Re: COPYLEFT SIGN

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Mon May 15 2000 - 15:57:30 EDT

Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Unicode = 3 Acsii Characters? (again)"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: COPYLEFT SIGN"
Maybe in reply to: Bernd Warken: "Re: COPYLEFT SIGN"
Next in thread: Roozbeh Pournader: "Re: COPYLEFT SIGN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Michael Everson wrote:
>
> Despite what John says about some linguistic communities below, you cannot
> stipulate that terms are translatable or non-translatable.

It's not about *stipulating* untranslatability, but just untranslatability
de facto. Do you complain because U+0A74 is GURMUKHI EK ONKAR instead
of GURMUKHI GOD IS ONE? How about U+2638 WHEEL OF DHARMA? Untranslatable
terms need to be left alone, that's all.

-- 
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Unicode = 3 Acsii Characters? (again)"
Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: COPYLEFT SIGN"
Maybe in reply to: Bernd Warken: "Re: COPYLEFT SIGN"
Next in thread: Roozbeh Pournader: "Re: COPYLEFT SIGN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT