Michael Everson scripsit: > Ridiculous. This happened centuries ago, and it is not "why" Ethiopic > was encoded as a syllabary. It was encoded as a syllabary because it > is a syllabary.
Structurally it's an abugida, like Indic and UCAS. > You are, because the floodgates, while once open, have been closed by > normalization. Indeed, they were opened in Unicode 1.1, as a result of the merger with FDIS 10646; since then, only 46 characters with canonical decompositions have been added to Unicode (excepting compatibility ideographs, which are a special case). Specifically, 16 were added in Unicode 2.0, 29 in Unicode 1.0, and just one in Unicode 3.2 (the slashed version of a symbol added at the same time). -- "What has four pairs of pants, lives John Cowan in Philadelphia, and it never rains http://www.reutershealth.com but it pours?" [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
