orange.fr>:

> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:53:15 +0100, Richard Wordingham <
> richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you're making the mistake of assuming that the Unicode Standard
> > is written in English, rather than some jargon that is confusingly like
> it.
>
> The idea that some technical specification is not written in good English,
> is generally an illusion produced by the very nature of the content. More
> specifically about TUS, I have a strong confidence about accurate
> expression, that happens to be illustrated by the following quotation from
> the incriminated chapter (highlighting uppercase added):
>
> >>> Additional information can be found throughout the other chapters of
> this core specification for the Unicode Standard. However, because of the
> need to keep extended discussions of scripts, sets of symbols, and other
> characters READABLE, material in other chapters is not always labeled as to
> its normative or informative status.
> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode8.0.0/ch03.pdf#G22672
>
> > I would like an English translation of Chapter 3 'Conformance',
>
> I guess that there may be some need of a *manual*, in the spirit that led
> the French translator to adding annotations.
> May you please quote some examples of what you wish to see expressed in a
> different way?
>
> > 'Latin script', in so far as it is translatable, translates into
> > English as 'Roman alphabet'.
>
> I know your expertise from previous threads, but I've no means to adhere
> to the equivalence you put between a script and an alphabet.
> The delusion I point out in quotations about "Roman alphabet," or
> alternately but way worse, the hypocrisy, is that while a handful of
> diacritics are certainly supported in order to spell French names in a
> reasonable and legible way, and while the æ and œ letters can scarcely be
> registered as "ae" or "oe" in Canada, other letters of the Latin (well,
> say, Roman) script are excluded, refused, and banned. And that is justified
> by telling people that a glottal stop isn't part of the Roman alphabet. "é"
> isn't neither, as this character is not a part of the alphabet, just to
> take the one that is on *all* Canadian traditional keyboards. Nor is œ,
> which is on none of them [but on Canadian Multilingual Standard]. Agreed,
> I haven't been there to look into their data base and at the cited printer.
>
> > In the language of the TUS, the word
> > 'alphabet' has a more restricted meaning, whereby, for example, the
> > Thai alphabet is not used for the Thai language! The Thai alphabet is,
> > however, used for the Pali language and is promoted for Pattani Malay.
> > When the characters of the Thai alphabet are used for the Thai
> > language, they are used as an 'abugida', not as an 'alphabet'.)
>
> Again, I do know nothing about Thai, but if in TUS an abugida can be
> addressed to as an alphabet if the same is used as such, it seems to me
> that the word 'alphabet' has a pretty extended meaning in TUS.
>
> In any case, isolating an arbitrary subset inside our Latin script and
> promoting it as the so-called Roman alphabet to get some pretext for
> refusing that compatriots or strangers bear their real and choosen names,
> [quote] IS A SERIOUS INSULT [/quote].
>
>
>
> Additionally, at the age of Unicode, this results in being as well an
> insult to the whole work of the Consortium.
>
> Marcel
>
Received on Sat Oct 24 2015 - 01:35:11 CDT