Kristos anesti - question

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Sep 12, 2000, 12:03:40 PM9/12/00
to
Hi all !

I would like to ask a brief question.

At Easter, the traditional Greek greeting is "Kristos Anesti!" which means
"Christ is risen."

As I understand it, the normal reply is "Indeed he is risen!" but I don't
know the Greek for that.

Could someone please supply me with the Greek reply - preferably both in the
Roman alphabet AND in the Greek alphabet ?

Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?

Thanks, and God bless,
Stephen

--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@global.co.za
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.html
The owls are not what they seem

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 12, 2000, 3:48:49 PM9/12/00
to
In alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox Stephen Korsman <skor...@global.co.za> wrote:

: I would like to ask a brief question.

: At Easter, the traditional Greek greeting is "Kristos Anesti!" which means
: "Christ is risen."

Yep.

: As I understand it, the normal reply is "Indeed he is risen!" but I don't


: know the Greek for that.

Alithos anesti!

This translates as "Truly He is risen!" You'll also hear "Truly He is
risen!" in English at many Orthodox parish churches.

: Could someone please supply me with the Greek reply - preferably both in the


: Roman alphabet AND in the Greek alphabet ?

Unfortunately I can't post to Usenet in Greek. Maybe on of our Greeks
can.

: Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?

Ancient and modern both, I think. :)


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
Orthodox Christian Resources * <http://www.iconwall.org/links/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

Artcore Creative

unread,
Sep 14, 2000, 9:00:03 PM9/14/00
to
in article 8plump$bvv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, Stephen Korsman at
skor...@global.co.za wrote on 13-09-00 00:03:

> Hi all !
>
> I would like to ask a brief question.
>
> At Easter, the traditional Greek greeting is "Kristos Anesti!" which means
> "Christ is risen."
>
> As I understand it, the normal reply is "Indeed he is risen!" but I don't
> know the Greek for that.
>
> Could someone please supply me with the Greek reply - preferably both in the
> Roman alphabet AND in the Greek alphabet ?

Alithos Anesti
Aληθώς Aνέστη

>
> Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?

Well, it's ancient but modern is no different

>
> Thanks, and God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> skor...@global.co.za
> http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.html
> The owls are not what they seem
>
>
>


May God be with you,
Emmanouil Krokos
----------------
sc...@mac.com

Phil (Silouan) Thompson

unread,
Sep 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/15/00
to
Artcore Creative wrote
> Alithos Anesti
> Aληθώς Aνέστη

> > Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?

Er... after usenet news has finished tweaking your custom font, it's neither
:)

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Sep 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/15/00
to

Phil (Silouan) Thompson <him...@philthompson.net> wrote in message
news:ss4eo5...@corp.supernews.com...
> Artcore Creative wrote

> > Alithos Anesti
> > Aληθώς Aνέστη
>
> > > Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?
>
> Er... after usenet news has finished tweaking your custom font, it's
neither
> :)

Actually, it came through on my computer as Greek ... it must be with your
settings. Perhaps try a different font setting ? I can't really help
there.

Emmanouil

unread,
Sep 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/15/00
to
in article ss4eo5...@corp.supernews.com, Phil (Silouan) Thompson at
him...@philthompson.net wrote on 15-09-00 23:10:

> Artcore Creative wrote
>> Alithos Anesti

>> A????? A?????


>
>>> Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?
>

> Er... after usenet news has finished tweaking your custom font, it's neither
> :)
>
>
>
>

Hehe... well, I never use HTML or any custom font. The character set needed
to read this is Greek ISO and of course a Greek font.
Sorry, but I have no idea of another way to type something in Greek.

Steve Nichols

unread,
Sep 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/15/00
to
"Phil (Silouan) Thompson" wrote:

> Artcore Creative wrote
> > Alithos Anesti

> > AКГХЧР AМщСТГ


>
> > > Also, is this modern Greek or ancient Greek ?
>

> Er... after usenet news has finished tweaking your custom font, it's neither
> :)

You oughta try pronouncing it if you're set for Cyrillic fonts! ;-) I found
that when I try to say it out loud, the kids next door start crying.


MooN-BoY

unread,
Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00
to
Greetings in the Lord!

Please forgive me, my Greek is horrible, so this might not be exactly right...
I've attached a gif of the greek, so all should be able to read it.

With Love in Christ,
Reader Alexis

> > Artcore Creative wrote
> > > Alithos Anesti

> > > Aληθώς Aνέστη

--
Remove the REMOVETHIS to reply

alithos anesti.gif

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00
to
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:27:12 -0700, MooN-BoY
<REMOVETH...@sisqtel.net> wrote:

(A GIF file with "Alithos Anesti" in Greek)

Actually, the final "s" in Alithos should be the final "s", not the
middle-of-a-word deal that looks like an "o" with a tail sticking out
to the right. :)

--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>

The Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>


Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>

St. Herman of Alaska * <http://www.stherman.sunnyvale.ca.us/>

Phil (Silouan) Thompson

unread,
Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00
to
> (A GIF file with "Alithos Anesti" in Greek)
>
> Actually, the final "s" in Alithos should be the final "s", not the
> middle-of-a-word deal that looks like an "o" with a tail sticking out
> to the right. :)

The all-wise folks at Micro$oft left the final-S character out of their
"Symbol" font.

I mean who'd ever use Greek letters to try and spell *words* anyway?

:(

Silouan

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00
to
"Phil \(Silouan\) Thompson" <him...@philthompson.net> wrote:

: The all-wise folks at Micro$oft left the final-S character out of their
: "Symbol" font.

: I mean who'd ever use Greek letters to try and spell *words* anyway?

Yeah. :/ There are several free TrueType Greek fonts out there,
though. I have one at home -- if you want it, I can email it to you.
(Or find the web page, so you can download it yourself.) The Symbol
font never contained a complete Greek alphabet, let alone all the
accents and breathing marks you need to type any form of Greek
except modern demotic.

Actually, Alexander, if you feel like doing a service for Greeks
and for Orthodox Christians (actually, all Christians -- the rest
of them have the same Bible in the same original language),
maybe you could put up a web page with fonts and information
on how to "Greekify" a normal Windows computer? ;>


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>

Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>

Orthodox Christian Resources * <http://www.iconwall.org/links/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:38:34 GMT, Alexander Arnakis
<Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:


>Yes, you can download Greek fonts from the Hellenic Resources web
>site.
>
>The new "official" Greek (since 1974) is monotonic, meaning that only
>one type of accent mark is used. So, a complete Greek font needs a set
>of accented vowels, as well as the iota and upsilon with dieresis (to
>break the diphthongs), with and without accent.

So it was that recently....

>Polytonic Greek uses 3 types of accent marks and 2 types of breathing
>marks, in various combinations. Normally, you need a special type of
>program, like "Polytonistis" by Magenta, to write polytonic Greek on
>the computer.

True, but there are a couple of those programs available on the 'Net
for ancient languages scholars. I've got one of them. My Greek
started as Homeric, self taught in high school from Clyde Pharr's fine
text, and wandered into Classical and Koine later. So I read it ok,
but my pronunciation is something out of a horror movie. (At least to
Greeks.) ;>

>The new Unicode fonts are supposed to solve this problem, but I'm not
>familiar with the technical details.

They do, because each existing version of the vowel, complete with
accent mark, any breathing marks, and iota subscript, is a single
character in Unicode. Unicode does the same for accented vowels and
letters with diacritical marks in Latin-alphabet languages that use
them. It also has each existing character in written Chinese, and
each character of the Kanji, Hirigana, and Katakana writing systems in
Japanese....

It's quite a tour-de-fource. I'm waiting impatiently for it to be
implemented fully in the software I use.
>If you do this, everything will work fine in English, but you will
>have trouble with umlauted vowels in German.

Yeah. :/ To say nothing of Russian, Slavonic, etc.

I WANT UNICODE!

>We wouldn't have these problems if Microsoft had seen fit to enable
>Code-page switching on the fly, as was possible in the old MS-DOS...

Trust Microsoft to break one solution before they have the other in
place. <wry grin>


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>


===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>

The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>

MooN-BoY

unread,
Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00
to
Greetings,

Thank you.
As I said, my understanding of the Greek language needs work, and lots of
it.
But, I learned somethig new right here, so I'm on my way!

With Love in Christ,
Reader Alexis

Catherine Hampton wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:27:12 -0700, MooN-BoY
> <REMOVETH...@sisqtel.net> wrote:
>

> (A GIF file with "Alithos Anesti" in Greek)
>
> Actually, the final "s" in Alithos should be the final "s", not the
> middle-of-a-word deal that looks like an "o" with a tail sticking out
> to the right. :)
>

> --
> Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Sep 28, 2000, 11:38:34 PM9/28/00
to
On 28 Sep 2000 20:30:37 GMT, x...@hrweb.org (Catherine Hampton) wrote:

>"Phil (Silouan) Thompson" <him...@philthompson.net> wrote:
>
>: The all-wise folks at Micro$oft left the final-S character out of their
>: "Symbol" font.
>
>: I mean who'd ever use Greek letters to try and spell *words* anyway?
>

The "Symbols" font, I think, is for doing mathematics, not writing
Greek. Windows 95/98 has built-in Greek language support. Go to the
Control Panel and set up an alternate Greek keyboard. The system will
ask you for the original Windows CD so that it can copy the required
fonts.

>Yeah. :/ There are several free TrueType Greek fonts out there,
>though. I have one at home -- if you want it, I can email it to you.
>(Or find the web page, so you can download it yourself.) The Symbol
>font never contained a complete Greek alphabet, let alone all the
>accents and breathing marks you need to type any form of Greek
>except modern demotic.
>

Yes, you can download Greek fonts from the Hellenic Resources web
site.

The new "official" Greek (since 1974) is monotonic, meaning that only
one type of accent mark is used. So, a complete Greek font needs a set
of accented vowels, as well as the iota and upsilon with dieresis (to
break the diphthongs), with and without accent.

Polytonic Greek uses 3 types of accent marks and 2 types of breathing


marks, in various combinations. Normally, you need a special type of
program, like "Polytonistis" by Magenta, to write polytonic Greek on
the computer.

The new Unicode fonts are supposed to solve this problem, but I'm not


familiar with the technical details.

>Actually, Alexander, if you feel like doing a service for Greeks


>and for Orthodox Christians (actually, all Christians -- the rest
>of them have the same Bible in the same original language),
>maybe you could put up a web page with fonts and information
>on how to "Greekify" a normal Windows computer? ;>
>

If you want a full Greek system (not merely Greek language support),
you must install either the Pan European Windows 95, or the standard
Windows 98, specifying "Greece" as the default location under Regional
Settings (this can be changed after the initial install).

If you are upgrading to, or reinstalling, Windows 98, a dialog box
asking for a Regional Setting will appear during the installation,
provided your previous setup had at least 2 language keyboards.

So, first install a Greek keyboard, and then reinstall or upgrade to
Windows 98, as explained above. This will give you Code Page 1253
(instead of Code Page 1252) and the Greek system fonts.

If you do this, everything will work fine in English, but you will

have trouble with umlauted vowels in German. Personally, I had to set
up a dual boot system so as to have both Code Pages 1252 and 1253
available. (It's a long and complicated story...but still a lot
simpler than dual-booting Japanese and traditional Chinese...)

Nick Theodorakis

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
In article <mb48tskk76p6hdgpg...@4ax.com>,
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:

[..]

>
> >The new Unicode fonts are supposed to solve this problem, but I'm not
> >familiar with the technical details.
>

> They do, because each existing version of the vowel, complete with
> accent mark, any breathing marks, and iota subscript, is a single
> character in Unicode. Unicode does the same for accented vowels and
> letters with diacritical marks in Latin-alphabet languages that use
> them. It also has each existing character in written Chinese, and
> each character of the Kanji, Hirigana, and Katakana writing systems in
> Japanese....
>
> It's quite a tour-de-fource. I'm waiting impatiently for it to be
> implemented fully in the software I use.

> >If you do this, everything will work fine in English, but you will
> >have trouble with umlauted vowels in German.
>

> Yeah. :/ To say nothing of Russian, Slavonic, etc.
>
> I WANT UNICODE!
>

If I understand correctly, it's supposed to be a 32 bit character set,
which is about 4 billion characters, enough for any combination of
letters in any written alphabetic (and I think the non-alphabetic ones
too) language.

In XC,
Nick

--
_______________________________________________
Nick Theodorakis
nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
Nick Theodorakis <nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote:

: If I understand correctly, it's supposed to be a 32 bit character set,


: which is about 4 billion characters, enough for any combination of
: letters in any written alphabetic (and I think the non-alphabetic ones
: too) language.

Yes, any known written language whatsoever. As I understand it, they
even included the Egyptian heiroglyphics. :)

On a technical level, Unicode is simply a character encoding scheme,
just like ASCII is, except that ASCII has a 16-bit character set,
and Unicode has a 32-bit character set. What that means is that
ASCII has "room" for a total of 256 characters. In reality, it
has 128 defined characters, and the rest can be defined locally.
That allows people to use codepages and support a second character
set or language "on top of" the standard ASCII set.

As you noted, Unicode has room for a =WHOLE= lot more characters,
making the code page protocol unnecessary since every character
in every language can be assigned its own permanent spot.

The reason it's taken so long to define Unicode and get it into
use is that they had to build a consensus on how to handle each
nation's written language, and some nations (particularly China and
Japan) were unwilling for political and national reasons to share a
spot for characters identical to (and in some cases, derived from)
another language. (I do know that Chinese and Japanese, only two
languages, take up the lion's share of the spots in Unicode.)

Which is relevant to Orthodox Christians primarily because we
use a lot of languages that are written in different alphabets,
and will benefit more than most people when Unicode is
implemented. :)


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================

Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
Orthodox Christian Resources * <http://www.iconwall.org/links/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

GS

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
Dear Catherine,

As our resident expert in how computers work online, could you keep us
apprised of how to get and install this Unicode once it is available and
any other help encoding? This is something all of us here struggle
with.

On that front, and I haven't installed it yet, I bought a relatively
inexpensive program (22 dollars including the tax) called 51 languages
of the world that comes with a bonus program for being able to read and
write in a lot of languages including Arabic, Greek, Russian, Polish,
Korean, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian and Romanian, which
languages a lot of us here on this newsgroup use so people might want to
think about this. After I install it (I am a little afraid of this
part), I will let everyone know how it works. It is from a company
called Transparent Language and is available online supposedly for as
little as 14 dollars according ot a friend of mine. But I resume this is
the kind of thing that you have to pase the encoded program to the word
processor and hope that it is compatible, i.e. not a real permanent
solution.

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:41:12 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>As our resident expert in how computers work online, could you keep us
>apprised of how to get and install this Unicode once it is available and
>any other help encoding? This is something all of us here struggle
>with.

Ok, I will track this and report on it when there's any practical
benefit to people.

>On that front, and I haven't installed it yet, I bought a relatively
>inexpensive program (22 dollars including the tax) called 51 languages
>of the world that comes with a bonus program for being able to read and
>write in a lot of languages including Arabic, Greek, Russian, Polish,
>Korean, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian and Romanian, which
>languages a lot of us here on this newsgroup use so people might want to
>think about this. After I install it (I am a little afraid of this
>part), I will let everyone know how it works. It is from a company
>called Transparent Language and is available online supposedly for as
>little as 14 dollars according ot a friend of mine. But I resume this is
>the kind of thing that you have to pase the encoded program to the word
>processor and hope that it is compatible, i.e. not a real permanent
>solution.

I'd definitely like to hear how this works. It sounds like the price
is right, in any event.

--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>

The Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>

Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>

St. Herman of Alaska * <http://www.stherman.sunnyvale.ca.us/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:25:04 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>> I'd definitely like to hear how this works. It sounds like the price
>> is right, in any event.
>

>Well, the language part works fine. My son is using it

Howabout a URL to the company's web site, then? :)

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:51:29 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>http://www.transparentstore.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry17c?CID=28286&SP=10007&PN=5&PID=262960&sid=21430

Uh, the price listed on this page isn't $22 -- it's $49. But
otherwise it looks like what was described. I'm going to see if
there's a downloadable demo version.

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:51:29 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>http://www.transparentstore.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry17c?CID=28286&SP=10007&PN=5&PID=262960&sid=21430

Odd.... It also teaches the non-Latin-alphabet languages using the
Latin alphabet, the web page says.... Are you sure this is the same
program, Galina?

GS

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 12:25:04 AM9/30/00
to

Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
>
>
> I'd definitely like to hear how this works. It sounds like the price
> is right, in any event.

Well, the language part works fine. My son is using it


>

GS

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 12:38:53 AM9/30/00
to

Catherine Hampton wrote:


>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:25:04 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'd definitely like to hear how this works. It sounds like the price
> >> is right, in any event.
> >
> >Well, the language part works fine. My son is using it

I think maybe I am going to use it to learn some basic Bulgarian. The
interactive feature is very nice. It corrects your pronunciation


>
> Howabout a URL to the company's web site, then? :)

lemme see......www.transparent.com

GS

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 12:51:29 AM9/30/00
to
Hmmm, for 30 bucks more I could have had 101 languages, twice as many

http://www.transparentstore.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry17c?CID=28286&SP=10007&PN=5&PID=262960&sid=21430

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 1:15:13 AM9/30/00
to
On 29 Sep 2000 18:39:13 GMT, x...@hrweb.org (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
>
>On a technical level, Unicode is simply a character encoding scheme,
>just like ASCII is, except that ASCII has a 16-bit character set,
>and Unicode has a 32-bit character set. What that means is that
>ASCII has "room" for a total of 256 characters. In reality, it
>has 128 defined characters, and the rest can be defined locally.
>That allows people to use codepages and support a second character
>set or language "on top of" the standard ASCII set.
>
Yes, Windows Code Page 1253 has the standard English characters as the
first 128, and then has Greek as the "extended" characters.

Code Page 1252 (the default Code Page in the U.S.) has various Western
European characters (for example, the German umlauted vowels) as the
extended characters.

There are other Windows Code Pages for, among others, Eastern European
(Latin), Turkish, and Cyrillic.

Unicode is supposed to be supported in Windows 2000. The following is
an article that appeared last spring in the Wall Street Journal:

Plato's Greek Is Legible at Last On Modern PCs

By Kevin J. Delany
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

ATHENS -- With its current rollout of Windows 2000, Microsoft Corp.
is taking a giant step into the past -- about 2,100 years.

For the first time, Microsoft's computer operating system supports
ancient Greek, a language that hasn't been spoken for centuries. Users
of the 23 different versions of Windows 2000 around the world -- not
just here in Greece -- are now able to type using the polytonic
alphabet, invented a couple of millennia ago to codify the peculiar
pronunciations of Plato's time.

Why bother? There is little market for polytonic software these days
beyond the dusty corners of university classics departments and the
Greek Orthodox Church's clergy. Mike Tsaladis, marketing manager for
Microsoft Hellas SA, the company's Greek subsidiary, concedes that
"ancient Greek is definitely not something you can make money off."

