On 27/07/2003 20:46, John Cowan wrote:
Frank da Cruz scripsit:
This sort of thing is endlessly fascinating to (some of) us Americans,
whose concepts of nation and state are so simplistic :-) Here's
my attempt to sort it out:
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/postal.html#uk
It is in constant
Thanks for the corrections -- see I told you :-)
When was the next meeting of Pedants Anonymous again? :-)
England was never ruled by the French! Please!
I dunno, William Conqueror the Duke of Normandy sounds pretty French to me :-)
(Of course it's a good question when do 'France' and
On 28/07/2003 04:31, Michael Everson wrote:
The Normans of course were frankified Norsemen.
(My word. Apparently francized would be used in Québec; frencify
occurs but is apparently often derog..)
Thanks, Michael. Of course I could have suggested to Jarkko to ask an
English speaking Irish
At 04:58 -0700 2003-07-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 28/07/2003 04:31, Michael Everson wrote:
The Normans of course were frankified Norsemen.
(My word. Apparently francized would be used in
Québec; frencify occurs but is apparently
often derog..)
Thanks, Michael. Of course I could have
suggested
Well:
1. Most francophone Canadians do *not* sound 'French'--trust me
2. I'm a 'French-speaking Canadian' and if you asked me, I'd tell you I was
French. Because I am. So you can't ask 'any '
(my contribution to this pedantic thread)
K
- Original Message -
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL
Everyone who sounds French, because they speak French, is not French.
Ask any French speaking Canadian or Swiss, or any Swedish
speaking Finn.
If a duke living in (arguably) French territory (he was a vassal of the king of France)
and speaking (arguably) French crosses the Channel and gets
On 28/07/2003 05:34, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Well:
1. Most francophone Canadians do *not* sound 'French'--trust me
2. I'm a 'French-speaking Canadian' and if you asked me, I'd tell you I was
French. Because I am. So you can't ask 'any '
(my contribution to this pedantic thread)
K
I
On 28/07/2003 06:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everyone who sounds French, because they speak French, is not French.
Ask any French speaking Canadian or Swiss, or any Swedish
speaking Finn.
If a duke living in (arguably) French territory (he was a vassal of the king of
France)
and speaking
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/07/28 Mon AM 09:17:15 EDT
To: Karljürgen Feuerherm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Damn'd fools
On 28/07/2003 05:34, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
Well:
1. Most francophone Canadians do *not* sound 'French'--trust me
- Message d'origine -
De: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28/07/2003 05:34, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote:
[earlier, vey nested, difficult to ascribe to one of the subscribers]
England was never ruled by the French! Please!
1066 and all that stuff !
I dunno, William Conqueror
- Message d'origine -
De: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Normans of course were frankified Norsemen.
On their father's side apparently (well, great-grand-father's side since
Rollon received Normandy as a fiefdom in 911 from Charles le Simple, king of
the Franks and became one
Patrick Andries scripsit:
Patrick Andries
(Irish and Dutch forms of Latin and Greek roots !)
The _English_ form of the Irish form _Padraig_ Latin patricius. Go figure.
--
The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
free-range chickens (except they have
AFAIK, Finland was not part of Russia, but the Emperor of Russia was also
Grand Duke of Finland, i.e. it was a personal union of the two states.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003
On 28/07/2003 12:02, Jony Rosenne wrote:
AFAIK, Finland was not part of Russia, but the Emperor of Russia was also
Grand Duke of Finland, i.e. it was a personal union of the two states.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL
At 11:47 -0700 2003-07-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
So if Finland was part of Russia, Canada is part
of England. How do you like that one,
Karljürgen? Should I expect an imminent French
(Canadian) invasion?
I thought Québec wanted to join the EU
(Ducks again.)
--
Michael Everson * * Everson
If Québec joined the EU, that pretty much would amount to an invasion of the
entire EU
K
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Damn'd fools
At 11:47 -0700 2003-07-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
Peter,
So if Finland was part of
Russia, Canada is part of England. How do you like that one, Karljürgen?
Should I expect an imminent French (Canadian)
invasion?[Acknowledging lack of personal certitude regarding the facts
ofFinno-Russian history...]Well... One can camouflage a certain
Ken: Speaking for Sybase products, fixing the combining classes of the
existing vowels would have *no* positive impacts. It would have
a large number of negative impacts, the ultimate ramifications
of which I cannot even follow to their eventual conclusions. ...
I hope you will excuse my
Those interested in Tamazight might also be interested to know there has
been some preliminary work to encode it in Unicode. Copies of the
discussion documents are here:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1757.pdf
http://www.unicode.org/~rick/03076-tifinagh-discussion.pdf
Perhaps people
KF This is rather enjoyable, but I think maybe getting a bit silly, and
I would really rather know whether there's any fundamental Masoretic
rationale for encoding holemwaw any differently from waw-holem
I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem comes before or
after the waw
At 13:22 -0700 2003-07-28, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Because changing the canonical ordering classes (in ways not
allowed by the stability policies) breaks the normalization
*algorithm* and the expected test results it is tested against.
Do you really think that algorithm with all its warts is
Thanks, Rick. The Tifinagh proposal did indeed come up there and was
discussed a bit (it's a small list). The discussion documents page you
mention, however, did not, so I'll pass that on.
The announcement of the font ( keyboard layout) for the Latin-based
trascription of Tamazight is an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
This lends credence
to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to see a visible difference
between
holem-waw and waw-holem. The most reasonable means of achieving this is to
encode the holem before the waw when it is holem-waw.
