Ar 17:56 -0800 1997-11-24, scríobh Mansour, Kamal:
>I would like to reply to some of the comments specifically about Coptic.
>note that I am familiar with Coptic but make no claim to being an expert
>Also being a Copt, I've had a chance to see a good range of sample Coptic
>>writing in churches over many years.
Did you ever see it written in the Greek script?
>Practically speaking, I don't think 'de-unifying' Greek and Coptic would make
>any difference. The Coptic alphabet is a true extension of the Greek alphabet.
>Would we de-unify the Polish and Extended Latin? How about Cyrillic-written
>Azeri and Basic Cyrillic?
I'd disagree. The Coptic script, the Cyrillic script, and the Gothic
(Wulfilan) script were all derived from the Greek script. But they have
their own features and differ significantly from Greek now
>While it is true that once the Greek letters & their extensions were
>>established as the indigenous alphabet for Coptic (replacing Demotic),
>the styling of the letters developed independently of Greek.
Just as Cyrillic did.
>Nonetheless, they have always remained
>recognizably Greek in origin.
Just as Cyrillic is.
>I believe even the most fanatic of Coptologists
>would agree with this assessment. To draw a parallel using the Latin alphabet,
>one could find examples of more extreme divergence by comparing, for
>Gaelic or Lombardic Uncials to letterforms from the Roman period. Shall we
>de-unify uncial from standard Latin?
No, but the reason is that a Gaelic or Old French text can be written in
Times or Helvetica and no one has a problem with it. I do not believe that
Coptic can be printed in Greek Times or Greek Helvetica. Processing a
multilingual text with Coptic, Greek, and English (I have such a text in
front of me) is made more difficult with the unification, at least with
regard to plain text. Plain Coptic text is not independent of its font.
>The Coptic range can be improved. Yes, the missing 'sou' is a uniquely Coptic
>character. It, among others, should be added.
I agree. It, and about 30 others. :-)
>Coptic is not strict about capitalization; to be more specific, capitalization
>does not affect meaning in Coptic text. Many capital letters are merely
>of the lower-case form. However, that is not universally true. It is best to
>have two cases
>(sorry, I find it difficult use the term 'bicameral' in relation
>Let us keep in mind that what is presented oversimplistically as Coptic script
>is really an amalgam of the writing tradition of several Coptic dialects
>period of almost two millenia.
Yes, but modern printing habits at least can be catered for.
>I have been wanting to collect amendments to Unicode from Coptic scholars.
>>Maybe this exchange will help in getting started.
May I suggest we begin by adding:
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER ALFA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER VEEDA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER GAMMA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER DALDA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER EEJE
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER SOU
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER ZAADA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER HAADA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER TUTTE
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER JOODA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER KABBA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER LOOLA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER MEEJ
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER NI
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER EKSI
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER OU
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER BEJ
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER ROU
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER SAMMA
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER DAUU
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER HE
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER FIIJ
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER KIJ
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER EBSI
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER OO
COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER NINE HUNDRED
and their small versions?
-- Michael Everson, EGT * http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire (Ireland) Gutháin: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT