Unicode 11 Georgian uppercase vs. fonts

Alexey Ostrovsky via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Fri Jul 27 07:37:36 CDT 2018

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> > It is a mistake or misinterpretation of evidence provided (modern
> samples and samples from 19th c., provided in N4712 in the same context,
> are of different nature, it is clear even from images) and §8 of the
> document states opposite.
> No, it is a question of orthography, as I have shown with my
> English/French/German examples. Structurally, the script has case.
> Orthographically case is used in a way differently from other casing
> scripts.

Then how can you prove it is a case and not a stylistic variation? Let's
compare with a case of Hebrew or Arabic, for example.

> > The criteria for presence of orthographic distinction between cases is
> clear: there must be either some typical usage of a case (like USA) or
> there must be a semantic difference between different cases (like smith vs.
> Smith).
> Your analysis is mistaken. There is no “must”.

You can formulate your criteria probably.

> There is no Georgian orthography rules that regulate use of upper-case. If
> I am wrong, I will be happy to see an orthographic rule that distinguish
> between upper- and lowercase or, at least, recommends to use uppercase.
> The rule is given clearly in N4712 §8.

Does it mean that N4712 provides orthographic rules for Georgian??

> > What about samples from 19th century, it was the same attempt (under
> Cyrillic influence), as an attempt of Shanidze in the middle of 20th
> century (however, Shanidze used Asomtavruli, which, again, only proves that
> there were no uppercase for Mkhedruli except on the level of an idea).
> Figures 1 through 6 show examples of Georgian using an orthographic rule
> which is common to Latin, Cyrillic, Armenian and so on.

There is no controversy.

> > There were no orthography rules on that and, even more, it was not
> orthography as well.
> Perhaps your error is in thinking that there were formally codified
> orthographic rules published by some Academy or other.

You stated the rule is orthographic. Can you provide any proof except
re-asserting what is already stated in N4712?
What do you mean by "orthographic", by the way -- simply a habit of
writing, or whether a written text is correct or not?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180727/5ada286a/attachment.html>

More information about the Unicode mailing list