RE: English Spelling

From: Reynolds, Gregg (
Date: Fri Dec 10 1999 - 17:52:16 EST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:15 PM
> <snip>
> This is an awful writing system!!!

Great move! I can't top it. Game, set, and match to Marco.

> Does Unicode really need to support this strange language?
> Does someone
> really need to use this script on computers? Who? Where? Why?
> How large is
> their users base? Did they submit a proper proposal? Why
> dodn't they use
> Cyrillic instead?
> If (for some odd political reasons) this really really cannot
> be avoided, I
> would at least recommend to encode all these <ough>'s as
> separate letters:
> 0220;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OUGH LIKE OW;Ll;0;L;<compat> 004F 0055 0047
> 0048;;;;N;;English;;0230;
> <snip>

I forsee major battles over the cannonical decomposition. Should <ough> =
<o><u><g><h>? Wouldn't it be better if each decomposed to its phonological
analog? I.e., <ough> = <o><w> and <u><f><f>, etc.? In any case we clearly
need a set of new glyphs. I propose little line portraits of Shaw, Wilde,
Whistler, and the rest of the gang.

Happy weekend,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:56 EDT