Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:59:15 -0700 (PDT) | From | Alex Belits <> | Subject | Re: unicode (char as abstract data type) |
| |
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Greg Lee wrote:
> > If "they" are Unicode, they just demonstrated complete lack of any clue > > in the matter and ignored a cornerstone issue of linguistics. ... > > Language or dialect determination is hardly an important issue in > linguistics (if that's what you mean), since the prevalent view > of language system is that it is psychological, rather than cultural > or social. Identification of dialect is a political issue.
Distinction between Russian and Ukrainian language is hardly an important issue in linguistics?
> What is an issue for linguists is how to cite many languages in > a document or on screen, where there may be no unique standard > orthographies, or where citation is phonetic, or according to some > arbitrary standard of a certain reference work, or ... > > 256 characters is not enough. Tagging strings is appropriate only > in special circumstances which are often not present in texts > linguists have to deal with.
What 256 characters? In what case linguists deal with text and avoid to determine its language?
-- Alex
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |