RE: Aramaic unification and information retrieval

From: D. Starner (shalesller@writeme.com)
Date: Wed Dec 24 2003 - 01:39:42 EST

  • Next message: Patrick Andries: "Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval"

    > Could you instead take the time to work on the missing Latin
    > letters for African languages?

    Why don't you take the time to work on the missing Latin
    letters for African languages? They aren't exactly the
    hardest proposals in the world to write; just copy the
    pages that show your needed character in action and fill
    in the obvious answers (L to R, etc.) You can probably
    beg a fontmaker to make a font.

    > Why isn't there any serious
    > work about these living languages that don't have lot of
    > universitary support and nearly no computer resources in
    > Africa to make this job?

    Probably because there isn't much being printed in these
    languages, and because there's no stable orthographies
    for many of these languages.
     
    > There are lots of work there to work with specifications,
    > work with simple 8-bit encodings that could be mapped easily to
    [...]

    This is all moot. This is Unicode, not Save-the-world-code.
     
    > You get people learn happily other cultures if they are not
    > offered first the legitimate right to learn and use their own
    > culture, i.e. their native languages and scripts.

    Do many of these languagse have native scripts, or any
    significant amount of writing in their languages?

    > In many cases, African languages would be better served if the
    > Latin characters needed for their languages were added and
    > specified in accurate lists,

    Arguably, African languages would be better served if they
    could find within the 500 Latin characters already encoded
    and the enormous selection of non-precomposed reasonable
    Latin characters a set to fit their language. How many
    different ways does a script really need for writing "sh",
    anyway?
     
    > But please avoid
    > dogmatic attitutes, simply because people in this list do not
    > have the same formalism as the one you created.

    Generally, members who do a large part of the work and have
    for a long time get to be dogmatic, because they actually
    know what's up. The new guy who disagrees with him needs to
    do some solid work for their disagreement to be of interest.
    The roadmap isn't the standard, and it's not exactly immenent
    that it be fixed even if it is wrong.

    -- 
    ___________________________________________________________
    Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
    http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 24 2003 - 02:30:24 EST