From dmulholl@cs.indiana.edu Sun Mar 26 23:25:36 1995
Received: from moose.cs.indiana.edu by whale.cs.indiana.edu
	(5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA15424; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:25:35 -0500
Received: from flute.cs.indiana.edu by moose.cs.indiana.edu
	(5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA21576; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:25:35 -0500
Received: by flute.cs.indiana.edu
	(5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA02352; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:25:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:25:34 -0500
From: "Daniel Yaqob" <dmulholl@cs.indiana.edu>
To: dmulholl@cs.indiana.edu, ybf2u@curry.edschool.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: ATTN:  App-B Updates!
Cc: fisseha@gerbil.cig.mot.com
Status: R

> here.  However, we had agreed before that it would be
> "Ethiopic" (as opposed to fidel or g'Iz) since it ("Ethiopic")
> refered to the wider context of several languages to which the
> sytem has been applied.


hmmm... I don't remember the "wider context of serveral languages"
rationale (I suppose it would be in our archives).  But I do remember
another reason (additional) for Ethiopic vs fidel or g'Iz.  I remember
in a discussion, perhaps predating the unicode project, that we
felt "fidel" and "ge'ez" should be researved words for only the letters.
"Ge'ez" and "Fidel" refer to different stages in the history of the
set, and "Ethiopic" would encompass the speakable letters as well as
punctuations and numbers.  Does this sound familiar?  Does it still
sound valid?  

At any rate, I am more than comfortable with these justifications we
have for swithching to "Ethiopic" from "Ethiopian" and the changes 
have been made.


-its been a good weekend!

    -dan'El