=?utf-8?B?SGVyaXRhZ2Ugb2Ygw4XDhMOWICh3YXMgUkU6IENoaW5hKQ==?=

[=?utf-8?B?S2FybHNzb24gS2VudCAtIGtla2E=?= <keka@im.se>]

(Yes this as an e-mail in UTF-8.  Sorry, Martin.
Let's see how well the archive handles UTF-8 e-mails... ;-)

Well, to be fair, there is a 500 years or so history to this.

Ä used to be written as AE (IIUC), then Æ, then A with a little e on top,
then Ä.  The story for Ö is similar (OE, Œ, O with a litte e on top, Ö);
though in Denmark it ended up in Ø instead.  For Å, IIUC, first AO, then A
with a little o on top; though in Denmark it, for some reason, was AA.

So in that perspective, ASCII was a 500 year setback for us ;-).

		Kind regards
		/Kent Karlsson


> -----Original Message-----
> From: C C Magnus Gustavsson [mailto:mag@lysator.liu.se]
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 1:17 AM
> To: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Antrew Traper
> Subject: RE: China
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, C C Magnus Gustavsson wrote:
> 
> > No. On the contrary, I don't know about a single language 
> that pronounce
> > u-umlaut as "ue".
> 
> Just to get things completely clear, I'll give you an example as well:
> 
> Imagine another world, in which Fooish is a common language. 
> The Fooish
> alphabet contains 23 characters, all those used in English 
> except "b", "d"
> and "g". Fooish is used as the base of FSCII.
> 
> Now imagine that your computers use only FSCII and you want 
> to send the
> following message to a friend: "How about a beer after work?".
> 
> Since "p", "t" and "k" are the unvoiced equivalents to "b", 
> "d" and "g" it
> seems natural to send "How apout a peer after work?". The risk for 
> misunderstandings is obvious though.
> 
> So, what do you do? Since "pk", "tk" and "kk" are not used in 
> any English
> words (I hope ;-) ) you could introduce the convention that 
> when you send 
> "How apkout a pkeer after work?" to your friend he will know 
> that in this 
> case you're refering to a "beer" and not to a "peer".
> 
> Havinkk reatk a few sentences like these you kket usetk to 
> it. It thoesn't
> have anythinkk to tko with "b" pkeinkk pronouncetk as or 
> equivalent to 
> "pk" thoukkh antk in a motkern worltk that's not limitetk to 
> FSCII there's
> no lonkker any reason to use the convention.
> 
> If there's no need to use the above convention to avoid 
> misunderstandings
> (i e when writing English names in Fooish text with only 
> Fooish letters)
> it's better to refer to "mr Traper" than "mr Tkraper".
> 
> /Makknus
> 
>