Details, please (was: Re: Romanized Singhala got great reception in Sri Lanka)

From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:27:21 -0700

I think what some of us would like to see are detailed examples, citing
specific characters and combinations, rather than general rhetoric, to
support claims like this:

"Anyway my complaint is that Unicode Singhala is incomplete and wrong
and that it has a deleterious effect on the language, one of the oldest
in the world. What's aggravating is that they institutionalize errors as
correct. Rev. Fr. Perera warned against this 80 years ago. I suppose I
wouldn't have much to say if the 58 phonemes are used to replace the
ones there. It will not happen."

and these, from the web site:

"[Romanized Singhala] is stable as it is safe from rules imposed by
Unicode Consortium based on misinformation, and careless mangling of the
language by disinterested bureaucrats."

"Unicode Sinhala is a failure and cannot be fixed. That is because the
premise on which it was designed is flawed."

"Abugida is a writing system relegated to the sideline, as inherently
incapable of a smooth interface with the computer. This is what Unicode
Sinhala suffers from."

Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | @DougEwell
Unicode mailing list
Received on Tue Mar 18 2014 - 12:28:40 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Mar 18 2014 - 12:28:40 CDT