jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr24.181121.6212@parc.xerox.com>, daniels@parc.xerox.com (Andy Daniels) writes: |> [...] |> Sufficient for you, perhaps, but not for me. By your criteria, DIS |> 10646 doesn't support Rhade, a close neighbor of Vietnamese, nor does |> it support Navajo. Moving away from Latin, where's Tamil? where's |> Tibetan? ^^^^^^ Could you be more specific? The Navajo never had their own writing (the only indian tribe that did are the Cheyenne). To be sure, the linguists have special symbols for phonemes of indian languages, but they have that for all languages and I doubt there's any advantage trying to include them all in a character set. For the most part, all Navajo I've seen written was in the ordinary Latin alphabet. J. Giles
dlv@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math) (04/28/91)
ISO 10646 doesn't include Glagolitic, the obsolete script required for Slavic studies. UNICODE does, of course. :) Dimitri Vulis CUNY GC Math DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET DLV@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
dlv@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.013333.22687@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu>, dlv@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math) writes: >ISO 10646 doesn't include Glagolitic, the obsolete script required for >Slavic studies. UNICODE does, of course. :) Oops!! I goofed, I'm sorry to say. UNICODE 1.0 doesn't have Glagolitic, but the document says that the later version will. On the other hand, 10646 had it originally, and they dropped it. Sorry about the above inaccuracy... Dimitri Vulis CUNY GC Math DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET DLV@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) (04/30/91)
In article <22694@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >In article <1991Apr24.181121.6212@parc.xerox.com>, daniels@parc.xerox.com (Andy Daniels) writes: >|> [...] >|> Sufficient for you, perhaps, but not for me. By your criteria, DIS >|> 10646 doesn't support Rhade, a close neighbor of Vietnamese, nor does >|> it support Navajo. Moving away from Latin, where's Tamil? where's >|> Tibetan? > ^^^^^^ > >Could you be more specific? The Navajo never had their own writing >(the only indian tribe that did are the Cheyenne). To be sure, the >linguists have special symbols for phonemes of indian languages, but >they have that for all languages and I doubt there's any advantage >trying to include them all in a character set. For the most part, >all Navajo I've seen written was in the ordinary Latin alphabet. > >J. Giles Navaho is written in roman, using a number of accent marks and does not use a special script. Cherokee uses the complex but brilliant script invented by Sequoyah in 1825. Peter H. Salus -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sun User Group, Inc; Suite 315; 1330 Beacon St.; Brookline, MA 02146 voice +1 617 232-0514 fax +1 617 232-1347
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr30.130515.5049@world.std.com>, peter@world.std.com (Peter Salus) writes: |> In article <22694@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: |> > [...] |> >(the only indian tribe that did are the Cheyenne). [...] ^^^^^^^^ |> [...] |> Navaho is written in roman, using a number of accent marks and |> does not use a special script. Cherokee uses the complex ^^^^^^^^ |> but brilliant script invented by Sequoyah in 1825. Yes, quite correct. My apologies to both the Cheyenne and the Cherokee for my mistake. That's what I get for typing without looking-up first. J. Giles
daniels@parc.xerox.com (Andy Daniels) (05/01/91)
In article <22694@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > >Could you be more specific? The Navajo never had their own writing >(the only indian tribe that did are the Cheyenne). To be sure, the >linguists have special symbols for phonemes of indian languages, but >they have that for all languages and I doubt there's any advantage >trying to include them all in a character set. For the most part, >all Navajo I've seen written was in the ordinary Latin alphabet. > As someone else has already pointed out, Navajo uses Latin with diacritics. One combination used for Navajo that I can't find in 10646 is i-ognek-acute (or is it i-acute-ognek). Of course, I may not be looking hard enough -- to answer my own question, Thai is on page 98 :-) I'd expect to find Lao somewhere near by, but it's nowhere to be found. Has it been unified with Thai? -- Andy. --