RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 04:54:26 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)"


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mike Ayers []

    > > >And it might make sense to interleave (say) Thai and Lao in the
    > > >default ordering.
    > >
    > > No, it wouldn't.
    > That's not an argument...

            Hmmm? Are you looking for some kind of formalized way to say,
    "That doesn't make sense?"

    ??? No.

     The burden of proof here is on who claims, not who disputes. WHY would
    interleaving Thai and Lao make sense? Do all Thai read Lao, and vice

    Because the Lao letters derive from the Thai letters, AND both are
    basically ordered the same way.
    (Sorry for taking that as being generally known.) NOT interfiling them
    is a bit like not interfiling,
    e.g., all the math A-Z with the ASCII A-Z. (Ok, that may be pushing the
    parallel a bit far.)

    (The Thai letters in turn derive from the Khmer letters... Though the
    apparent distance is a bit larger,
    so interfiling that one too would not be a good idea.)

    > > Such interleaving is the peculiarity. It renders an ordered text
    > > illegible to interleave Kannada, Sinhala, and Gujarati.
    > Why? If the text that is ordered is in just one of the scripts,
    > the result is of couse in that one script.

            Which is exactly the same result for noninterleaving. Errr -
    what was the point, then?

    I'm saying that the interfiling does not matter for those that use only
    one of the scripts. For those that use multiple very closely related
    (both in letter set and internal ordering) scripts, interfiling makes

                /kent k


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 05:01:24 CDT