On 10 Jul 2012, at 17:33, Satyakam Phukan wrote: > Replies from my side : > > *Mr Everson > No, the inheritors of the Roman heritage are Aragonese, Aromanian, Arpitan, > Asturian, Catalan Corsican, Emiliano-Romagnolo, French, Friulan, Galician, > Italian, Jèrriais, Ladino, Leonese, Lombard, Mirandese, Neapolitan, Occitan, > Picard, Piedmontese, Portuguese, Romanian, Romansh, Sardinian, Sicilian, > Spanish, Venetian, and Walloon. And various French-, Portuguese-, and > Spanish-based creoles. > There are at least 800 million native speakers of Romance languages. They > outnumber the 380 million native speakers of English. > > Reply: > People conquered by the ancient Romans are not true inheritors of the Roman > heritage, only the Italians, Romanians and their subgroups are true > inheritors of the Romans.
This is complete nonsense. I don't know where you learnt your history, but there is no such thing as "the true inheritors" of the Romans. Nor can it be said that the Spanish or the Portuvuese > Just being speakers of the Romance languages do qualify any group for that > place. Just having an uninformed opinion about historical sociolinguistics does not make you an expert whose views should be taken as anything but specious. > Your statement is misleading. No, it isn't. You're simply wrong. > *Mr Everson > If you are referring to “ক্ষ“ it has already been explained that this > "letter" is represented by a string of three "characters". > > > Reply: You are speaking superficially without reading what I had written in > my communications to the Unicode Consortium and making guess which is wrong. You haven't made *anything* clear. You've simply SHOUTED THAT THERE IS A CONTROVERSY. Get a grip, man. > The Bengalis have dropped the letter "ৱ". So what? It is there for you Assamese to use. There is no need for it to be named "Assamese" in order for you to use it. > Their “ক্ষ“ is a different issue on which Unicode have been told umpteen > times by many, for Assamese it is a letter and for Bengalis it is a > combination or conjunct. For the Welsh, "ch" is a "letter". But the Welsh write their "letter" as a string of two characters. The Assamese may consider ক্ষ to be a "letter". That does not mean that it should not be encoded as a string of three characters. > *Mr Everson > Nothing has been misrepresented. People can write the Assamese language right > now, using Unicode. There is no problem to solve. > > Reply: You are adamant in defending your code without bothering to see that > there is indeed mis-representation causing multiple wrongs to the Assamese, > please refer to all your replies you had send till now. They speak for itself. (To everybody: Dr Phukan is referring to private discussion between him and me where he accused me of attacking him.) If there is some "representation" that is incorrect, the burden is upon you, Dr Phukan, to SHOW US AN IMAGE of the thing that you think is being misrepresented. Arguing that there are two letters that are not used in Bengali doesn't mean anything. The letter Ʒʒ isn't used in English, but it is encoded in the Latin blocks. So there are two letters used in Assamese that are encoded in the Bengali block. You *claim* that you are not being nationalistic, but all your arguments show us nothing to make us think otherwise. If there is a problem with the representation of ক্ষ (which I see as KA VIRAMA YA, not as a conjunct) then you must show us an image. And then show us an image of the same three characters as they are displayed in Bengali. If there is a difference, then there is something to discuss. If there is not, then you must *learn* that some entities that you may consider "letters" are nevertheless properly encoded as "strings of characters". Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