But small details can help in a global marketplace where local content
still counts. The new feature is just the latest example of the U.S.
software giant's efforts to navigate the treacherous seas of local
culture and politics in the scores of markets where its products are
sold. In addition to polytonic Greek, Microsoft has already tackled
about two dozen character sets, including Turkish, Cyrillic, Arabic
and Thai. The Indic scripts used for Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, Konkani
and Sanskrit join polytonic Greek in making their debut with Windows
2000.

Microsoft's polytonic adventure began last November, when a group of
11 legislators drafted a letter to the president of Parliament
proposing an investigation into why the U.S. company's software did
not include the polytonic Greek alphabet. After the letter was picked
up by Greek newspapers, the company was flooded with calls and mail
from concerned users, and its Greek unit decided to push forward a
standing request to Microsoft's U.S. headquarters that the
functionality make it into the latest version.

For Microsoft, the uproar threatened political embarrassment in one of
its fastest-growing European outlets. Despite an extended truce in the
once-violent skirmishes over Greece's language, debates over liguistic
heritage still stir the blood in this country.

For much of the last two centuries, proponents of a polytonic Greek
closer to the idiom of the ancients have squared off against those
favoring the all-out adoption of a more vernacular language with fewer
accents. Such issues are not taken lightly in the cradle of democracy.
Writers were regularly taken to court for using the more vernacular
script, and eight people died in a riot related to the language debate
in the early 1900's.

The elite finally lost that battle nearly 20 years ago, when
Parliament formalized the switch over to the monotonic alphabet --
which has just one accent mark instead of six -- for the writing of
modern Greek.

But even today, the issue is not entirely resolved. "It's a
conspiracy," says Petros Konstantinou, a 50-year-old jewelry salesman,
as he sits in the corner of an Internet cafe downtown. "I heard a
rumor that Olivetti obliged [the government] to do it." Some scholars
say ancient words appear absurd when they aren't written with the
right typeface. "I feel very bad when I see them in the monotonic,"
says Georgios Babiniotis, author of a monotonic dictionary of modern
Greek. "It looks ridiculous."

In fact, until recently, the elegant polytonic script faced extinction
in some quarters, as a Babel-like absence of standardization
frustrated efforts to use it in the digital age.

Last summer, the Greek school system had to use a television signal to
transmit the images of ancient-Greek-related questions on standardized
tests administered to high-school students. Computer systems
throughout the system's 2,500 schools couldn't handle the polytonic
lettering.

The rest of the exams were recently sent by a form of internal e-mail.
The school system similarly struggled with how to typeset 15 new
secondary-school textbooks that include polytonic characters. Its
normal computers couldn't handle the task.

In academic circles around the world, the situation was the same. "It
was worse than choosing your religion. Because you could change your
religion, but you couldn't change your font," explains Jeffrey Rusten,
chairman of the classics department at Cornell University in New York
who created his own polytonic typeface out of frustration with the
offerings. "And you had written thousands of words in it."

The basic problem was that there was no standard keyboard placement or
digital code for the polytonic characters across the more than a dozen
different typefaces available. Classicists mailed each other
documents including excerpts of ancient Greek texts for review,
because there was no guarantee that the person on the receiving end of
an e-mail could read the file.

Many wound up scribbling the complicated polytonic accent marks --
each letter can take as many as three marks -- over monotonic letters.
And in other instances academic journals refused to print polytonic
texts, saying that it was technically impossible. That was bad news
for the estimated 10,000 people -- mostly scholars and clergy --
around the world who write in ancient Greek every day.

Microsoft's latest technical fix is a relatively simple one, based on
a consortium-developed standard called Unicode, which assigns unique
character and keyboard codes for hundreds of alphabets. In addition
to polytonic Greek, Unicode already includes Ethiopic, Mongolian,
Hebrew, Runic and more than 30 other scripts. There's even been a
"Klingon" alphabet proposed for Unicode, extrapolated from the
characters used by the aliens in "Star Trek."

Microsoft's decision is applauded in Greece, drawing praise from TV
networks and newspapers. The clergy is particularly appreciative. Ask
Agathangelos Haramadithis, 38, director of publications for the Church
of Greece, about the polytonic support in Windows 2000 and he smiles.
"It's very, very good," he says.

The slight, bearded man shuffles through a sheaf of yellowed documents
in his office at the Holy Synod in central Athens. Among those he lays
gently on his desk is the 1850 letter recognizing the Church of
Greece's independence from the Orthodox Church in Constantinople, one
of the Greek church's founding texts. The church has planned to
publish a book of the documents he has in his hands, but without a
polytonic standard it was exponentially more complicated.

Now, with the polytonic feature, officials of the church will be able
to enter the texts of the archives into a standard format and draw on
them for e-mail, Web sites and publication. For this reason, they say
it brings new life to the millennia-old language, giving it currency
in the digital age.

And while it may not earn Microsoft a lot of money, it has earned its
Greek-based employees new respect. "When my mother heard about this,
she told me that she was proud of me," said Christodoulos Papaphotis,
28, product manager for Office and Windows at Microsoft's Greek unit.

Ancient Greek "is like your grandmother," Mr. Papaphotis says. "You
don't see her every day, but you love her to death."


GS

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 1:37:59 AM9/30/00
to

Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:51:29 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.transparentstore.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry17c?CID=28286&SP=10007&PN=5&PID=262960&sid=21430
>

> Uh, the price listed on this page isn't $22 -- it's $49. But
> otherwise it looks like what was described. I'm going to see if
> there's a downloadable demo version.

The one I have is 51 languages, not 101. Someone told me they bought
theirs online for 12 dollars but maybe at a different website. I paid
twenty and tax becuase I bought mine at a Staples chain store.

GS

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 1:39:18 AM9/30/00
to

Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:51:29 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.transparentstore.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry17c?CID=28286&SP=10007&PN=5&PID=262960&sid=21430
>

> Odd.... It also teaches the non-Latin-alphabet languages using the
> Latin alphabet, the web page says.... Are you sure this is the same
> program, Galina?

It is not. Same company, different program, twice as many languages on
the 101 version, apparently.

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 2:16:40 AM9/30/00
to

Alexander Arnakis <Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:g3u7tsg31ql7nhaie...@4ax.com...

> The new "official" Greek (since 1974) is monotonic, meaning that only
> one type of accent mark is used. So, a complete Greek font needs a set
> of accented vowels, as well as the iota and upsilon with dieresis (to
> break the diphthongs), with and without accent.
>
> Polytonic Greek uses 3 types of accent marks and 2 types of breathing
> marks, in various combinations. Normally, you need a special type of
> program, like "Polytonistis" by Magenta, to write polytonic Greek on
> the computer.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is monotonic Greek and what is
polytonic Greek ? Who speaks/spoke what and why did each one develop ?

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:39:18 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Catherine Hampton wrote:

>> Odd.... It also teaches the non-Latin-alphabet languages using the
>> Latin alphabet, the web page says.... Are you sure this is the same
>> program, Galina?
>
>It is not. Same company, different program, twice as many languages on
>the 101 version, apparently.

Not just twice as many languages.... The 101-language version doesn't
support any alphabet but the Latin alphabet, according to the web
page's information. It teaches all non-Latin-alphabet languages using
the Latin alphabet, allegedly to make things easier for the person
learning the language. <wry grin> (As if learning to speak a
language, but not read it, were of much use to anyone here.)


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================

The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

GS

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00
to

Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 01:39:18 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Catherine Hampton wrote:
>

> >> Odd.... It also teaches the non-Latin-alphabet languages using the
> >> Latin alphabet, the web page says.... Are you sure this is the same
> >> program, Galina?
> >
> >It is not. Same company, different program, twice as many languages on
> >the 101 version, apparently.
>

> Not just twice as many languages.... The 101-language version doesn't
> support any alphabet but the Latin alphabet, according to the web
> page's information. It teaches all non-Latin-alphabet languages using
> the Latin alphabet, allegedly to make things easier for the person
> learning the language. <wry grin> (As if learning to speak a
> language, but not read it, were of much use to anyone here.)

Sometimes improvements aren't so good, eh? Mine came with a language
word processor for a hundred languages. And not in latinitsa. So I
guess if any of the other Staples have the old program, people are in
better luck.


>
> --
> Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
> ===========================================================

> The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
>

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00
to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:57:43 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Sometimes improvements aren't so good, eh? Mine came with a language
>word processor for a hundred languages. And not in latinitsa. So I
>guess if any of the other Staples have the old program, people are in
>better luck.

Yeah, sometimes they aren't. :/ If that software package supported
all those languages in their original alphabets/writing systems, and
provided a word processor, I'd pay $49 for it, and probably twice as
much.

Manos Krokos

unread,
Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00
to
in article 8r40m7$mkl$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, Stephen Korsman at
skor...@global.co.za wrote on 30-09-00 09:16:

> Please excuse my ignorance, but what is monotonic Greek and what is
> polytonic Greek ? Who speaks/spoke what and why did each one develop ?
>
> God bless,
> Stephen


When I was a student --I am 40 now-- I was taught the polytonic Greek,
writing Greek with accents like the German language, for example. In an
effort to simplify things -so they said- the PASOK government eliminated the
old-fashioned *katharevousa* language which used these accents and
introduced the *dimotiki* language with only one accent showing where the
tonation should be in each word. How very Orwell-ish!


May God be with you,
Emmanouil Krokos
----------------
sc...@mac.com


Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00
to
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 16:47:06 +0300, Manos Krokos <sc...@mac.com> wrote:

>When I was a student --I am 40 now-- I was taught the polytonic Greek,
>writing Greek with accents like the German language, for example.

German doesn't have written accents. As in English, the accents are
understood without marking them. Umlauted letters have nothing to do
with accent; they denote particular sounds.

> In an
>effort to simplify things -so they said- the PASOK government eliminated the
>old-fashioned *katharevousa* language which used these accents and
>introduced the *dimotiki* language with only one accent showing where the
>tonation should be in each word. How very Orwell-ish!
>

The issues of demotiki vs. katharevousa and monotonic vs. polytonic
are separate issues. For example, demotiki can be written
polytonically, as it was for years.

Katharevousa has more to do with grammar and vocabulary than with
styles of accents. It was the result of the classical revival of the
late 18th and early 19th centuries, but during the 20th century became
identified with political conservatism in Greece. Katharevousa was
always an artificial construct, and increasingly became a fertile
ground for pedantry.

Remember, true classical Greek was written without any accents at all.
They were introduced in Hellenistic times to assist people whose
native language wasn't Greek.

Regarding simplification, I can tell you that as a Greek raised
outside Greece, I can write Greek monotonically, but Heaven help me if
I have to apply the complicated polytonic rules. My wife learned her
Greek in Greece under the polytonic system, but she still has trouble
with it.

We are beginning to see trends in two different directions --
polytonic is being revived to a limited extent, but also sometimes we
see efforts to eliminate accents altogether, especially in things such
as advertising copy. Monotonic is a good compromise -- it recognizes
that a marked accent is needed, because Greek has words that mean
entirely different things depending on where the accent is placed. The
multiple accent types of polytonic had a practical significance in
Hellenistic Greek, but have absolutely no significance today.


Manos Krokos

unread,
Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00
to
in article 6f0ftsco5mtaekm84...@4ax.com, Alexander Arnakis at
Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote on 1-10-00 22:06:

> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 16:47:06 +0300, Manos Krokos <sc...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> When I was a student --I am 40 now-- I was taught the polytonic Greek,
>> writing Greek with accents like the German language, for example.
>
> German doesn't have written accents. As in English, the accents are
> understood without marking them. Umlauted letters have nothing to do
> with accent; they denote particular sounds.

I am not really familiar with the German language but I thought that these
*umlauts* made a difference... whatever!

>
>> In an
>> effort to simplify things -so they said- the PASOK government eliminated the
>> old-fashioned *katharevousa* language which used these accents and
>> introduced the *dimotiki* language with only one accent showing where the
>> tonation should be in each word. How very Orwell-ish!
>>
> The issues of demotiki vs. katharevousa and monotonic vs. polytonic
> are separate issues. For example, demotiki can be written
> polytonically, as it was for years.
>

True, but katharevousa and accents were eliminated around the same time. As
a matter of fact, I think it's kinda suicidal spiritually or culturally to
go and wipe out of the face of this earth half your language. Since, as I
stated before, I am not familiar with German language, I might be mistaken
again but I have the impression that German language is divided into plain,
everyday language and to the *higher* Deutsch that is used for sciences or
to express higher meanings.

Face it, how would you say in dimotiki something like: alma is mikos

(For those with Greek fonts being able to read stuff written in Greek ISO
character set: άλμα εις μήκος)

let me guess... pidima se mikos

I am doing lots of prepress work for school books. I am completely freaking
out with the use of language from people who are supposed to be teaching
today's greek children this ancient language. Dimotiki cannot in any way
substitute the much much richer *simplified* katharevousa.

> Katharevousa has more to do with grammar and vocabulary than with
> styles of accents. It was the result of the classical revival of the
> late 18th and early 19th centuries, but during the 20th century became
> identified with political conservatism in Greece. Katharevousa was
> always an artificial construct, and increasingly became a fertile
> ground for pedantry.
>
> Remember, true classical Greek was written without any accents at all.
> They were introduced in Hellenistic times to assist people whose
> native language wasn't Greek.
>
> Regarding simplification, I can tell you that as a Greek raised
> outside Greece, I can write Greek monotonically, but Heaven help me if
> I have to apply the complicated polytonic rules. My wife learned her
> Greek in Greece under the polytonic system, but she still has trouble
> with it.
>
> We are beginning to see trends in two different directions --
> polytonic is being revived to a limited extent, but also sometimes we
> see efforts to eliminate accents altogether, especially in things such
> as advertising copy. Monotonic is a good compromise -- it recognizes
> that a marked accent is needed, because Greek has words that mean
> entirely different things depending on where the accent is placed. The
> multiple accent types of polytonic had a practical significance in
> Hellenistic Greek, but have absolutely no significance today.
>

May God be with you,
Emmanouil Krokos
----------------
sc...@mac.com


Phil (Silouan) Thompson

unread,
Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00
to
"Manos Krokos" wrote:
> I am not really familiar with the German language but I thought that these
> *umlauts* made a difference... whatever!

Just changes the vowel pronunciation.

> ...I am not familiar with German language, I might be mistaken again


> but I have the impression that German language is divided into plain,
> everyday language and to the *higher* Deutsch that is used for
> sciences or to express higher meanings.

That's a pretty common belief, but itr turns out the difference is only
regional. In areas of higher elevation the dialects are different from the
lower elevations in Germany. Hebce the High/Low German...

Here in the US we have regional accents, but we haven't had time to develop
mutually incomprehensible dialects. It's always strange for me as an
American, having learned a number of languages in school and from immigrant
friends, to travel overseas and discover that lots of Italians or Germans or
Spaniards speak their own local dialects that nobody warned me about. (But
then, who would sign up for classes in Swabian or Venetian or Occitan? Only
language nerds I guess.)

Silouan
the language-nerd-wannabe


Catherine Hampton

unread,
Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00
to
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:01:11 -0700, "Phil \(Silouan\) Thompson"
<him...@philthompson.net> wrote:

>"Manos Krokos" wrote:

>> ...I am not familiar with German language, I might be mistaken again
>> but I have the impression that German language is divided into plain,
>> everyday language and to the *higher* Deutsch that is used for
>> sciences or to express higher meanings.

No, this is true of other languages, but not German. Hochdeutsch, or
"High German" refers to the German spoken in the central Germany
highlands where Martin Luther was from. Modern hochdeutsch is derived
from the dialect spoken by Martin Luther as a kid. :)

>Here in the US we have regional accents, but we haven't had time to develop
>mutually incomprehensible dialects.

In Germany almost the opposite of this is what happened, at least in a
historical time frame. Many languages were spoken there, and only
after Martin Luther translated the Bible and his translation came to
be widely used did you see the many related languages in what is now
Germany start to merge and become one language. Only after that
happened, in the late 1800s, did Germany become one country.

Linguists and philologists believe there was once a unified
Indo-European language, but that would have existed thousands of years
ago.

GalinaS

unread,
Oct 2, 2000, 2:22:57 AM10/2/00
to

Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:57:43 -0400, GS <oh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Sometimes improvements aren't so good, eh? Mine came with a language
> >word processor for a hundred languages. And not in latinitsa. So I
> >guess if any of the other Staples have the old program, people are in
> >better luck.
>
> Yeah, sometimes they aren't. :/ If that software package supported
> all those languages in their original alphabets/writing systems, and
> provided a word processor, I'd pay $49 for it, and probably twice as
> much.

I think list is 29 dollars for it at Staples. Uses real scripts.

GalinaS

unread,
Oct 2, 2000, 2:24:09 AM10/2/00
to
Dear Catherine,

From Mano's description, it sounds like both you and I learned polytonic
- but koine instead of katherevousa

Manos Krokos wrote:
>
> in article 8r40m7$mkl$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, Stephen Korsman at
> skor...@global.co.za wrote on 30-09-00 09:16:
>

> > Please excuse my ignorance, but what is monotonic Greek and what is
> > polytonic Greek ? Who speaks/spoke what and why did each one develop ?
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
>

> When I was a student --I am 40 now-- I was taught the polytonic Greek,

> writing Greek with accents like the German language, for example. In an


> effort to simplify things -so they said- the PASOK government eliminated the
> old-fashioned *katharevousa* language which used these accents and
> introduced the *dimotiki* language with only one accent showing where the
> tonation should be in each word. How very Orwell-ish!
>

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Oct 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/2/00
to
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:16:43 GMT, Paul Gorodyansky
<pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>In article <u9iatss9m9aju44dl...@4ax.com>,
> Alexander Arnakis <Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> ...


>> Unicode is supposed to be supported in Windows 2000.

>No, it has been implemented already in Windows NT 4.0 (fully Unicode OS)
>that is in use for several years now.

Yes and no. The operating system supported it, but very little of
the software people used to write with did. :/ So creating a unicode
document was still a problem, and to some extent still is. Office
2000 supports Unicode, but you still have to figure out how to install
a keyboard for each alternative alphabet. (Copying and pasting from
the Character Map are good ways to go crazy.)

Eventually, it should be possible to pick a language and have your
keyboard switch to the right settings automatically.


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================

The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Oct 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/2/00
to
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:43:05 GMT, Alexander Arnakis
<Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>And yet, my Greek edition of Word 2000 only allows me to write Greek
>monotonically. To type polytonic Greek, I had to buy the add-on
>program "Polytonistis 2000."

For that matter, Alex, there is a decent little program called "Son of
WinGreek" that types polytonic Greek (Classical, Koine, and Homeric),
as well as Hebrew and Coptic. It's shareware (at least, WinGreek
itself was), and costs about $30.00 last I checked. You can find it
on most big software download site.

I've used it to type the Greek portions of services for my church,
among other things.

Paul Gorodyansky

unread,
Oct 2, 2000, 8:16:43 PM10/2/00
to
In article <u9iatss9m9aju44dl...@4ax.com>,
Alexander Arnakis <Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ...
> Unicode is supposed to be supported in Windows 2000.

No, it has been implemented already in Windows NT 4.0 (fully Unicode OS)


that is in use for several years now.

Word 97 is already a Unicode program as well as later versions.
MS Unicode programs such as MS Word 97 and up, WordPad in Windows 98, etc.
are using Unicode for both input and display while utilizing large fonts that
contain many different alphabets such as "Arial", "Times New Roman", etc.

More details - in a chapter "Word 97 problems", section "Problem 2" on my
site "Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/

--
Regards,
Paul Gorodyansky
"Cyrillic (Russian) in Netscape for Windows"
http://www.relcom.ru/Russification/WinNetscape/


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Oct 2, 2000, 11:43:05 PM10/2/00
to
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:16:43 GMT, Paul Gorodyansky
<pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Word 97 is already a Unicode program as well as later versions.
>MS Unicode programs such as MS Word 97 and up, WordPad in Windows 98, etc.
>are using Unicode for both input and display while utilizing large fonts that
>contain many different alphabets such as "Arial", "Times New Roman", etc.
>

Paul Gorodyansky

unread,
Oct 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/3/00
to
In article <6ltits4tsrl4krg10...@4ax.com>,

Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:16:43 GMT, Paul Gorodyansky
> <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <u9iatss9m9aju44dl...@4ax.com>,
> > Alexander Arnakis <Arn...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Unicode is supposed to be supported in Windows 2000.
>
> >No, it has been implemented already in Windows NT 4.0 (fully Unicode OS)
> >that is in use for several years now.
>
> Yes and no. The operating system supported it, but very little of
> the software people used to write with did. :/

Yes, it was this way a year or two ago, but nowadays _a lot_ of common-usee
software tools work with Unicode: - MS Internet Explorer/Outlook Express -
MS Outlook - Netscape Communicator - MS Word 97 and later versions - etc.

Moreover, the above programs manage to be a Unicode-based software even under
Windows 95/98 that are not Unicode Operating Systems.

I have just participated in the 17th International Unicode Conference in San
Jose, CA and it's amazing how fast the use of Unicode is growing. For
example, Java and new version of JavaScript are completely Unicode-based.

> So creating a unicode document was still a problem, and to some extent still is.

Why? An end user even does _not_ know that s/he creates a Unicode document.
Couple examples (under any of Windows 95/98/NT/2000): a) A user goes to a
Russian Web site using MS IE and is asked to fill out a form. This process
is 100% Unicode-based but this user who selected Cyrillic in View/Encoding
does _not_ need to know about it, it just works: - s/he never went to the
Fonts menu of IE, so there it's an original "Times New Roman" and not some
old, from Windows 3.1 Cyrillic font - s/he switches the keyboard to 'RU'
using Windows-own keyboard tools and the indicator on the taskbar - starts
to type. Really, s/he inputs a Unicode text - based on the keyboard mode, MS
IE uses a Cyrillic part (Unicode section of Cyrillic) of the large
multilingual font "Times New Roman"

b) MS Word 97 Why it's hard to create a Unicode document here? Again, an
end user does not need to do anything special - just switch keyboard to 'RU'
and type Russian, then swith to 'FR' and type French, etc. The document s/he
creates is a Unicode document.

> 2000 supports Unicode, but you still have to figure out how to install
> a keyboard for each alternative alphabet. (Copying and pasting from
> the Character Map are good ways to go crazy.)


On any system - Windows 95/98/NT 4.0/2000 a user MUST activate keyboard
tools, but why it's an obstacle? S/he needs keyboard tools any way, right?
Why 'figure out'? It's a logical place - Control Panel/Keyboard that lets a
user to add a keyboard layout for some new script. As I know from, say,
sci.lang.translation Newsgroup, professionals who need that just install the
layouts they need, say, French, Russian, Greek, and English, and then switch
between them while typing.

>
> Eventually, it should be possible to pick a language and have your
> keyboard switch to the right settings automatically.

May be I did not understand but it's exactly as it works - I select a
_language_ in Control Panel/Keyboard and it automatically installs the right
keyboard layout for me.

--
Regards,
Paul Gorodyansky
"Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/

Phil (Silouan) Thompson

unread,
Oct 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/3/00
to
Paul Gorodyansky wrote:

[Good comments and]
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/


Paul, thanks for the tips and the website. I've never known how to type in
non-American characters other than to pick ā off the charmap or memorize
"alt+0243" or whatever.

Silouan

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Oct 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/3/00
to
Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:

: Yes, it was this way a year or two ago, but nowadays _a lot_ of common-usee


: software tools work with Unicode: - MS Internet Explorer/Outlook Express -
: MS Outlook - Netscape Communicator - MS Word 97 and later versions - etc.

Only Word, among those, allows you to write in Unicode. (Well, I guess
Outlook probably does.) Even with Word, though, it isn't straightforward.
If you want to write in one other language, you can just set up your
copy of Word to do it, but if you routinely write work that contains
a mixture of languages (especially with different alphabets), Word
does not handle this well. It has no "quick switch" mechanism between,
say, an English keyboard and a Russian or Greek one.

And trying to type more than a few characters by picking them one by
one from Character Map is a =nuisance=. :)

: Moreover, the above programs manage to be a Unicode-based software even under


: Windows 95/98 that are not Unicode Operating Systems.

Yes and no. The character map under Windows 95/98 shows Unicode
fonts as a series of different code pages -- you can't just choose
Unicode text. If you look, you can find what you need, but trying
to type a paper for school that contains a mixture of English,
Slavonic, and Greek is a royal pain.

Worse, the support isn't seamless or without bugs. Excel does a
poor job of handling Unicode -- characters in Unicode often get
converted to ASCII and assigned to the default code page when
you copy and paste. :/ I struggle with this a lot. Powerpoint
occasionally does the same thing, so I wonder if this might be
a problem with the OS.

My point is that, while it is supported in NT and Windows 2000
(and I'm glad about that), application level support is still
pretty spotty. You can do what was done with codepages fairly
easily, if you just want to use one or two languages, but if
you want to make full use of Unicode, you will find that that
is difficult.

: I have just participated in the 17th International Unicode Conference in San


: Jose, CA and it's amazing how fast the use of Unicode is growing. For
: example, Java and new version of JavaScript are completely Unicode-based.

Yep. :) I was there for a couple of evening sessions. (I'm
a web developer.)

: Why? An end user even does _not_ know that s/he creates a Unicode document.

Oh, yes, we do. (Well, some of us.) We know because we need to use
Unicode's capabilities, and the current applications don't support them
fully yet.

:> Eventually, it should be possible to pick a language and have your


:> keyboard switch to the right settings automatically.

: May be I did not understand but it's exactly as it works - I select a
: _language_ in Control Panel/Keyboard and it automatically installs the right
: keyboard layout for me.

Yeah, from Control Panel. But if you're typing a multi-language
document? You end up having to switch keyboards via the Control
Panel constantly, and shut down Word if you don't want it to
do wierd stuff. :/

I think you and I may be thinking about a different type of use,
though.


--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================

Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>

Orthodox Christian Resources * <http://www.iconwall.org/links/>

Alexander Arnakis

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 2:11:45 AM10/4/00
to
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:05:47 -0700, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org>
wrote:

>
>Yes and no. The operating system supported it, but very little of
>the software people used to write with did. :/ So creating a unicode
>document was still a problem, and to some extent still is. Office

>2000 supports Unicode, but you still have to figure out how to install
>a keyboard for each alternative alphabet. (Copying and pasting from
>the Character Map are good ways to go crazy.)
>
Yes, I think my "Polytonistis 2000" program is actually a set of
polytonic Greek Unicode fonts for Word 2000. It embeds itself into the
parent program.

Paul Gorodyansky

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/4/00
to pau...@compuserve.com
In article <8rdbdr$5q2$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
x...@hrweb.org (Catherine Hampton) wrote:

> Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > >Eventually, it should be possible to pick a language and have your
> > >keyboard switch to the right settings automatically.
>
> > May be I did not understand but it's exactly as it works - I select
> > a _language_ in Control Panel/Keyboard and it automatically installs
> > the right keyboard layout for me.
>
> Yeah, from Control Panel. But if you're typing a multi-language
> document? You end up having to switch keyboards via the Control
> Panel constantly, and shut down Word if you don't want it to
> do wierd stuff. :/

No, no! I go to Control Panel _only once_ to add, say, Russian and Greek
to my existing English keyboard layout. That's it. Now, when I am in
Word, I do NOT need to go to Control Panel, I just press Alt/Shift
to switch from English to Russian to Greek or can do the same using
a mouse over keyboard layout indicator on the Taskbar.


>
> > Yes, it was this way a year or two ago, but nowadays _a lot_ of
> > common-usee software tools work with Unicode:
> > - MS Internet Explorer/Outlook Express
> > - MS Outlook - Netscape Communicator - MS Word 97 and later
> > versions - etc.
>
> Only Word, among those, allows you to write in Unicode.
> (Well, I guess Outlook probably does.)

What do you mean? :) I never write about things that I don'd know
and/or did not try myself:
so all those programs that I listed (Internet Explorer, Netscape,
MS Outlook) _do_ let you write in Unicode, and moreover, _only_ in
Unicode as I wrote in my previous e-mail giving
MS Internet Explorer example.


> Even with Word, though, it isn't straightforward.

All those programs that I listed use _the same_ method that is used
in Word:
a user of Netscape or IE or Outlook or Word changes the keyboard
mode, say, from 'RU' to 'EN' and types in a language.

> If you want to write in one other language, you can just set up your
> copy of Word to do it, but if you routinely write work that contains
> a mixture of languages (especially with different alphabets), Word
> does not handle this well.

I agree - no software does it well (yet).

> It has no "quick switch" mechanism between, say, an English keyboard
> and a Russian or Greek one.

As I mentioned above, _all_ Unicode-based software - Netscape 4.x,
Outlook, Internet Explorer/OutlookExpress, Word - use _the same_
mechanism for switching, say, from English to Russian to Greek.
IMHO, it's quick enough - pressing Alt/Shift or using a mouse over
that keyboard language indicator on the Taskbar.

>
> And trying to type more than a few characters by picking them one by
> one from Character Map is a =nuisance=. :)

Absolutely! It's what I wrote in my previous e-mail - modern versions
of Windows (95,98,NT,2000) *unlike* Windows 3.1, give a user *another*
method of typing national characters - by activating corresponding
keyboard layout. So, if I activate, say, Russian and Greek in
addition to English via Start/Settings/ControlPanel/Keyboard, then,
having the indicator on the Taskbar, I will be able to type in English
couple words, then switch to Greek _quickly_ by pressing Alt/Shift
then type something in Greek, and then switch to Russian, etc.

Why do you think that it's not qucik and handy enough?
I think that pressing Alt/Shift is a very quick method of switching
languages.

Again, it is _not_ MS Word-specific, Word as a program has nothing to do
with _keyboard_ functions/languages - it is Operating System that
controls keyboard. This is the reason that _the same_ method of
Alt/Shift works in other Unicode-based programs such as Netscape,
Outlook,
etc.


>
> > Moreover, the above programs manage to be a Unicode-based software
> > even under Windows 95/98 that are not Unicode Operating Systems.
>
> Yes and no. The character map under Windows 95/98 shows Unicode
> fonts as a series of different code pages -- you can't just choose
> Unicode text.

Probably you did not read my post through - I wrote that nowadays
one should NOT use Character Map at all - Windows 95/98/NT/200, unlike
Windows 3.1 offers *keyboard layouts* that are easily added and thus
user of Windows 95 can, in her/his Netscape or Outlook or Word,
switch keyboard from 'EN' to 'RU' and type Russian using a Cyrillic
part of a large font such as "Arial".

> If you look, you can find what you need, but trying
> to type a paper for school that contains a mixture of English,
> Slavonic, and Greek is a royal pain.

Exactly! It's what I wrote in my previous e-mail - Character Map
is NOT a good way to type national characters.

>
> Worse, the support isn't seamless or without bugs. Excel does a
> poor job of handling Unicode -- characters in Unicode often get
> converted to ASCII and assigned to the default code page when
> you copy and paste. :/ I struggle with this a lot. Powerpoint
> occasionally does the same thing, so I wonder if this might be
> a problem with the OS.

Yes and no. The point is that Excel _perfectly_ works with Unicode,
but when you try to do Copy/Paste, it's NOT Excel that you arte dealing
with, it's a Windows Clipboard and there we see the problems.

If you find 20 minutes, you can read the detailed explanation
(oriented to a NON-computer professional) and *workaround* for these
Copy/Paste problems between Unicode- and non-Unicode-based software:
please, see a section 'Word 97 problems' and its Chapter "Problem 2"


on my site "Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/


>


> My point is that, while it is supported in NT and Windows 2000
> (and I'm glad about that), application level support is still
> pretty spotty. You can do what was done with codepages fairly
> easily, if you just want to use one or two languages, but if
> you want to make full use of Unicode, you will find that that
> is difficult.

The point is well taken. Yes, Unicode is in the 'childhood' stage now,
but still - isn't it great that one can type, mixing languages,
even under Windows 95/98 in Word by just pressing Alt/Shift?

>
> > I have just participated in the 17th International Unicode
> > Conference in San Jose, CA and it's amazing how fast the use of
> > Unicode is growing.
> > For example, Java and new version of JavaScript are completely
> > Unicode-based.
>
> Yep. :) I was there for a couple of evening sessions. (I'm
> a web developer.)
>
> > Why? An end user even does _not_ know that s/he creates a Unicode
> > document.
>
> Oh, yes, we do. (Well, some of us.) We know because we need to use
> Unicode's capabilities, and the current applications don't support
> them fully yet.

What current applications? If you work with the Web, _most_ of them
do support Unicode...

>
> I think you and I may be thinking about a different type of use,
> though.

May be. My examples are MS Word 97 and 2000, MS Outlook 97,98,2000,
MS Internet Explorer/Outlook Express where it's so easy to use
Unicode. Moreover, Netscape's HTML editor - Composer - lets you
create a Unicode HTML document! Just switch to
View/Character Set/Unicode(UTF-8) before opening Composer and it
will create a UTF-8 document - .html file with charset=UTF-8
and real UTF-8 characters inside.

What are your examples? Where do you have troubles with Unicode
(aside from known Copy/Paste problems that I have solutions for)?


--
Regards,
Paul Gorodyansky
"Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/

Paul Gorodyansky

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/4/00
to
In article <8rdbdr$5q2$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
x...@hrweb.org (Catherine Hampton) wrote:
> Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> ...

> > I have just participated in the 17th International Unicode
> > Conference here, in San Jose, CA and it's amazing how fast the

> > use of Unicode is growing.
> > For example, Java and new version of JavaScript are completely
> > Unicode-based.
>
> Yep. :) I was there for a couple of evening sessions. (I'm
> a web developer.)

I am an Internationalization Engineer :)
So, I am dealing with input and display of national characters.
as well as globalization issues (including Unicode - recently)
in C/C++/Java/JSP/JavaScript/HTML on the daily basis...


--
Regards,
Paul Gorodyansky
"Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/4/00
to
Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:

: No, no! I go to Control Panel _only once_ to add, say, Russian and Greek


: to my existing English keyboard layout. That's it. Now, when I am in
: Word, I do NOT need to go to Control Panel, I just press Alt/Shift
: to switch from English to Russian to Greek or can do the same using
: a mouse over keyboard layout indicator on the Taskbar.

Ok... I should read the Windows documentation sometime, I guess.
I don't work under Windows more than I have to (most of my
development work is on Unix), so I haven't kept up with the
new features terribly well.

Does this work under Windows '98?

:> > Yes, it was this way a year or two ago, but nowadays _a lot_ of


:> > common-usee software tools work with Unicode:
:> > - MS Internet Explorer/Outlook Express
:> > - MS Outlook - Netscape Communicator - MS Word 97 and later
:> > versions - etc.
:>
:> Only Word, among those, allows you to write in Unicode.
:> (Well, I guess Outlook probably does.)

: What do you mean? :) I never write about things that I don'd know
: and/or did not try myself:
: so all those programs that I listed (Internet Explorer, Netscape,
: MS Outlook) _do_ let you write in Unicode, and moreover, _only_ in
: Unicode as I wrote in my previous e-mail giving

IE and Netscape don't let you write in Unicode -- they don't let yo
write at all. They are browsers. :) As for OE.... I've uninstalled
every last file pertaining to the Inbox and any Microsoft email
product from my system. There are just too many bugs, bugs that
a lot of virus writers are exploiting. I figure I'm better off
doing my email with software that is more limited in its
capabilities, and therefore immune to scripted viruses and the
like.

Since there is no way whatsoever to secure Outlook or Outlook
Express against these sorts of attacks at present, I don't feel
either program should be used.

:> Even with Word, though, it isn't straightforward.

: All those programs that I listed use _the same_ method that is used
: in Word:
: a user of Netscape or IE or Outlook or Word changes the keyboard
: mode, say, from 'RU' to 'EN' and types in a language.

Yeah, but when you switch modes in Word (the hard way or this way),
the changes sometimes "stick" and sometimes don't. The situation
is worse for other Microsoft Office programs, at least those in
Office '97 running under Windows '98. For example, I've been working
on a linguistic analysis of some 11th century texts the last week
or so. I've done this by creating an Excel spreadsheet and putting
the text there.

The problem is that my switches to the proper font don't work when
I type directly into Excel -- instead, I get the standard Latin
alphabet equivalent. This remains true even when I manually apply
the Cyr version of the font. What usually works (and I have ended
up doing) is to type the text into Word in the correct font, copy
it, and paste it into Excel. :/

Let's just say that using these programs has been frustrating....

: If you find 20 minutes, you can read the detailed explanation


: (oriented to a NON-computer professional) and *workaround* for these
: Copy/Paste problems between Unicode- and non-Unicode-based software:
: please, see a section 'Word 97 problems' and its Chapter "Problem 2"
: on my site "Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/

Ok, I'll definitely have a look. :) This sounds like something I
need.

: What current applications? If you work with the Web, _most_ of them
: do support Unicode...

The browsers do, but no web developer worthy of the name uses any
of the browser-based editing functions, or (to be frank) the
Microsoft products that claim to support web stuff. What Frontpage
and the others do is support what Microsoft wants HTML to be,
which means a whole lot of vendor-specific tags and functions.
Inside an intranet where everyone is on Microsoft, that's ok, but
on the open web, you are almost guaranteed to create bloated
pages that don't render properly in many browsers. :/

In addition, the area where I need Unicode most is not in creating
web pages, but in doing my papers at school. So it's applications
like Word, Excel, FrameMaker, and graphics programs that I need
to have support Unicode. And many either don't support it, or
don't support it very well.

Paul Gorodyansky

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/4/00
to
Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
> Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> : No, no! I go to Control Panel _only once_ to add, say, Russian and Greek

> : to my existing English keyboard layout. That's it. Now, when I am in
> : Word, I do NOT need to go to Control Panel, I just press Alt/Shift
> : to switch from English to Russian to Greek or can do the same using
> : a mouse over keyboard layout indicator on the Taskbar.
>
> Ok... I should read the Windows documentation sometime, I guess.

Or you can read shorter explanations on my site

"Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/,
in a section "Phonetic Keyboard".


> I don't work under Windows more than I have to (most of my
> development work is on Unix), so I haven't kept up with the
> new features terribly well.
>
> Does this work under Windows '98?

Yes, and also under Windows 95.


> IE and Netscape don't let you write in Unicode -- they don't let you


> write at all. They are browsers. :)

Why not? Netscape 3 is not a Unicode browser and lets me write Okay.
Moreover, Netscape 4.x, in its Mail/News part, is NOT Unicode-based,
so when I write to a Newsgroup or preparing e-mail, I do NOT use
Unicode - but I can write Ok.

> As for OE.... I've uninstalled every last file pertaining to
> the Inbox and any Microsoft email product from my system.

I also use only Netscape and not OE.

> There are just too many bugs, bugs that a lot of virus writers
> are exploiting. I figure I'm better off doing my email with
> software that is more limited in its capabilities, and therefore
> immune to scripted viruses and the like.

No, you are confusing OE and MS Outlook. OE is not place for viruses,
only MS Outlook is. OE (Outlook Express) has the same functionality
as Netscape's e-mail and Newsgroup part, so I just like Netscape
better, while other people like OE better - no difference.

>
> Since there is no way whatsoever to secure Outlook or Outlook
> Express against these sorts of attacks at present, I don't feel
> either program should be used.

As far as I know, _only_ MS Outlook can spread viruses, not OE.

>
> :> Even with Word, though, it isn't straightforward.


>
> : All those programs that I listed use _the same_ method that is used
> : in Word:
> : a user of Netscape or IE or Outlook or Word changes the keyboard
> : mode, say, from 'RU' to 'EN' and types in a language.
>

> Yeah, but when you switch modes in Word (the hard way or this way),
> the changes sometimes "stick" and sometimes don't.

What do you mean? Many, many people use Word while creating
multi-language documents and it works just fine, no bugs or problems.
I can have, in one paragraph, any mix of English, German, Russian,
Greek, etc. and there is no such problem as you describe.

> The situation is worse for other Microsoft Office programs, at least
> those in Office '97 running under Windows '98. For example,
> I've been working on a linguistic analysis of some 11th century texts
> the last week or so. I've done this by creating an Excel spreadsheet
> and putting the text there.
>
> The problem is that my switches to the proper font don't work when
> I type directly into Excel -- instead, I get the standard Latin
> alphabet equivalent.

It's _probably_ (I did not try Excel) because you probably use
some _old_, non-Unicode, non-Microsoft font.
MS Office 97 and 2000 works fine with Windows-own fonts such
as "Arial", "Times New Roman" that contain many different alphabets.
Or may be because you do NOT use 'normal' way of keyboard management
and use some outdated keyboard program.

> This remains true even when I manually apply the Cyr version of the
> font.

You probably will benefit from reading my explanation page that I wrote
about - chapter "Problem 2" of a section "Word 97 problems".
There I explain that in modern Unicode programs a user should NOT
use old Cyr fonts and why in Word a user sees only "Arial" in fonts
window and NOT "Arial(Cyrillic)", "Arial(Greek)", etc. as it was in
non-Unicode Word 6.


> What usually works (and I have ended up doing) is to type the text
> into Word in the correct font, copy it, and paste it into Excel. :/

Let me try right now... As I suspected, it works fine for me (Excel 97):
I switched my system keyboard layout to Russian and typed in Excel -
looks fine, no latin letters... Again, to use modern software one should
use modern fonts and keyboard features. Unicode-based Office 97
_requres_ a user to work with modern fonts and modern keyboard
mechanizm.

>
> Let's just say that using these programs has been frustrating....

It's because you are not aware what Office 97 requres in the area
of fonts and keyboard switching.

>
> : If you find 20 minutes, you can read the detailed explanation


> : (oriented to a NON-computer professional) and *workaround* for these
> : Copy/Paste problems between Unicode- and non-Unicode-based software:
> : please, see a section 'Word 97 problems' and its Chapter "Problem 2"
> : on my site "Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
> : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/
>

> Ok, I'll definitely have a look. :) This sounds like something I
> need.
>

> : What current applications? If you work with the Web, _most_ of them
> : do support Unicode...
>

> The browsers do, but no web developer worthy of the name uses any
> of the browser-based editing functions, or (to be frank) the
> Microsoft products that claim to support web stuff.

Me too - I am using plain text editor http://www.UtraEdit.com where
I write my HTML code myself.
Why I mentioned Netscape Composer - because it's the easiest way to
create a multilingual Web page, in Unicode (UTF-8) - only UTF-8
allows a user to have one HTML document that contains different
scripts, say, German, Russian, Greek on the same Web page.

> What Frontpage and the others do is support what Microsoft wants
> HTML to be, which means a whole lot of vendor-specific tags and
> functions.
> Inside an intranet where everyone is on Microsoft, that's ok, but
> on the open web, you are almost guaranteed to create bloated
> pages that don't render properly in many browsers. :/

True. On my site I have a page where I write how the use of MS
Frontpage is dangerous for non-English Web pages:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/ff.htm


>
> In addition, the area where I need Unicode most is not in creating
> web pages, but in doing my papers at school. So it's applications
> like Word, Excel, FrameMaker, and graphics programs that I need
> to have support Unicode. And many either don't support it, or
> don't support it very well.

Right. While Office does support Unicode, most graphic programs do NOT.

Catherine Hampton

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/4/00
to
Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:
: Catherine Hampton wrote:

:> Ok... I should read the Windows documentation sometime, I guess.

: Or you can read shorter explanations on my site
: "Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/,
: in a section "Phonetic Keyboard".

Will do. :)

:> IE and Netscape don't let you write in Unicode -- they don't let you


:> write at all. They are browsers. :)

: Why not? Netscape 3 is not a Unicode browser and lets me write Okay.

If you use the email program or the wed editing software, sure.
But most web developers won't touch the web editing software in
any of the browsers -- it tends to create browser-specific HTML
and usually also creates =BAD= HTML. :) My point was that a
browser is not a tool for creating web pages, but for using them.

: I also use only Netscape and not OE.

Wise man. :) I have IE installed -- I have to to test my pages. I
also don't use Netscape for email; I use Eudora (although I'll
probably switch to Pegasus soon), and elm on my Unix box. They
aren't susceptible to the viruses going around.

BTW, you might want to check out a new firewall program called
Zone Alarm. It's free for non-commercial use, and it does a nice
job of intercepting attempts to connect to and exploit security
holes in Windows.

: No, you are confusing OE and MS Outlook. OE is not place for viruses,


: only MS Outlook is. OE (Outlook Express) has the same functionality
: as Netscape's e-mail and Newsgroup part, so I just like Netscape
: better, while other people like OE better - no difference.

??? That is =NOT= what I've heard. OE is an enhanced version of
Outlook, I thought.

:> Yeah, but when you switch modes in Word (the hard way or this way),


:> the changes sometimes "stick" and sometimes don't.

: What do you mean? Many, many people use Word while creating
: multi-language documents and it works just fine, no bugs or problems.
: I can have, in one paragraph, any mix of English, German, Russian,
: Greek, etc. and there is no such problem as you describe.

All I can say is that this is what happens with me. It's intermittent,
and the results can be truly strange. I've had documents where
Slavonic text turned into Latin alphabet text -- the equivalent
codes. Of course, I'm working with people who use a whole bunch of
versions of Word and various platforms (there are Mac people in
my department).

:> The problem is that my switches to the proper font don't work when


:> I type directly into Excel -- instead, I get the standard Latin
:> alphabet equivalent.

: It's _probably_ (I did not try Excel) because you probably use
: some _old_, non-Unicode, non-Microsoft font.

Absolutely not. I'm using the Unicode version of Arial in Excel
and on my computer -- that's the first thing I checked.

: Or may be because you do NOT use 'normal' way of keyboard management


: and use some outdated keyboard program.

I don't think that could be the problem.... I use code pages and
switch, or Character Map and copy and paste, if I only need to
type a word or two.

: You probably will benefit from reading my explanation page that I wrote


: about - chapter "Problem 2" of a section "Word 97 problems".
: There I explain that in modern Unicode programs a user should NOT
: use old Cyr fonts and why in Word a user sees only "Arial" in fonts
: window and NOT "Arial(Cyrillic)", "Arial(Greek)", etc. as it was in
: non-Unicode Word 6.

That definitely sounds like something I'd benefit from. (Your web
site just went into my browser's hotlist.) The odd thing about this
is that Excel "sees" all the various versions of Arial fonts (and
Times New Roman), while Word does not see the various Unicode
fonts, but Word actually appears more reliable for me when typing
the various things I need to type.

:> What usually works (and I have ended up doing) is to type the text


:> into Word in the correct font, copy it, and paste it into Excel. :/

: Let me try right now... As I suspected, it works fine for me (Excel 97):
: I switched my system keyboard layout to Russian and typed in Excel -
: looks fine, no latin letters... Again, to use modern software one should
: use modern fonts and keyboard features. Unicode-based Office 97
: _requres_ a user to work with modern fonts and modern keyboard
: mechanizm.

As far as I know, I've got those fonts and am using them. (I have
other fonts, but most of the non-Unicode fonts I have are Postscript
Type 1, and I never expected them to work with Unicode.)

:> The browsers do, but no web developer worthy of the name uses any


:> of the browser-based editing functions, or (to be frank) the
:> Microsoft products that claim to support web stuff.

: Me too - I am using plain text editor http://www.UtraEdit.com where
: I write my HTML code myself.

I hear Ultraedit is excellent. Does it support Unicode?

: Why I mentioned Netscape Composer - because it's the easiest way to


: create a multilingual Web page, in Unicode (UTF-8) - only UTF-8
: allows a user to have one HTML document that contains different
: scripts, say, German, Russian, Greek on the same Web page.

So it creates the text properly? The quality of the HTML it
produces is bad enough that I'd go nuts cleaning it up, though. :)

: True. On my site I have a page where I write how the use of MS


: Frontpage is dangerous for non-English Web pages:
: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/ff.htm

Excellent!

:> In addition, the area where I need Unicode most is not in creating


:> web pages, but in doing my papers at school. So it's applications
:> like Word, Excel, FrameMaker, and graphics programs that I need
:> to have support Unicode. And many either don't support it, or
:> don't support it very well.

: Right. While Office does support Unicode, most graphic programs do NOT.

Actually, Adobe is supporting the SVG standard, which is Unicode
compliant, in Illustrator 9.0. Unfortunately support in FrameMaker
(a major tool for anyone writing large, complex documents) isn't
there yet, not even version 6.0 that just came out. Soon, I hope.
(People have definitely been asking for it.)

I'll review your web pages in the next few days. Since I'm getting
a new computer in the next couple of months, though, would there
be any benefit to upgrading from Windows '98 to Windows 2000?
Win2K appears more stable under the kinds of use I give it. :)
Unfortunately Windows NT 4.0 had some quirks that made it not
a good idea on my Thinkpad.

Paul Gorodyansky

unread,
Oct 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/4/00
to
Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
> Paul Gorodyansky <pau...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> :> IE and Netscape don't let you write in Unicode -- they don't let you
> :> write at all. They are browsers. :)
>
> : Why not? Netscape 3 is not a Unicode browser and lets me write Okay.
>
> If you use the email program or the wed editing software, sure.
> But most web developers won't touch the web editing software in
> any of the browsers -- it tends to create browser-specific HTML
> and usually also creates =BAD= HTML. :) My point was that a
> browser is not a tool for creating web pages, but for using them.

Oo, we were talking about 2 different things - when I wrote 1st time
about writing in IE and sesond time - as you cited right above, I did
NOT mean _creating_ Web pages, I have meant _end-user_ work with the
the browser - as I wrote, a user connects, say, to some Russian Web
page where it's necessary to write (fill out a form) and then:
- s/he writes in Unicode in Netscape 4.x or IE
- s/he does not use Unicode but still writes Okay in Netscape 3.

This is waht I meant when I responded to your


> IE and Netscape don't let you write in Unicode -- they don't let you
> write at all. They are browsers. :)

Because people do write _a lot_ in browsers - filling out some forms,
typing in search strings, etc.


>
> : I also use only Netscape and not OE.
>
> Wise man. :) I have IE installed -- I have to to test my pages. I
> also don't use Netscape for email; I use Eudora (although I'll
> probably switch to Pegasus soon), and elm on my Unix box. They
> aren't susceptible to the viruses going around.

I can not use Eudora - it is NOT suitable for non-English at all
unlike fully internationalized Netscape Mail - that also is not


susceptible to the viruses going around.


>

> : No, you are confusing OE and MS Outlook. OE is not place for viruses,
> : only MS Outlook is. OE (Outlook Express) has the same functionality
> : as Netscape's e-mail and Newsgroup part, so I just like Netscape
> : better, while other people like OE better - no difference.
>
> ??? That is =NOT= what I've heard. OE is an enhanced version of
> Outlook, I thought.

Not at all. Those are 2 _completely_ different programs, no relation
between them.
MS Outlook is a large Organizer/Mail/Calendar/MeetingsPlanner program
while Outlook Express is just an e-mail and Newsreader program -
exactly like Messenger in Netscape 4.x.
MS Internet Explorer comes with Outlook Express as its Mail/News part
and then this pair - IE/OE functions as Netscape that combines both
browser and Mail/News part.

MS Outlook and Outlook Express do NOT interact at all, they are
completely separate programs.

>
> :> Yeah, but when you switch modes in Word (the hard way or this way),
> :> the changes sometimes "stick" and sometimes don't.
>
> : What do you mean? Many, many people use Word while creating
> : multi-language documents and it works just fine, no bugs or problems.
> : I can have, in one paragraph, any mix of English, German, Russian,
> : Greek, etc. and there is no such problem as you describe.
>
> All I can say is that this is what happens with me. It's intermittent,
> and the results can be truly strange. I've had documents where
> Slavonic text turned into Latin alphabet text -- the equivalent
> codes. Of course, I'm working with people who use a whole bunch of
> versions of Word and various platforms (there are Mac people in
> my department).

Oo, sure - if you are trying to accomodate old Word 6 files + Mac files,
etc. you would definitely face a lot of problems. I was writing about
a clean case - working with multi-lingual documents just in Word 97
alone.

>
> :> The problem is that my switches to the proper font don't work when
> :> I type directly into Excel -- instead, I get the standard Latin
> :> alphabet equivalent.
>
> : It's _probably_ (I did not try Excel) because you probably use
> : some _old_, non-Unicode, non-Microsoft font.
>
> Absolutely not. I'm using the Unicode version of Arial in Excel
> and on my computer -- that's the first thing I checked.
>
> : Or may be because you do NOT use 'normal' way of keyboard management
> : and use some outdated keyboard program.
>
> I don't think that could be the problem.... I use code pages and
> switch, or Character Map and copy and paste, if I only need to
> type a word or two.

I understand what Character Map is, but I don't know what
> code pages and switch
means.
Also, again, I tried a clean way of working with Excel - Excel-only,
no Copy/Paste, just normal typing inside the Excel using Windows-own
keyboard layout switch (Alt/Shift) and the result was correct Cyrillic
text on my screen.


>
> : You probably will benefit from reading my explanation page that I wrote
> : about - chapter "Problem 2" of a section "Word 97 problems".
> : There I explain that in modern Unicode programs a user should NOT
> : use old Cyr fonts and why in Word a user sees only "Arial" in fonts
> : window and NOT "Arial(Cyrillic)", "Arial(Greek)", etc. as it was in
> : non-Unicode Word 6.
>
> That definitely sounds like something I'd benefit from. (Your web
> site just went into my browser's hotlist.) The odd thing about this
> is that Excel "sees" all the various versions of Arial fonts (and
> Times New Roman),

Yes, it does. But a user should always have just "Arial" in fonts
window, not 'Cyr' variants - then Unicode works correctly.
There is a similar problem in Netscape (only under Windows NT 4.0) -
Netscape also, as Excel, shows variants and if a user
_breaks Unicode rules_ and changes the default settings for Cyrillic,
choosing in Edit/Preferences/Appearance/Fonts "Arial(CYR)" instead
of "Arial" that was there, then such user will face several problems
seeing unreadable Cyrillic and latin instead of Cyrillic in some
cases. Unicode approach _forbids_ the use of variants such as "CYR",
etc.
only a font name ("Arial") should be used in Unicode programs.

> ... while Word does not see the various Unicode


> fonts, but Word actually appears more reliable for me when typing
> the various things I need to type.

It's true. Word as a word processor software is better in this area than
Excel thas is just a speadsheet software.


>
> :> What usually works (and I have ended up doing) is to type the text
> :> into Word in the correct font, copy it, and paste it into Excel. :/
>
> : Let me try right now... As I suspected, it works fine for me (Excel 97):
> : I switched my system keyboard layout to Russian and typed in Excel -
> : looks fine, no latin letters... Again, to use modern software one should
> : use modern fonts and keyboard features. Unicode-based Office 97
> : _requres_ a user to work with modern fonts and modern keyboard
> : mechanizm.
>
> As far as I know, I've got those fonts and am using them.

Those fonts are included into MS Windows and if you are suing them,
that means that - under Windows 95/98 - you have activated
MS Multilanguage Support in Control Panel, right?
Such activation enables Cyrillic, Greek, etc. parts of such fonts
as "Arial", "Times New Roman", etc.
(I have a short instruction for this activation:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/cyr95.htm)


> : Me too - I am using plain text editor http://www.UtraEdit.com where
> : I write my HTML code myself.
>
> I hear Ultraedit is excellent. Does it support Unicode?

Partially, not very handy. To create a plain text Unicode file (f.e.
HTML file) people can use Unicode-specific plain text editor:
http://www.sharmahd.com/unipad/

I don't create multi-script Web pages, no Unicode, this is why I still
use UltraEdit that uses color for HTML tags and has many handy features.
One of them - macros, so I created some for HTML and, f.e. when I press
Ctrl/L I am getting a List (indented):
<UL>
<LI>
<LI>
</UL>



>
> : Why I mentioned Netscape Composer - because it's the easiest way to
> : create a multilingual Web page, in Unicode (UTF-8) - only UTF-8
> : allows a user to have one HTML document that contains different
> : scripts, say, German, Russian, Greek on the same Web page.
>
> So it creates the text properly? The quality of the HTML it
> produces is bad enough that I'd go nuts cleaning it up, though. :)

I tried it several times and it looks like Netscape Composer, unlike
FrontPage, does not include unnecessary HTML code or Netscape-only
code. But I don't know for sure, because I tried just simple page,
without a lot of complex HTML code.


> ... Since I'm getting


> a new computer in the next couple of months, though, would there
> be any benefit to upgrading from Windows '98 to Windows 2000?
> Win2K appears more stable under the kinds of use I give it. :)
> Unfortunately Windows NT 4.0 had some quirks that made it not
> a good idea on my Thinkpad.

I work primarily with NT 4.0 (at work) and with Windows 98 (at home)
so I just tried Windows 2000 couple times in the lab.
Thus can not tell much, but W2K definitely works better with Unicode,
because it's a next version of fully-Unicode Windows NT 4.0

--
Regards,
Paul Gorodyansky

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages