gender locale information (was Re: ISO/IEC 10646 and ISO/IEC 1)

From: Jefsey_Morfin (
Date: Sun Oct 01 2006 - 17:47:58 CST

  • Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "Re: gender locale information (was Re: ISO/IEC 10646 and ISO/IEC 1)"

    At 12:11 01/10/2006, Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
    >JFC Morfin schrieb:
    >>[...] So we should consider today at least four linguistic genders:
    >>male, female, computer, network.

    I am sorry I was tired, I forgot neuter.

    >Wow. What must I do, to appear as a network?!?
    >Do your realy consider this "linguistic genders"?

    Yes. Humans speak for a long time, computers only for 70 years and
    networks for 35. We should not delay their development because of
    unadapted thinking. Semantic processing is that languages become
    programming network languages. We obviously need a gender for the
    computer (ex. 2001 Space Odissey): ask women around you the gender of
    a computer. They will say masculine because they think computers are
    not as clever as a woman. This also means that we need a French "on"
    for a group of persons and computers (a network) with unprecise
    delimitations. Many legal, philosophical, logical issues are
    involved. Middle-Age has discussed the sex of the invisible angels,
    do you want us to do the same for the ubiquitous computers. The same
    as the male, female signs, we need equivalent new signs.

    >This realy gets off-topic.

    Tell me how to code a sign of authority (like a pennant) in Unicode?
    Multimedia dissolves the differences between the modes of expression
    of concepts. Up to now we were used to a few modes to convey content
    (language, voice, text, gestures, signs, flags, emblems/icons,
    colors) in a cultural context we all were used to. They all are
    converging now, so we must adapt to the support of other cultures'
    concepts, by necessity of interoperability, to understand what they mean.

    Graphemes supported by Unicode are a way to express concepts along an
    long standing experience, but more and more we mix them. Also
    Graphemes and Phonemes. Read an SMS. You use the same English words
    in German and in Swedish as I do in French because of the
    globalisation. Because of the globalisation we think they carry the
    same concept. But look into your dictionary and you will discover
    that globalization is partly the opposite of globalisation (we name
    "mondialisation" in French). Today many US citizens have diacritics
    in their name and are not equal to the others citizens because they
    cannot have the exact spelling of their name as a domain name. With
    people becoming more used to foreign languages, artists can use a
    letter of a script in a way which makes it look like another script
    to convey the idea that the word is exotic: what will be the code of
    a mirrored "a" to look Cyrillic?

    The problem of many standards is that their authors want them to
    "represent the rule". Either you decide the rule (and you decide of
    what is registered) or you represent the reality (and you register
    everything which is being used). Either you legislate or you inform.
    Doing both results in confusion.

    This is very difficult for a partly finalized standard as ISO 10646.
    As long as we stayed among humans, we had a long histeresis which
    matched the young age of Unicode. But Unicode has some years now, and
    the semantic processing is going at some stage to increase the
    character set because computers have increased many other
    possibilities before, and there is no reason why they would not do
    the same with "lexgraphonemes".


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 17:55:41 CST