On 10 Jul 2012, at 19:48, Satyakam Phukan wrote:
>>> People conquered by the ancient Romans are not true inheritors of the Roman heritage, only the Italians, Romanians and their subgroups are true inheritors of the Romans.
>>
>> This is complete nonsense. I don't know where you learnt your history, but there is no such thing as "the true inheritors" of the Romans. Nor can it be said that the Spanish or the Portuguese are "false inheritors" of the Romans.
>>
> That is indeed the fact.
>
> Dr Satyakam Phukan
Even if it were (which it is not) it wouldn't make any difference to the argument. Nobody who uses the Latin script worries that the script is named LATIN in the Unicode Standard. Nobody who uses the Bengali script (and that includes the Assamese, the Meitei, the Bishnupriya Manipuri, Kokborok, Garo, and Mundari) should worry that the script is named BENGALI in the Unicode Standard. It doesn't make *any difference*.
> That is the truth, conquered people do not qualify for that.
As an Irish citizen I tell you truly, I do not care a whit for all this talk of conquerors and conquered. Today is today. I publish children's books in many languages, some of which help to encourage children to be proud of their language. It's today's pride that matters, not yesterday's invasion.
> Otherwise Spaniards would have been called inheritors of Moorish legacy also, in fact they do use many Arabic origin word like "El" (El Dorado) coming from Arabic "Al".
This is incorrect. The "El" in "El Dorado" comes from Latin demonstrative article "ille".
Please stick to medicine; historical linguistics does not seem to be your forte. And please do not continue writing to me privately, because if I respond, I will do so publicly, as I have done here.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Tue Jul 10 2012 - 14:26:28 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jul 10 2012 - 14:26:44 CDT