In a message dated 2001-02-28 01:59:18 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (regarding Serbian and Croatian):
> I think that the difference between the two is comparable to the difference
> between British and American English. (Oops! I am a Latino, not an Anglo,
so
> change last
>
>Germans transliterate a single cyrillic letter with TSCH, shouldn't
>Unicode have also this tetragraph encoded? (ducking...)
>
Is this the Cyrillic letter that is transliterated into English as CH
pronounced as CH in church?
There are in mathematics some polynomials called Chebyshev polynom
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Latin digraph characters
>
>Germans transliterate a single cyrillic letter with TSCH, shouldn't
>Unicode have also this tetragraph encoded? (ducking...)
>
Is this the Cyrillic letter that is transliterated into English as CH
pronounced as CH
[utf-8]
William Overington wrote:
>
> >Germans transliterate a single cyrillic letter with TSCH, shouldn't
> >Unicode have also this tetragraph encoded? (ducking...)
>
> Is this the Cyrillic letter that is transliterated into English as CH
> pronounced as CH in church?
Yes.
> There are in ma
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:19:37 -0800, Antoine Leca wrote:
> [utf-8]
[koi8-r] ;-(
I know I should upgrade my mailer.
> Also, Don Knuth gives ðÁÆÎÕÔÉÊ for his first name, which does not
> sounds very Russian to me.
It's Russian. Though, surely, not of Russian/Slavic origin.
He was born on Ma
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Antoine Leca wrote:
> William Overington wrote:
> > >Germans transliterate a single cyrillic letter with TSCH, shouldn't
> > >Unicode have also this tetragraph encoded? (ducking...)
> >
> > Is this the Cyrillic letter that is transliterated into English as CH
> > pronounce
> The initial character of the name is transliterated as CH in
> English, TCH
> in French, TSCH in German, C or CI in Italian, C WITH CARON in the
> official Russian transliteration. It's the same character as
> the first one
> in Chajkovskij, Chekhov...
...and as TS (the S with caron) in the F
In a message dated 2001-02-28 14:13:23 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The initial character of the name is transliterated as CH in English, TCH
> in French, TSCH in German, C or CI in Italian, C WITH CARON in the
> official Russian transliteration. It's the same character
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:35:17 -0800 (GMT-0800), Pierpaolo BERNARDI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> The initial character of the name is transliterated as CH in English,
> TCH in French, TSCH in German, C or CI in Italian, C WITH CARON in the
> official Russian transliteration.
And CZ in Polish.
--
In a message dated 2001-02-27 04:17:48 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> No character set standard was ever designed by Slovaks. However, Slovak
> linguists have always treated "ch" as a separate character. As they
> do "dz" and "dz" with caron, but those are encoded in Unico
Doug Ewell wrote:
> Adam mentions the Latin digraphs encoded for DZ at U+01F1/2/3
> and for DZ with caron [...]
>
> This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
> characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters.
> CH, SH, SHCH, and ZH leap to mind; there may
It has always been my impression that the dz and other digraphs were
included ONLY because they existed in standards that were used as source
material by the Unicode designers. Such digraphs would not have been
encoded otherwise.
Rick
> Adam mentions the Latin digraphs encoded for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
> characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH, SHCH,
> and ZH leap to mind; there may be more. What was the thought process behind
> providing these compatibility characters
At 08:33 -0800 2001-02-27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
>characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH, SHCH,
>and ZH leap to mind; there may be more. What was the thought process behind
>providing these compa
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> This invention originated the can of worms called "titlecase", because it is
> not enough to merely declare that dj,lj,nj,dž are "characters" to change the
> reality, and this becomes evident in case conversions.
Yes, but then it turned out that titlecase was important
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
> characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH, SHCH,
> and ZH leap to mind;
These are *English* translitterations. In the *Russian*
translitteration SHCH
> Germans transliterate a single cyrillic letter with TSCH, shouldn't
> Unicode have also this tetragraph encoded? (ducking...)
>
When I lived in Germany a long time ago, when you could find the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung alongside Pravda on the Hauptbahnhof newsstand, it was
great fun to s
Oops, sorry, don't bother to tell me, it starts with an X, not a K.
- Frank
In a message dated 2001-02-27 10:24:43 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > This has always puzzled me, because Cyrillic includes lots of other
> > characters that transliterate to two or more Latin letters. CH, SH,
SHCH,
> > and ZH leap to mind; there may be more. What w
Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that
are
> really the same language but are treated separately
This question about languages being "really" the same or no turns out to be
a rather moot one from a linguist's viewpoint, even more so once the
Doug Ewell frug:
> Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that are
> really the same language but are treated separately (a) for political reasons
> and (b) because Cyrillic is used to write the former and Latin to write the
> latter? Are there any linguistic or v
Douw Ewell wrote:
> Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two
> "languages" that are
> really the same language but are treated separately (a) for
> political reasons
> and (b) because Cyrillic is used to write the former and
> Latin to write the
> latter? Are there any lingui
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:38:04PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that are
>really the same language but are treated separately (a) for political reasons
>and (b) because Cyrillic is used to write the former and Latin to write
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:39:09AM -0800, J%ORG KNAPPEN wrote:
>Did you know, the Slovak was reconstructed in the 19th century
>in order to make it more different from czech?
Not true. Written documents dating back to the Middle Ages clearly show
that Slovak has been virtually unchanged since the
[I'm still 140 messages back, so this might already have been covered.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Aren't Serbian and Croatian the standard example of two "languages" that are
> really the same language but are treated separately (a) for political reasons
> and (b) because Cyrillic is used to wr
25 matches
Mail list logo
