Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician)

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 06:01:33 CDT

  • Next message: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin: "Re: Writing Tatar using the Latin script; new characters to encode?"

    Doug Ewell a écrit :

    >Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
    >>Because each such case has to be judged on its individual merits,
    >>according to proper justification and user requirements. There can be
    >>no hard rules like "always split" or "always join".
    >Nobody, neither Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a rule.
    I certainly don't think there is one rule or one definition, but I can
    well imagine several factors and thus guidelines. I just hope there is
    some regularity in the justifications and one does not eschew
    questioning (as above) by saying every case is different. This sounds
    sometimes a bit too arbitrary to me.

    Do no intrinsic objective qualities of scripts (number of symbols,
    recognizability of the symbols (?), contextual handling, directionality,
    etc.) explain the spliting/joining and, in the last resort, are the
    reasons to be found in the way the user communities feel (as interpreted
    by the proposers) and acceptable genealogy (this unencoded script is a
    "too distant relative" to any encoded script or it is an ancestor to
    more than just the scripts already encoded and we need to cover those
    other scripts used). Well, those would be guidelines at least.

    No hard rules, but guidelines.

    P. A.

    In the case above, I was more interested in knowing what Peter Kirk
    thought were the reasons Greek and Coptic should have been disunified.
    I'm sorry to have asked.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 06:02:19 CDT