Re: Phoenician

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 09:59:35 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: TR35"

    On 09/05/2004 01:05, Peter Constable wrote:

    >I think one's track record in making judgments on boundary cases is
    >established only after having successfully dealt with boundary cases --
    >and enough to establish a level of confidence. Of things already in
    >Unicode, what have been boundary cases between unificiation and
    >The unified Latin-but-not-Cyrillic w & q (if I've recalled the two
    >letters correctly) and Coptic/Greek characters are the only prior
    >boundary cases I can think of.
    And these two cases are hardly a good advertisement for the expert's
    reputation. The Coptic/Greek unification proved to be ill-advised and is
    being undone. As for the unified W and Q, well, I guess that if the
    Kurds and others who use these letters in Cyrillic knew how this
    decision would mean that their alphabet will never be sorted correctly
    (unless they get round to tailoring their collations), they would make a
    strongly argued case for disunification. Well, perhaps the expert can
    feel how much his fingers have been burned by over-unification and so is
    now pressing for everything to be disunified.

    And then there is the matter of CJK unification, which I gather is still
    rather contentious.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 10 2004 - 23:59:23 CDT