Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space in

Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 12:20:49 EST

On 02/20/2001 10:03:35 AM DougEwell2 wrote:

>> A nit to pick: It's the latin alphabet, not roman. Roman is a kind of
>> typeface, contrasting to sans serif aka grotesque.
>True. I have also heard "roman" used to mean the opposite of italic.

An alphabet is a type of writing system, something that is implemented for
a particular language. Certainly Latin is the name of a language while
Roman is not, and so "Latin alphabet" is correct while "Roman alphabet"
would not be.

If we are talking about the full collection of characters that are
historically related to the Latin alphabet, however, i.e. the entire
script, then I would need to see better argumentation and references than
this to convince me that it's incorrect to refer to "Roman script" as an
alternative for "Latin script". "Roman" is an adjective that can be
attributed to things that are associated with or derived from the ancient
Roman empire. Thus, it should be perfectly acceptable to say that Latin was
the Roman language. Indeed, if anything "Latin script" is less acceptable
since "Latin" suggests something constrained to the language Latin. Not all
of the characters that are included in the script in question are used for
Latin (indeed, the majority are not).

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:19 EDT