This argument is unsound.
Michael Everson scripsit:
Do you really think that algorithm with all its warts is going to be
used 50 years from now? I really would like to know.
I certainly do.
--
Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old childJohn Cowan
could understand this report. Run out [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why can't we just fix the database? :)
Because changing the canonical ordering classes (in ways not
allowed by the stability policies) breaks the normalization
*algorithm* and the expected test results it is tested against.
If the expected test results are bad data, it shouldn't matter then if
Rick McGowan scripsit:
Michael Everson asked:
Do you really think that algorithm with all its warts is going to be
used 50 years from now? I really would like to know.
You want warts, Mr Everson? Well, let's take a look at some history...
Would the French scientists who set out to
Michael Everson asked:
Because changing the canonical ordering classes (in ways not
allowed by the stability policies) breaks the normalization
*algorithm* and the expected test results it is tested against.
Do you really think that algorithm with all its warts is going to be
used 50
There may be very good reasons for encoding holem-waw as
other than a holem followed by a waw.
I agree, but I don't think we have options other than holem first or holem
last. In SIL Ezra, we encoded
the entire holem-waw as a single glyph - a vowel. But then found out later
there was
Joan,
I think the question was asked earlier whether the holem comes before or
after the waw in holem-waw ... This lends credence
to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to see a visible difference
between
holem-waw and waw-holem. The most reasonable means of achieving this is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
If the expected test results are bad data, it shouldn't matter then
if it is consistent. Are you saying that somewhere there are lots
of people who have worked very hard to implement Hebrew as it is
currently described in Unicode 3 and they would have to start over
- Message d'origine -
De: Don Osborn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tamazight, and other Berber languages/dialects, can be and are written in
Tifinagh, Arabic, and Latin scripts. A very nice summary is given by
Lameen
Souag at http://www.geocities.com/lameens/tifinagh/
For French readers, some
Changing the canonical order is not going to happen. If you want to
read about the problems that that would cause, there has been plenty
written about it on this list if you consult the archives.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
Eppur si muove
- Original
Joan Wardell responded to:
Why can't we just fix the database? :)
KW:
Because changing the canonical ordering classes (in ways not
allowed by the stability policies) breaks the normalization
*algorithm* and the expected test results it is tested against.
JW:
If the expected test
On 28/07/2003 14:16, John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
This lends credence
to those of us who are BHS fans and would like to see a visible difference
between
holem-waw and waw-holem. The most reasonable means of achieving this is to
encode the holem before the waw when it is
On 28/07/2003 14:37, John Cowan wrote:
Rick McGowan scripsit:
Michael Everson asked:
Do you really think that algorithm with all its warts is going to be
used 50 years from now? I really would like to know.
You want warts, Mr Everson? Well, let's take a look at some history...
On Monday, July 28, 2003 5:38 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
... And it isn't that nobody
has longterm vision here, but when one of your goals is
longterm stability, you have to keep making shortterm decisions
which individually preserve that stability.
The goal of the Maginot Line was longterm
On 28/07/2003 15:32, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Joan Wardell responded to:
That's what I'm saying. And I have no particular problem with the CGJ
suggestion, but
it doesn't go far enough. I don't think we can use it to fix meteg, a mark
which occurs in
three different positions around a low vowel,
At 15:47 -0700 2003-07-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
Well, except two countries, or more than two if you have been
following the damn'd fools thread. We British resisted Napoleon
and we continue to resist his innovations like the metric system,
though we are being forced to make a gradual change.
Ted,
The goal of the Maginot Line was longterm stability.
I'll resist the temptation to assault that metaphorical
defensive line directly, and instead just sweep right by it...
Do I understand you correctly, Ken, that Sybase would rather have code
versions that behave consistently but
Okay, Ken. I'm beginning to get it after reading your thoughtful
explanations and after reading through the following two documents (highly
recommended to all following this thread):
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-charreq
http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/
After reading through some of the archives (some
On 28 Jul 2003, at 16:49, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Part of the specification of the Unicode normalization algorithm
is idempotency *across* versions, so that addition of new
characters to the standard, which require extensions of the
tables for decomposition, recomposition, and composition
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Well, except two countries, or more than two if you have been following
the damn'd fools thread. We British resisted Napoleon and we continue
to resist his innovations like the metric system, though we are being
forced to make a gradual change.
By what I understand,
After reading through some of the archives (some pointers to the relevant
parts would be helpful, please--something beyond consult the archives), it
strikes me that normalization, with its severe requirements, is going to
eventually so distort Unicode that it will render it nearly unusable.
Ted Hopp scripsit:
After reading through some of the archives (some pointers to the relevant
parts would be helpful, please--something beyond consult the archives),
The last week or two.
if umlaut had been a later addition to
Unicode, no vowel-umlaut code could be allowed to have a
Peter Kirk asked:
One question arises. If CGJ is used as proposed, so we have sequences
such as patah CGJ hiriq and perhaps meteg CGJ vowel, does this imply
that these sequences will necessarily be treated in collation as
distinct from simple patah hiriq and meteg vowel sequences (the
On 28 Jul 2003, at 16:49, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Part of the specification of the Unicode normalization algorithm
is idempotency *across* versions, so that addition of new
characters to the standard, which require extensions of the
tables for decomposition, recomposition, and
The most reasonable way to achieve visible effects, as opposed to difference
in text, is by markup.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Back to
47 matches
Mail list logo
