----- Message d'origine -----
> Indeed, by the same argument, we could encode a lot of scripts
> together. ISCII did it for Indic scripts. I'm sure we could do
> some serious merging among syllabic scripts - 12A8(ከ) is the same
> as 13A7(Ꭷ)
De: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Indeed, by the same argument, we could encode a lot of scripts
> together. ISCII did it for Indic scripts. I'm sure we could do
> some serious merging among syllabic scripts - 12A8(ከ) is the same
> as 13A7(Ꭷ)
I understand this is said tongue in cheek, but even
thenâ
This merging seems reasonable to you because
you consider their similar English names,
but not their different phonetic value ([kÉ] vs [kÊa]) or their ISO 10646 French names
for instance (respectively KÃ for Ethiopic and KA Cherokee). KA being 12AB in the French version. See Daniels-Bright (Table 51.5
which gives kà (ka) for U+12A8 [kÉ] and ka
for U+12AB [ka] or [kÊ]) and Amharique pour
francophones (L'Harmattan) (p. 5 which gives ke/kà for U+12A8 and ka for
U+12AB).
The English names are, of course, perfectly okay
(don't want to open a can of worms here;-)).
P. A.
- o - O - o -
ISO 10646 en franÃais
