Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050523162726.042a3160@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 16:31:19 +0200
To: Erkki Kolehmainen <erkki.kolehmainen@kotus.fi>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: what is Latn?
Cc: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>, unicode@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <42917E1B.8080300@kotus.fi>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05FCC277@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
 <6.2.1.2.2.20050519013832.04254060@mail.jefsey.com>
 <428DEF1B.4000302@kotus.fi>
 <6.2.1.2.2.20050520164026.0531deb0@mail.jefsey.com>
 <42917E1B.8080300@kotus.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-To: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
Precedence: bulk

Dear Erkki,
I am sorry, but we worlds appart. You talk of subjective/historic aspects. 
I only talk of flawless standardisation wording. That you cannot assume 
that Latn script can be used to write French only because you feel you can. 
Neither than the worman with me is my wife, because you think it is. You 
have to prove it.
jfc



At 08:54 23/05/2005, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
>There is a multitude of languages that can be written with a choice of 
>scripts. Quite often a new script has been imposed by a government decree, 
>sometimes as an oppressive act, e.g. in the former Soviet Union. 
>Nevertheless, as the result, the particular language ends up having 
>litterature produced using also the imposed script and, furthermore, 
>especially the children have learned it. Consequently, even if the use of 
>the original script is reactivated, both do exist for the language. Thus, 
>the very real relation between languages and scripts is evolutionary, not 
>guided let alone dictated by the norms of any standards organization, 
>which can only observe and informatively document any given situation.
>
>I also fail to understand the rationale for your exemplary sentence.
>
>Erkki I. Kolehmainen
>
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
>>At 16:07 20/05/2005, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
>>
>>>When trying to follow this thread, I fail to understand why Mr. Morfin 
>>>keeps on insisting that a script could and should be defined as a closed 
>>>set (other than e.g. as a snapshot of what has been defined in a given 
>>>version of ISO 1064 _and_ Unicode). We may and do still encounter new 
>>>Latin characters (and more so: new characters of other scripts), many of 
>>>which will undoubtedly lead to a discussion on whether they are truly 
>>>new - yet to be encoded - characters or glyph variations or whatever. - 
>>>Nevertheless, a rose is a rose.
>>>
>>>Incidentally, as there is no absolute truth, it gets to be truly 
>>>impossible to agree on what characters (of a given script) are used for 
>>>a given language. We honestly tried that a few years ago in a CEN 
>>>Workshop for the languages of Europe (which we couldn't agree on, either).
>>>
>>>Erkki I. Kolehmainen
>>
>>I do not insist. I face people from this list who insist and 
>>cross-document at IETF and ISO to make accepted there are relations 
>>between languages and scripts (ISO 639-x and ISO 15924). And I try to 
>>understand the purpose and the nature of this relation they insist not to 
>>document (cf. Peter) in a normative manner. He accept that this relation 
>>can be documented but do not see why it should always documented.
>>I will give you an image. "I saw Jefsey and his woman". This may usually 
>>imply the you saw my wife with me. But you cannot tell it for sure and 
>>document there is such a relation. This "woman" could be a partner in a 
>>bowling game, and actually Peter's wife.
>>jfc
>
>
>
>