From ybf2u@curry.edschool.virginia.edu Mon Mar 27 22:42:47 1995 Received: from moose.cs.indiana.edu by whale.cs.indiana.edu (5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA00752; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 22:42:45 -0500 Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by moose.cs.indiana.edu (5.65c/9.4jsm) id AA28249; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 22:42:44 -0500 Received: from curry.edschool.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab08317; 27 Mar 95 22:42 EST Received: (from ybf2u@localhost) by curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA39026; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 22:42:41 -0500 From: Yitna Benyam Firdyiwek Message-Id: <199503280342.WAA39026@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: ATTN: App-B Updates! To: dan'El yaqob , Yonas Fisseha Date: Mon, 27 Mar 95 22:42:41 EST In-Reply-To: <199503270425.XAA16578@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU>; from "Daniel Yaqob" at Mar 26, 95 11:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3.1 PL11] Status: R According to Daniel Yaqob: > > > 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? Yes, this is more familiar. What I was getting at was our discussion in which we recognized that the Ethiopic alphabet was used in a wider context than g'Iz of fidel--i.e., it included amarNa, tgrNa, oromifa, Caha, etc. That's what I meant by "wider context of several langauges." > > 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. > Good. yTna