Re: Latin Script

From: Tulasi (tulasird@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 03 2010 - 18:25:41 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "UTS#10 (collation) : French backwards level 2, and word-breakers."

    Jonathan is absolutely right!
    I did read as well, but looks like quick reading habit lacks efficiency :-')

    Tulasi

    From: Jonathan Rosenne <jr@qsm.co.il>
    Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:44:18 +0300
    Subject: RE: Latin Script
    To: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>, unicode@unicode.org

    Did you not read my answer to you of June 7?

    Quote

    How about

    A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z

    ?

    There are also some extensions, see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet for general background.

    Unquote

    Best regards,

    Jony Rosenne

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On
    > Behalf Of Tulasi
    > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 3:32 AM
    > To: unicode@unicode.org
    > Subject: Re: Latin Script
    >
    > It seems I made a minor mistake on "classic Latin script"
    > According to link
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Latin_alphabet
    > J U W are not included in "classic Latin script".
    >
    > Tulasi
    >
    >
    > From: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>
    > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:53:05 -0700
    > Subject: Re: Latin Script
    > To: vanisaac@boil.afraid.org
    > Cc: Edward Cherlin <echerlin@gmail.com>, unicode@unicode.org, Mark
    > Davis ? <mark@macchiato.com>, Otto Stolz <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>,
    > Jonathan Rosenne <jr@qsm.co.il>
    >
    > Actually, if I do not see letters/symbols along with names, in some
    > cases I cannot recognize. I am not a typographer either.
    >
    > So like
    > Edward -> Close, but not quite. Consider LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (?)
    > it would be great should you please post both name & letter/symbol
    > associated with the name.
    >
    > Van -> Do you want to consider Y and Z as not Latin letters, because
    > they were borrowed from Greek
    >
    > I din't think Latin speakers borrowed. From my memory hole they had
    > adopted from Greek. And since this adoption was the work of true Latin
    > speakers all ALL CAPS, i.e., A B C ... ... ... Z are known to be
    > "classic Latin script". Also see the email by Jonathan Rosenne.
    >
    > If you read Edward's email he highlighted on chronology (of adoption
    > from different scripts).
    >
    > Did true Latin speakers adopt LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (?) to Latin
    > script?
    > Or was it done very recently after Unicode was created?
    >
    > May I ask Van please,
    > can you post both names & symbols/letters that you referred in your
    > email?
    > Also please show how how GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI looks like.
    >
    > This will help me to understand!
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Tulasi
    >
    >
    > From: vanisaac@boil.afraid.org
    > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:43:18 -0700
    > Subject: Re: Latin Script
    > To: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>, Edward Cherlin <echerlin@gmail.com>
    > Cc: unicode@unicode.org, Mark Davis ? <mark@macchiato.com>, Otto Stolz
    > <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>, vanisaac@boil.afraid.org, Jonathan
    > Rosenne <jr@qsm.co.il>
    >
    > From: Tulasi <tulasird@gmail.com>
    >
    > > Thanks for the input Edward!
    > > Yep, I shell explore time-chronology as well.
    > >
    > > Edward -> Close, but not quite. Consider LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (?).
    >
    > Amazingly, I consider Latin Small Letter Phi to be a part of the Latin
    > script. Why?: in my typographic life, I would design it differently
    > from Greek small Letter Phi. The Greek phi needs to work with other
    > Greek letters. The Latin phi needs to work in phonetic notation, which
    > is Latin letters; it needs to have more contrast with Latin Small
    > Letter Q than the Greek phi, so it has an ascender. As a Classicist, a
    > Greek phi with an ascender interrupts the flow of text, unless in a
    > slant font, so it is designed quite differently from Latin Small
    > Letter Phi. It's just like Cyrillic Dze and Sha, which have been
    > borrowed from Latin and Coptic, are designed and act like Cyrillic
    > letters.
    >
    > > Mark gave a new link of letter/symbol that has LATIN (thanks Mark!):
    > > Mark -> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-
    > unicodeset.jsp?a=[:script=Latn:]&g=age
    > >
    > > Now, how many letters/symbols in that link are like "LATIN SMALL
    > > LETTER PHI (?)", i.e., not from Latin-script?
    >
    > there's really no way to make any sort of distinction like that. Do
    > you want to consider Y and Z as not Latin letters, because they were
    > borrowed from Greek, not adapted from Etruscan? How about ? and Wynn?
    > They are from Runic. Should U+019B, Latin Small Letter Lambda with
    > Stroke be considered not Latin, even though it is not found in any
    > other script? There are a number of these, and the only classification
    > that is not completely arbitrary is to consider them ALL to be part of
    > the Latin script, including Latin Small Letter Phi.
    >
    > > Also, how do I find the list of letters/symbols that do not have
    > LATIN
    > > in names but from Latin-script?
    >
    > The Spacing Modfier Letters and Combining Diacritical Marks may also
    > need to be included for a really comprehensive list, and these are
    > contained in their own blocks, Phonetic Extensions, and Phonetic
    > Extensions Supplement. Then the question is whether you should include
    > Devanagari Om. What about Currency signs? Punctuation? Should it
    > simply be the union of Script=common and Script=Latin? Script=common
    > includes puntucation from all languages, so you end up with Dandas and
    > Arabic commas, is that right? The question really only makes sense if
    > it has context: for what purpose are you defining something as Latin
    > script?
    >
    > > Tulasi
    >
    > Van
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 03 2010 - 18:31:54 CDT