Re: dotless j

From: Edward Cherlin (edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 08 1999 - 02:25:44 EDT


At 04:27 -0700 7/5/1999, Michael Everson wrote:
>Ar 11:49 -0700 1999-07-04, scríobh John Cowan:
>
>>Nobody is arguing for that: "dotlessj" is a perfectly legitimate
>>*glyph* that should be present in Latin fonts. But that is not
>>the same as making it a *character*. Unicode has "promoted" too
>>many glyphs to characters already (the Arabic presentation forms,
>>the ligatures, etc.) and doesn't need to make matters worse.
>
>I don't suppose one character would be so dreadful.
>
>--
>Michael Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta * http://www.indigo.ie/egt
>15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
>Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)
>27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire

This problem (how many teeny things are required to make one large thing)
is known as "Plato's Beard, a tangled doctrine that has often dulled the
edge of Ockham's Razor."--Willard Van Orman Quine

I am a great believer in not multiplying entities beyond necessity, one of
the later formulations of Ockham's suggestion. No, after 11,172 Johab
glyphs were promoted to characters, what's one or two, or three, or ...How
many would there be for IPA? Any estimates? How many distinguishable speech
sounds are there in 6700 languages?

--
Ed Cherlin    <edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu>
"Everything should be made as simple as possible,
_but no simpler_."  Attributed to Albert Einstein



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT