> Marc Wilhelm Kuester wrote:
> > [T]o use Mark Davis' words: native
> > speakers or experts in the case of dead languages should consider the
> > result as being a correct and readable representation of the text.
> > [E]xperts in the field would consider it acceptable (not
> > necessarily beautiful!) to find their sources rendered in the other script
> > and vice versa: [i]f a majority or even a sizable minority would not,
> > then give that script a distinct code range.
> In that case, Gothic should be unified with Latin, because almost
> all Gothicists, except those actually concerned with palaeography,
> seem to consider Latin transliteration perfectly acceptable!
> The same seems to be true of Etruscan/Oscan/Umbrian.
The key word here is *transliteration*. Anything which is transliterated
into Latin should of course be represented with Latin characters.
It is precisely for the palaeographers that separate encoding of
Gothic as a *script* makes sense. If I want to represent Wulfila in
*Gothic* I will do it using the Gothic characters. If I want to
represent Wulfila in a Latin transliteration of Gothic, I will
do it using Latin characters.
BTW, I also agree that the Greek/Coptic unification was, in hindsight,
not a good idea.
> John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
> e'osai ko sarji la lojban
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT