An assessment of the Unicode standard
hyugaricdeau at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 20:52:50 CEST 2009
On Aug 29, 8:20 pm, John Machin <sjmac... at lexicon.net> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 8:46 am, r <rt8... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take for instance the Chinese language with it's thousands of
> > characters and BS, it's more of an art than a language. Why do we
> > need such complicated languages in this day and time. Many languages
> > have been perfected, (although not perfect) far beyond that of Chinese
> > language.
> The Chinese language is more widely spoken than English, is quite
> capable of expression in ASCII ("r tongzhi shi sha gua") and doesn't
> have those pesky it's/its problems.
> > The A-Z char set is flawless!
> ... for expressing the sounds of a very limited number of languages,
> and English is *NOT* one of those.
I'd say don't feel the troll, but too late for that I guess. I just
wanted to add, in defense of the Chinese written language (in case
this hasn't already been added--I'm probably not going to bother
reading this entire thread) that I think it would make a fairly good
candidate for use at least as a universal *written* language.
Particularly simplified Chinese since, well, it's simpler.
The advantages are that the grammar is relatively simple, and it can
be used to illustrate concepts independently of the writer's spoken
language. Sure it's tied somewhat to the Chinese language, but it can
certainly be mapped more easily to any other language than
phonetically-based written language.
More information about the Python-list