From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Wed 25 Oct 2000 - 17:47:34 EEST
David Cake:
> The summary of positions seems to come down to some folk want
> the West to be more like a familiar medieval European (or Arabic)
> model, and so they go for 'Brithini Latin' even though its a stretch
> from what is said, and some folks want the West to be less like a
> familiar model and more uniquely its own, and so they favour a
> Brithini Kanji model.
Here's another summary: some people want to have a Western
logographic script for the sheer heck of it; other people have
expounded a series of concrete arguments against this (like an
apparent lack of monosyllabic morphemes, a clear lack of syllabic
regularity, the mass use of foreign words in this script, and
the existence of self-evidently alphabetic acronyms), which the
first camp don't even both to engage with, instead simply equating
the two positions:
> and it comes down to how personal taste
Oh, goodie. Whose? It's all very well to say (N)IMG, but surely
the purpose of airing these things here is to engage with the actual
issues. On most of these issues I'm happy enough to muddle through
with the "let a hundred schools contend" sort of approach ("interesting
idea: I'm sure we can find somewhere it's true") but there is, by
canonical statute, only one Western script, and no-one is likely to
get very far with fleshing it out in any respect whatsoever unless
some pretty basic facts about it are determined.
Cheers,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:21:12 EEST