Hello Bill, thank you very much for summarising the facts. On 29.06.2021 21:10, Bill Jouris via Latingp wrote:
Transitivity means that all of the following pairs are Latin in-script variants: ć / ċ i / í ń / ṅ ó / ȯ ẃ / ẇ ź / ż
But not: é / ė
Does anyone really and truly want to get up in public and argue that having this /single/ omission is intellectually defensible?
Honestly, yes I do, really and truly. ;-) All of those variants are not ours (well technically we inherit them and therefore they become ours, but we are not in favour of them) and there is no need to argue for having any of those. We do not consider them to be variants and for that reason I do not think it's a good idea to add some other relation that we do not consider to be variants. On the contrary, I would find it difficult to argue in favour of adding them ourselves: "We added those in-script variants, because in the Greek Script some other characters are variants." In my point of view, we should keep the Greek influence on our LGR as small as possible. If some variants get introduced due to transitivity, well, then that's unfortunate, but not really avoidable. Adding those other variants ourselves however, would unnecessarily increase that influence. Nevertheless, as stated last week, this is my personal opinion and I'm more than happy to discuss this in our next call. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp