Christopher Fynn wrote:
*All* classification is arbitrary.
If script classification is arbitrary or nominal, isn't there is still a
case for attempting some consistency or following a single model within
a particular standard like the UCS?
Indeed there is. If a single, one-size-fits-all model c
At 14:07 +0100 2004-05-25, Christopher Fynn wrote:
If script classification is arbitrary or nominal, isn't there is
still a case for attempting some consistency or following a single
model within a particular standard like the UCS? If script
classification in the UCS has been largely based on a
John Hudson wrote:
*All* classification is arbitrary.
If script classification is arbitrary or nominal, isn't there is still a
case for attempting some consistency or following a single model within
a particular standard like the UCS? If script classification in the UCS
has been largely based
John Hudson wrote:
Dean Snyder wrote:
>>It simply doesn't make
sense to me that we should do different things for Semitic than we
do for Indic.
Is it not a factor that the Indic "scripts" are in everyday use by
living
communities?
Not all of them are. It is, however, a factor that the Indic s
John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
Classification is an arbitrary process in which one produces useful
categories into which to arrange an otherwise unwieldy body of
knowledge.
I dispute this. It is not arbitrary. Sometimes the cuts are difficult
to make, because there is messiness in t
Dean Snyder wrote:
>>It simply doesn't make
sense to me that we should do different things for Semitic than we do
for Indic.
Is it not a factor that the Indic "scripts" are in everyday use by living
communities?
Not all of them are. It is, however, a factor that the Indic scripts have varying sh
Michael Everson wrote at 11:32 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>It simply doesn't make
>sense to me that we should do different things for Semitic than we do
>for Indic.
Is it not a factor that the Indic "scripts" are in everyday use by living
communities?
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant
At 21:02 -0400 2004-05-24, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 11:32 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>It simply doesn't make sense to me that we should do different
>things for Semitic than we do for Indic.
Is it not a factor that the Indic "scripts" are in everyday use by living
communities?
Michael Everson wrote:
Classification is an arbitrary process in which one produces useful
categories into which to arrange an otherwise unwieldy body of knowledge.
I dispute this. It is not arbitrary. Sometimes the cuts are difficult to
make, because there is messiness in the data, but classifi
At 11:26 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
Classification is an arbitrary process in which one produces useful
categories into which to arrange an otherwise unwieldy body of
knowledge.
I dispute this. It is not arbitrary. Sometimes the cuts are difficult
to make, because there is messiness in
10 matches
Mail list logo
