From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 05:37:15 CDT
At 11:54 +0200 2004-05-13, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>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 versa?
>Because the Lao letters derive from the Thai letters, AND both are
>basically ordered the same way.
What? The same can be said for Latin and Greek and Etruscan and
Gothic and Coptic.
>(Sorry for taking that as being generally known.)
Thais and Laos are NOT universally literate in each other's scripts.
A telephone book interfiling the two scripts would be a hopeless and
It astonishes me that simple things like this are missed by some of
you people, who are far too clever for your own good. ;-)
>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
Not at all. It's pure and utter nonsense, that's all.
>(The Thai letters in turn derive from the Khmer letters...
That's not correct.
>Though the apparent distance is a bit larger, so interfiling that
>one too would not be a good idea.)
They all derive from Brahmi, which derives from Aramaic, so why don't
we just interfile all of them?
>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 sense.
I disagree 100%. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 05:40:59 CDT