[Fwd: Re: ISO 15924 and differences in French names of scripts]

From: François Yergeau (francois@yergeau.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 11:08:34 CST

  • Next message: Velasquez, Carlos: "ANSI and Unicode for x00 - xFF"

    Samuel Thibault a écrit :
    > I'm not a specialist, but I can give some personal view.

    And here is a view from one of the main contributors to Blocks-4.0.0.txt

    > Michael Everson, le Tue 25 Oct 2005 15:55:46 +0100, a écrit :
    >
    >>ISO 15924 Blocks-4.0.0.txt
    >
    >
    >>ancien italique alphabet italique
    >
    > they respectively mean "old italic" and "italic alphabet". The issue
    > here is hence whether one needs to express "old".

    We thought not. There is no "new" Italic alphabet. See also the TILF
    (http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/displayp.exe?13;s=1938605880;i=ft-1-2.htm;;)
    : "LING. Langues italiques. Langues parlées dans la partie centrale de
    l'Italie antique dont fait partie le latin. Le latin, l'ombrien et
    l'osque étaient les principales langues italiques (DAVAU-COHEN 1972)."
    Italique already contains the notion of ancient.

    >>bouhide bouhid
    >
    > bouhide seems more frenchish.

    But is not. The latter is far more prevalent, to the point that
    instances of the former look like typos.

    >>laotien lao
    >
    > laotien is probably more correct.

    They are just synonyms, both listed in Larousse (a very widespread and
    authoritative dictionnary) as such.

    >>osmanais osmanya
    >
    > osmanais is most probably more correct.

    Both seem to be attested, with a narrow win for the latter.

    >>runique runes
    >
    > runes is the correct word.

    Correct. But "runique" is not wrong, it is an adjective, the
    substantive "écriture" (script) being implied. "runes" simply
    designates the whole set with a single word.

    >>syllabaire autochtone canadien unifié syllabaires autochtones canadiens
    >
    > "unifié" means "unified". Is there a need to express "unified"?

    We thought not.

    > Else,
    > the trailing 's'-es give a plural form. Is there a plural form in the
    > original english name?

    "Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics".

    > As for accents differences, I'd say the version without accents is
    > probably wrong :)

    Not quite. Several of the Indian script names have learned forms
    (formes savantes) with a macron, a circumflex often serving as a
    fallback (with some usage). But the unaccented forms are more prevalent
    and retained by Larousse. As for "déseret", I couldn't locate a single
    instance outside of ISO 15924. 

    -- 
François Yergeau

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 11:09:26 CST