From: Elliotte Rusty Harold (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 06:24:32 CDT
At 9:43 AM -0700 5/1/04, Peter Kirk wrote:
>For the record, I agree that Old Canaanite would be a better name.
>The reason for this is not primarily to be more Semito-centric, but
>rather to represent better the range of languages covered. For the
>same reason, Latin script should not be called English script,
>because English is only one of many languages using it.
Of course, Latin is also only one of many languages using the Latin
script. Of course, the name "Latin" also has the nice political
property that it's nobody's first language and only one very unusual
state's official language any more (Vatican City). But is there some
reason we call this the Latin script instead of the Roman script? Not
that I'm suggesting we change it now, of course. I'm just curious.
Some non-Unicode such use names like MacRoman instead of MacLatin.
-- Elliotte Rusty Harold firstname.lastname@example.org Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT