On 07/10/2012 03:09 AM, Harshula wrote:
> My questions to Michael are simply to better understand his apparently
> strong views on this. cya, #
I note also, incidentally, that while Michael is griping about the
names, that they aren't the way he thinks they should have been, even
enough that you describe his views as "apparently strong," he isn't
trying to insist that they be changed. What's done is done, and the
standard is the standard. You can grumble about it, but as Doug Ewell
points out, there are no *technical* problems with this part of it as it
stands.
Ever start to feel that we would have been better off not to give
official descriptive names at all? Or else really vague ones like
"LETTERLIKE THINGY NUMBER 5412"? So much blood-pressure raised over the
names... I find myself wanting to suggest that the Bengali letters
aren't even actually named after Bengali; it happens by coincidence to
be spelled that way, but it's actually pronounced "Blancmange", and it's
a made-up word used to disambiguate...
~mark
Received on Tue Jul 10 2012 - 21:05:23 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 10 2012 - 21:05:23 CDT