[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française
eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Jan 29 21:24:58 GMT 2011
Not in the slightest; I'm perfectly aware of the distinction between fuzzy search criteria and orthography. I think that you have mistaken this forum for a high-school debating society, where the main aim is to score jejune 'points', rather than to elucidate the matter under discussion. Instead of indulging yourself in patronising condescension, you might attempt to address the substantive issue that I raised..
I propose that we discuss the precise wording of the role of diacritics that will go into the formal submission we make on behalf of KS to the Partnership in due course. At present, I feel that there is little or no attempt to reach consensus in this forum, but that the decisions are being taken rather capriciously by Nicholas and Michael.
I would like to hear from other members of this forum, so that we might form a view of their consensus on this matter. Fellow 'Spellyansoryon', the issue before us is this:
— Should the diacritics in KS be mandatory in all writings?
— Should they be optional in all writings?
— Should they be hightly recommented in lexicographic/reference/didactic writings and optional elsewhere?
— Or should they have some other role?
— Furthermore, do we currently have a surfeit of diacritics? Could we idealy do with fewer of them?
Let us hear your views, please, so we can discuss these questions before taking a vote to ascertain what measure of consensus there may be amongst us.
Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bo lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem
On 2011 Gen 29, at 20:19, Michael Everson wrote:
> I think you have mistaken input method equivalence with orthography.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans