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

From: John Hudson (
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 13:33:04 EST

At 09:09 AM 2/20/2001 -0800, wrote:

>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).

The only thing that I insist on is that we maintain the distinction between
Roman and roman.

I wonder though, Peter, about your suggestion that '"Latin script" is less
acceptable since "Latin" suggests something constrained to the language
Latin'. Couldn't the same thing be said about 'Arabic script'?

John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks |
Vancouver, BC | All empty souls tend to extreme opinion. | W.B. Yeats |

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