Re: Back to Coptic (was: Demystifying the Politburo)

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 13:14:13 CDT

  • Next message: "Re: Back to Coptic"

    Michael Everson a écrit :

    > At 10:38 -0400 2005-07-08, Patrick Andries wrote:
    >> Michael Everson a écrit :
    >>> We're not going to do that. It would introduce inconsistency in
    >>> representation of Coptic text.
    >> Why do you say "we" when you express your opinion? How do you know
    >> what the WG2 will decide regarding a reference glyph change in the
    >> years to come?
    > Think what you like.

    You don't answer why you so often use the collective « we ». Not only
    in this thread.

    > I will stand with Stephen Emmel and his Copticist colleagues.

    And you know what he or his colleagues will do in the years to come or
    even what these colleagues currently think ?

    You know that Stephen Emmel initially requested it with a bar, before he
    was convinced that a symbol should be split in some way (very odd indeed)...

    As far as some of his colleagues (mentioned in the PDF above), I have
    discussed with one prominent one who described initially the whole
    effort as a **font** encoding («Professeur Emmel, qui s'occupe des
    fontes unicode») befor eto this surprise I explained that this was
    rather a character encoding effort. You will understand I have doubts
    about their precising understanding of the character encoding aspect and
    the possibility ambiguity (two ways of writing the same symbol) you have
    introduced. Most of them are far more interested in translating newly
    found papyri, printing a new lexicon, unveiling a new apocryphic
    testament that delving into character-glyph considerations. I therefore
    very much doubt you can speak in their name even more what they or their
    successors will think in a few years.

    > I do not support the introduction of encoding ambiguity in Coptic, and
    > I will argue against it as I have here.

    And this is why you favour allowing people to refer to the same
    abbreviation/symbol in two different ways (bar and no bar).
    So much for your noble goal.

    I think this will come to revisit us again as new users are confronted
    to this encoding and understand what is now requested of them.

    Let's see. I thought we were reaching a consensus, but again since you
    answered this is turning into a shouting match. I'm simply not interested.

    Time will tell if « your » model applied to a symbol will cause problems
    or not.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 13:16:05 CDT