cowan at ccil.org
Fri Nov 24 21:46:28 CET 2006
Gerard Meijssen scripsit:
> When the Chinese decided to move away from the traditional script,
> they came up with a new script, which is the simplified script. It
> is a different script because it is the /characters /themselves
> that were changed. This is different from a change in orthography,
> like the one that happened for the Dutch language in 2005, because
> here the arrangement of characters changed but the characters
> themselves stayed the same.
That's a very artificial distinction. When Russian removed some
letters and added another, was that a change in script? Clearly not.
> There are several ways of describing languages phonetically. The
> most relevant is IPA.
That depends entirely on your scholarly tradition; there are many
languages for which the IPA representation is entirely *ir*relevant.
> IPA has a specific set of characters. Each describes a particular
> sound well. The registration of an IPA notation is either done by
> having a good ear or by having software that does this for you.
(Does such software really exist? I doubt it.)
> The ISO 15924 is about scripts. If IPA is not just Latin
> characters, I can imagine that there is an argument for having it
> considered a separate script. When this is the case however, I can
> imagine that this creates its own problems because an IPA
> character is then NOT a Latin character and they can then not be
> intermixed .. right ?
Not so. There are characters that are both Hant and Hans. Indeed,
there are characters A, B, and C such that A is the simplified
version of B, but B is the simplified version of C -- Hant users
use B and C, Hans users use A and B.
Andrew Watt on Microsoft: John Cowan
Never in the field of human computing cowan at ccil.org
has so much been paid by so many http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)
More information about the Ietf-languages