Ar 11:02 -0800 1997-11-26, scr�obh Mansour, Kamal:
>On Wed 26 Nov 1997 10:37, Siobhan Harper-Jones wrote:
>
>* Besides, unlike Gothic, isn't Coptic still used as a contemporary liturgical
>* language, as well as an everyday language in some circles? That would mean
>* that Unicode, according to its charter, would treat it differently, as a
>* living script, than it would treat Gothic, which is strictly paleographic,
>* and Old Church Slavonic, which (I understand) is a historical liturgical
>* language. So maybe the ongoing comparison of the Coptic situation with
>* Gothic and Old Church Slavonic is somewhat misleading.
>*
>* As a living language, it would merit its own script, I would think,
>* regardless of its historical origins. After all, if you wanted to represent
>* all the Indic-derived Southeast Asian scripts in the Devanagari range, you
>* could justify that under the same reasoning as Coptic/Greek unification. But
>* Unicode has distinct code points for Tibetan, Burmese, Lao, Thai, etc., even
>* though they're all basically elaborate variations on Sanskrit ka, kha, ga,
>* gha, nga, and so forth.
>
>Unfortunately, Coptic has not been a living language since the last century.
>Except for a handful of aficionados who are making an active effort to revive
>the language , Coptic is used exclusively in scholarly circles and in the
>>liturgy of the Coptic Church.
I still don't see any reason that it should be unified with Greek.
-- Michael Everson, EGT * http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein �ochtarach; Baile �tha Cliath 2; �ire (Ireland) Guth�in: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396 27 P�irc an Fh�ithlinn; Baile an Bh�thair; Co. �tha Cliath; �ire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT