I would disagree about the Latin and Greek alphabets. The normal user of Latin
could not make out text if it were written in Greek letters (except the
omicron!).
If the normal user of Coptic cannot make out the text if the letters were
written in a Greek style, then I would agree that they should be
distinguished. I personally don't know enough about them to say one way or
another.
Mark
Marc Wilhelm Kuester wrote:
> Mark Davis wrote:
> >That is a bit stronger than the point I was making, which is not whether
> they
> >would find it 'acceptable'--that is a bit hard to quantify, since
> aesthetic
> >considerations could enter, but whether they would find it legible. In
> this
> >case, for example, would a Coptic (non-Greek) reader be able to make out
> the
> >text if the characters were in a Greek font, and vice versa?
>
> It is true that my point that a text should be acceptable (nothing more!),
> not merely decipherable, to experts is somewhat stronger than yours, but I
> will stand by it. Coptic in a Greek front could be read without
> unsurmountable problems, but so could a Latin text in Greek letters and
> vice versa. The situation is very similar. We need a better criterion for
> inclusion or unification of scripts than "relatedness".
> My criterion implies --- and might be tested by it --- that a mixture
> of, in this case, Greek and Coptic texts in the unified font would be
> considered acceptable for native speakers of / experts in both languages
> --- which it clearly would not.
> The Unicode concept for fonts makes sense only when font switching is
> necessitated exclusively by, well, the desire to use a different font, not
> a different script in what is really the same font.
>
> Michael Everson wrote:
> >Greek and Coptic should never have been unified.
>
> I could not agree more.
>
>
> Name: WINMAIL.DAT
> WINMAIL.DAT Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT