-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 10:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: ISPF CAPS Status (Was: WHY IS JCL ALLERGIC ...)
<snip> Concerning the antiquity of single case, what of Classic Latin? When I was young and impressionable, I was told tnat Classic Latin used no lower case characters, and 'I' instead of 'J' and 'V' instead of 'U' because of the technical challenge of chiseling curved strokes into a stone tablet. But what then of C, D, G, O, P, Q, R, and S? And why did they eschew the rectilinear 'W'? (I know; them heathen pillocks(?) was just too durn stupid to invent 'J', 'U', and 'W' and shunned the Divine guidance that would have enabled them to do so.) And our present perception suffers a statistical bias due to the disparate durabilities of the various storage media. <snip> I tried, I really tried. But I've had all I can standsk and I can't standsk no more! Unicase has been around for many years. You can even see it in use on coins dated 300BC (How did they ever know that it was 300 BC is beyond me). Hebrew had no case. Chaldee had no case. Anyone remember the differences in case for either cuneiform or hieroglyphics? Come to think of it, there is no case for any of the pictogram/ideogram based languages. How would one get a lower case "foreign devil" in Japanese (or was that Mandarin)? Then we should all argue punctuation and spelling. Correct English spelling, grammar, punctuation, are all being discarded so that we can go back to speling in the Simplist fasion like now We can jus comunikat. Later, Steve Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
