Re: hexatridecimal internationalisation

From: George W Gerrity (
Date: Sat Jun 23 2007 - 01:45:33 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: hexatridecimal internationalisation"

    Thank you, Asmus. You have summarised my position exactly. Pity I
    also answered in in a long-winded way before I read yours.


    On 2007-06-23, at 15:00, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > On 6/22/2007 9:20 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
    >> that we're getting closer to list topic...
    >> [...]
    >>> Even if these ancients did have a separate set of symbols for
    >>> base 60, say, we have no need of them.
    >> On this I could not disagree with you more, particularly if there
    >> is a scholarly community studying these texts.
    > If there is an existing set of symbols in use by some community,
    > that would be worthy of investigation for encoding. George makes
    > that point that the (modern) community does not use such symbols to
    > discuss the concepts in the old texts. Where symbols exist in the
    > old texts themselves, they are worthy of investigation for encoding
    > in their own right - and I suspect for the scripts in question,
    > that is being done / has been done as part of the task of encoding
    > these ancient scripts.
    >>> I have an article somewhere that discusses computations and
    >>> computational algorithms used by the ancients, even translating
    >>> the source text into English, with illustrations of the
    >>> computations involved. The author of this article found no need
    >>> to use symbols other than 09 to talk about the computations.
    >> Sure. But (again assuming that these symbols exist as
    >> hypothesized) that is at best a transliteration. Your argument --
    >> if I understand it correctly -- is similar to saying that because
    >> we can represent Bengali unambiguously in Roman transliteration,
    >> we don't need to encode Bengali script in Unicode.
    > No, his argument is, that for purposes of discussing these
    > concepts, the modern community uses modern symbols and therefore
    > there is no need to hypothesize. Looking at what "might" be is not
    > useful - it is much more practical to research what is, and then
    > one can start to worry about whether and how this translates into
    > new character codes.
    > A./

    Dr George W Gerrity Ph: +61 2 6386 3431
    GWG Associates Fax: +61 2 6386 4431
    P O Box 229 Time: +10 hours (ref GMT)
    Harden, NSW 2587 PGP RSA Public Key Fingerprint:
    AUSTRALIA 73EF 318A DFF5 EB8A 6810 49AC 0763 AF07

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 23 2007 - 01:49:58 CDT