From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 03:25:05 CDT
Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
> In Indic encoding each language has it's code allocation as scripts
> are totally different, unlike Latin where most of the aplphabet
> looks and means similar.
Considering the languages that use the Latin script, yes the letters looks
similar. But the meaning varies considerably between the languages. If you
have a look at API (or any phonological Latin-based system) you will have an
idea about the central meaning of the basic letters, around which the
various languages are fiddling, but there are some letters which experiment
wide variations, like Z, J, H, or C/G.
Now I heard that Nepali shares the same script (under Unicode) as Hindi, yet
the sounds of the letters differ. I guess similar cases could be found for
other scripts vs. lesser used languages in India (and I _know_ it is the
case for various if not all the scripts of South-East Asia, which are also
Brahmi-related).
At the other side, Cyrillic and Greek have a great deal of similarity with
the Latin script, yet they have been considered different enough to warrant
their own encodings. Same for lower and upper case. But not the same for
Italic vs. Roman style, which has been unified.
Bottom line, do not try to oppose Indic scripts and European scripts; in
fact there is a continuum of implementation choices over centuries, no place
for manicheism here.
Antoine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 03:25:57 CDT