N.L. Liwal wrote:
>In case of UNICODE we are talking of SCRIPT
>and LANGUAGES, "not dialects". A language may have
>100 dialects, but use one or rearely two scripts,
You are Right.
Once again, the list I used was an *extract* from a list of *dialects*, in
fact it was not appropriate for the task, as I agreed. I used that list just
because it was one click away, so I thought that it could have been a
quick-and-dirty hack. But it wasn't. And your estimate of Pashto speakers is
correct, also according to my encyclopedia.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: N.R.Liwal [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 2000 January 26, Wednesday 19.09
> To: Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Unicode top 100 (was RE: Unicode 3.0 press statements)
> Dear Mr. Marco;
> In case of UNICODE we are talking of SCRIPT
> and LANGUAGES, "not dialects". A language may have
> 100 dialects, but use one or rearely two scripts,
> like Malay.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com>
> > Liwal wrote:
> > >The 18 Million figure for Pashto Speakers is wrong.
> > >The actual Estimate is more then 45 millions, I do not know who
> > >are making the wrong calculations. I Sugget amendment to this
> > r>ecords.
> > I apologize with everybody for that silly idea: please allow me to
> > the proposal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT