Attn: Unicode Inc worker vanisaac

[Tulasi]

Attn: Unicode Inc worker vanisaac <vani...@boil.afraid.org>
C/o Magda Danish
Sr Administrative Director
Unicode Inc
<vani...@boil.afraid.org>,
<v-ma...@microsoft.com>,

Neither Assam Government nor Assam Literary Society had asked Unicode
Inc to encode Assamese stuff.

Can you reply back with detailed information on what prompt Unicode
Inc to encode Assamese stuff as "Bengali"?

Thank you in advance for your co-operation,

Tulasi
PS: Appended herewith email thread for reference


From: tulasi <tula...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: continue: Glaring Mistake in nomenclature
To: Shriramana Sharma <sam...@gmail.com>
Cc: uni...@unicode.org, vanisaac <vani...@boil.afraid.org>, "Mahesh
T. Pai" <paiv...@gmail.com>, Jim Breen <jimb...@gmail.com>


> Look -- Unicode is an international standard.

Is that the reason why it simply copied unknown number of Greek
scripts and renamed it to Latin script to build separate Latin script?

So why don't you implement same code for Assamese and Bengalese?


> I feel bad when my compatriots don't even try to understand
> the principles of an international technology before complaining about it.

What are the principles that allow you two different thinks?

Such as one for Greek script and Latin script the other for Assamese
and Bengalese.


> Technical issues of stability dictate that the name cannot be
> hereafter changed.

Is that the reason why you go maul others history/nomenclature?

> Assamese is at place *fifty-four* with speaker
> population of 16.8 million, less than *one-tenth* of that of Bengali.

So your so called international institute marginalizes weaker sections
in India - that is what you mean don't you?

Do you know Republic of India Constitution protects Assamese language
and is State Language of Assam?

None from Assam/Assamese population had asked your so called
international organization to encode - why did you put your hands on
their stuff? Did any of them take your / your international
organization's meal away at any point?

The script-set is not Bengali, it is Nagari used in Eastern zone. To
be very specific the Kamarupa kingdom used those. Bengalese evolved
during British India. Using Bengali is as good as using English for
Latin. Mark Davis took bribed from Bengalese, Shriramana has a share
in it too.


> Be realistic and understand in what world you are living in.

You are talking about your dark-world.
Or are you talking about any scholarly world?
How can you go maul on historical facts and replace with rubbish?

Tulasi

From: Shriramana Sharma <sam...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: continue: Glaring Mistake in nomenclature
To: uni...@unicode.org



On 09/14/2011 12:25 PM, delex r wrote:

I think now naming the script as “ Bengali” that too by stealing
two
unique letters from the Assamese alphabet list and coloring them
with Bengali hue is part of that notorious linguistic invasion.

Look -- Unicode is an international standard. English is the
international language of science and technology, whether you like it
or not. And as Michael Everson as pointed out, the script is more
commonly known in the English language as the Bengali script. That is
hence the representative name that was chosen for the script in the
Unicode standard. Technical issues of stability dictate that the name
cannot be hereafter changed. Please read the publicly available
Unicode Standard document and understand it before complaining
further. Finished.

And the reasons for the script to be better known as the Bengali
script rather than Assamese are obvious. As per records (http://
www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size), Bengali is
the *fifth* most widely spoken language in the world with a speaker
population of 181 million (closely following Hindi with 182). Assamese
is at place *fifty-four* with speaker population of 16.8 million, less
than *one-tenth* of that of Bengali. It is even behind Chattisgarhi
language with 17.5 million speakers, and the separate state of
Chattisgarh was only even formed recently. Given this, you should not
expect special treatment for the name "Assamese".

Be realistic and understand in what world you are living in. It is but
natural that in the absence of a pre-agreed name for a script for
other reasons (such as the Latin script), a script is better
internationally recognized by the language that it is more (in terms
of sheer volume) used for.

I feel bad when my compatriots don't even try to understand the
principles of an international technology before complaining about it.
Our great Indian intellectual tradition is not reflected in these
results of putting emotion above reason.

--
Shriramana Sharma