From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:11:14 EST
----- Message d'origine -----
De: "Philippe Verdy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: "Patrick Andries" <Patrick.Andries@xcential.com>
> > > In this condition, why couldn't Latin glyphs be among
> > > these, when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract
> > > character set covered by all scripts in the Tifinagh family?
> > Because it is best to use Tifinagh glyphs as representative glyphs of
> > Tifinagh script?
> No: the simple reason is the choice of the "representative" glyph, which
> will probably be accurate for one cultural convention but completely wrong
> another, as that glyph represent another phoneme coded at a different
> place where another "representative" glyph is used, which may also be
I understood your objection. I answered this is rare and names help.
> Look at the phonemic meaning of the glyph that looks like two triangles,
> pointing top and bottom to each other. Look at the glyph which looks like
> moon crescent (open on right side) with a dot in the middle... Which
> phonemic value do they have? This depends on cultural conventions, and it
> really looks as if there was not _one_ but several distinct Tifinagh
> using the same glyphs but with incompatible phonemic values...
1) Could you tell me what the values of those characters are for you and in
which varieties of the script ? I know of this sand-glass character but I
have a single suspicious source giving me this as having a different value
from the traditional one. I'll happily collect a second source (en privé si
tu veux) to list ambiguities. Could you also be specific for the
2) As mentioned before, characters have a name and it can be used to
uniquely identify the character if need be (i.e. the referential glyph is
only a help and may not be sufficient to uniquely identify a character).
> > But I agree that chosing the representative glyphs
> > may become a sensitive issue if the Tifinagh script is to be unified,
> > school might feel offended that its preferred glyphs were not chosen in
> > ISO/IEC 10646. This does not necessarily mean that Tifinagh should be
> > encoded with an easy Latin mapping in mind.
> I'm just suggesting that if the phonemic encoding model is used,
I don't know if this is what will be chosen (note that this is different
from your name-based scheme you suggested a few messages ago).
> the choice
> of "representative" glyphs will create confusion, as it will privilegiate
> one interpretation of the glyphs and not the other one. Polemics are
> present on the Internet because of the choice of interpretation that has
> been made by Morocco, which excludes other interpretations.
Could I have a pointer ? Tu peux me l'envoyer sous courriel privé.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:47:23 EST