GNU bug report logs - #55869
[PATCH] Add support for the Lepcha script

Previous Next

Full log

Message #25 received at 55869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
 <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 55869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#55869: [PATCH] Add support for the Lepcha script
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 16:55:47 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Here is the new patch.
I have also improved the Lepcha composition rules.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:20 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30 <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 16:04:43 +0530
> > Cc: 55869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > I am sorry, I do not understand the question, I have not used a
> transliterated name for the Lepcha script.
> >
> > If you are asking whether to use ᰛᰩᰵ (Róng) or ᰛᰩᰵᰛᰧᰵᰶ (Róng-ríng), I
> think both are fine.
>
> Yes, that is my question.  I understand that both are probably fine,
> but I'm asking whether we should use what appears on two widely-used
> sites.  IOW, why prefer the version that doesn't appear there, if both
> versions are equally correct?
>
> > The omniglot website also describes other name for this script:
> >
> >  The Lepcha script is known as ᰀᰂ (kakha - the first two letters),
> ᰇᰨᰕᰧᰵᰶ (chomíng - "written
> >  letters") or ᰕᰧᰵᰶᰙᰳ (míngzât - "treasure of letters").
>
> Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't, so I think Róng-ríng wins here.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[0001-Improve-Lepcha-composition-rules-and-rename-its-nati.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.