Re: [langue-fr] L'anglais est-il une langue universelle ?

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 17:00:54 EST

Actually, Alain, there are numerous ways in which such a wonderful point
could be made without offending people. I am certain you could think of
dozens of ways that someone might offend you with a particular approach for
what might otherwise be a good a point. Perhaps the next time you could
imagine those dozens of ways and then perhaps just take excerpts from the
unattributed article?

Maybe worth a thought? :-)


Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alain LaBonté " <>
To: "Unicode List" <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [langue-fr] L'anglais est-il une langue universelle ?

> À 13:07 2000-12-20 -0800, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan a écrit:
> >I have not seen a posting from you that would answer Tex's questions. The
> >entire post was inflammatory, and given the fact that you do apparently
> >associate it with your own feelings vis-a-vis French/English in Quebec it
> >even becomes to some degree self-serving.
> [Alain] You have the right to think so. Everytime somebody posts a
> document, there is always a message. So to a certain poiut we can say --
> even in your case -- that any message sent by somebody is self-serving.
> [Michael]
> >So, lets try again, shall we? :-)
> >
> >For the record, please count me in as one of those who was offended
> >personally (as discussed earlier by Rick).
> >
> >1) Why is this pertinent to the Unicode list?
> [Alain] Reread this (the reason why I sent it to the list):
> [unknow author]
> >The Chinese, along with many
> >other Asians wonder why some people dare talk about an international
> >as long as the Chinese have to type addresses in Latin characters. So,
> >have devised their own addressing system that uses ideograms. Some
> >think that as long as the Unicode standard does not become universal,
there is
> >a distinct risk for various countries to go their own way for domain
> >and other "details" important enough to give birth to separate networks
> >will no longer be cross-communication compatible. Therefore,
> >internationalization must permit people to fully localize not only
> >but
> >also interfaces. If we had forgotten all about it, the Internet is here
> >remind us that the only thing that truly deserves to be qualified
> >"international" can only transcend national borders because everyone
> >tend
> >to make it his own.
> [Michael]
> >2) What is it you are asking Unicode to keep doing or stop doing (which
> >be clearer once you answer #1).
> [Alain] I had no intent of asking anything, but since you provoke me, I
> found something with which I wholeheartedly agree:
> >International forums and discussion groups should welcome contributions
in all
> >languages if their participants were really seeking the best and most
> >interesting contributions. [...] If people want the best
> >from the Internet, they have to invite back the best by first realizing
> >original thoughts automatically entail the use of original modes of
> >expression.
> I know... You don't want to hear about it. It leads to total chaos.
> Like the actual world. And Unicode helps the world keeping this chaos
> ("chaos" being one possible intepretation, not mine, as I think the
> opposite: nature diversity is the most divine attribute of the universe
> if Babel had not existed we should have invented it, as otherwise we'd
> better be like molecules of a same, dull gas).
> Alain LaBonté
> Québec

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT