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

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 14:00:27 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Back to Coptic (was: Demystifying the Politburo)"

    At 14:14 -0400 2005-07-08, Patrick Andries wrote:

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

    I speak for myself and the co-author of the
    proposal, and with reference to existing UTC and
    WG2 consensus. I have also used "we" when
    discussing N'Ko with you, and when I have done
    so, I have done so with the approval of the
    co-authors of that proposal. You, provocatively,
    constantly refer to things like this as *my*
    proposals, when in fact they are joint efforts.
    We consider that to be disrespectful, but I've
    come to expect that from you, Mr Andries. It is
    part of your rhetorical repertoire. It is

    >>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 ?

    It is absurd to suggest that they will wish to
    undo the work which has been completed, after
    many, many years, to encode Coptic separately
    from Greek.

    >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

    Professor Emmel and I worked at length in Münster
    revising and revising and revising again the
    proposal. It is there that the decisions
    regarding the encoding model for Coptic were
    made. Professor Emmel is no fool, and neither am

    >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

    It seems to me that you have a difficulty in
    understanding encoding models, and in listening
    to explanations when they are given. I have not
    introduced ambiguity. We have chosen an encoding
    model in which the abbreviation bar is in *all*
    cases explicitly encoded with a combining

    >>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.

    Your attack here is imprecise., and your sarcasm
    inappropriate. I do not "allow" people to "refer"
    to abbreviations at all. What we have done is to
    apply an encoding model simply and consistently.
    We have encoded SYMBOL SHIMA SIMA as a text
    element, and we expect that people will always
    use it in conjunction with COMBINING OVERLINE.
    This isn't difficult.

    >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.

    The text in the Unicode Standard will explain
    this point, as, apparently, it requires

    >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

    That's your usual rhetorical response when clear
    answers are given to questions and you don't like
    them. All I have done is answer the questions.
    You've started the attacks with your assumption
    that what I say is untrustworthy.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 14:02:54 CDT