Re: More orthographic miscellanea (was: Chinese Romanization)
|From:||Tamas Racsko <tracsko@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, September 12, 2004, 21:52|
On 12 Sep 2004 John Cowan <cowan@CCI...> wrote:
> The Romanians have complained about this unification and have
> prevailed: Unicode contains s-comma and t-comma now, and there is also
> Latin-10 (ISO 8859-16), which contains both s- and t-comma.
I know it but this is the future (I mean implementation of Latin-
10 fonts e.g. in Microsoft products), but we were talking about the
I think it is a bit anachronistic to project present
typographical nuances into the past. And my examples served only
to demonstrate the irrelevance of these nuances in the past and
their insignificance for another parties. Even the Rumanians would
be sensitive to their comma-below, Turks should not be -- just as
designers of Latin-2.
> As for RFC 1345, it's obsolete.
It is obsolete _now_. The importance of RFC 1345 is the fact
that comma-below and cedilla were not distinguished at all. And I
think it was similar in case of Atatürk's spelling reform. I
mentioned RFC 1345 to demonstrate this parallelism.
However, as for obsolescence, I still use it here, e.g. when I
write Rumanian phrases like |S,coala Ardeleana(|.