Like most people, I also do not support the idea of unifying
Greek, Etruscan, and Gothic, although the side-by-side comparison
of these scripts in John Cowan's email is in itself useful.
The shapes are generally very different - much as with several of the
Indic scripts - and therefore there is no case to unify Greek,
Etruscan, and Gothic any more than to unify the Indic scripts.
As Mark Davis writes:
> One of the key points is whether native speakers of the three
> scripts would recognize the standard character shapes as being the
> roughly the same.
What I have never really understood - largely through lack of
knowledge - is the common opposition to unifying Coptic with Greek.
I would be glad if someone would explain this to me. To me,
unfamiliar with the script and languages, Greek and Coptic seem to be
as much of a continuum as do Church Slavonic and Russian.
Although the shapes for the same/similar Church Slavonic and Russian
often vary considerably, nobody seems to suggest that these should
not be unified, as they have been in ISO/IEC 10646.
Comments would be vey welcome, for my peace of mind!
-- John Clews (Chair of ISO/TC46/SC2: Conversion of Written Languages)
SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Road, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, England Email: Converse@sesame.demon.co.uk; tel: +44 (0) 1423 888 432
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT