From: busmanus (busmanus.lk@freemail.hu)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 17:33:33 CDT
Mike Ayers wrote:
>
> > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
> > Behalf Of Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin
> > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 7:28 AM
>
> > On 2004.07.02, 21:53, Mike Ayers <mike.ayers@tumbleweed.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On the other hand, maybe "Ha Tinh" is just lazy typography.
> > >
> > > From National Geographic? Medoubts. This is a deliberate removal
> > > of the diacritics unfamiliar to English readers, and is a
> > > traditional way to present foreign words.
> >
> > It is lazy typography, then. "Deliberate", "traditional" and lazy. ;-)
>
> No. "Lazy" implies not doing something to avoid doing the
> work. This is not the case here. It's an accessibility issue.
Perhaps it is. But then it's partly due to the "lazy" tradition.
> > Can't the "remove diacriticals" action be performed in the reader's
> > brain, instead of in the typesetter's office?
>
> Again, for at least some of us (and I suspect this is a majority
> of the population unfamiliar with a given diacritic), simply ignoring
> diacritics is not an option
I don't think it's a problem with any given diacritical. Its rather
an indistinct horror of diacriticals in general in speakers of a
language without any diacriticals at all, like English. E.g.
Hungarian uses three diacriticals and Hungarian speakers make no
big deal of just ignoring the "meaningless" caron in Czech or the grave
and the cedilla in Roumanian names.
On the other hand, I must admit, that we also can be quite brutal
to diacriticals in some newspapers or when it comes to a language
like Vietnamese...
____________________________________________________________________
Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol.
Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 06 2004 - 17:24:45 CDT