Akkha script (used by Eastern Magar language) in ISO 15924?

Philippe Verdy via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Tue Jul 23 00:12:32 CDT 2019


So can I conclude that what The Ethnologue displays (using a private-use
ISO 15924 "Qabl") is wrong ?
And that translations classified under "mgp-Brah" are fine (while
"mgp-Qabl" would be unusable for interchange) ?


Le mar. 23 juil. 2019 à 02:42, Anshuman Pandey <pandey at umich.edu> a écrit :

> As I pointed out in L2/11-144, the “Magar Akkha” script is an
> appropriation of Brahmi, renamed to link it to the primordialist daydreams
> of an ethno-linguistic community in Nepal. I have never seen actual usage
> of the script by Magars. If things have changed since 2011, I would very
> much welcome such information. Otherwise, the so-called “Magar Akkha” is
> not suitable for encoding. The Brahmi encoding that we have should suffice.
>
> All my best,
> Anshu
>
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Lorna Evans via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> wrote:
>
> Also: https://scriptsource.org/scr/Qabl
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 12:47 PM Ken Whistler via Unicode <
> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> See the entry for "Magar Akkha" on:
>>
>> http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/scripts-not-encoded.html
>>
>> Anshuman Pandey did preliminary research on this in 2011.
>>
>> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11144-magar-akkha.pdf
>>
>> It would be premature to assign an ISO 15924 script code, pending the
>> research to determine whether this script should be separately encoded.
>>
>> --Ken
>> On 7/22/2019 9:16 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> According to Ethnolog, the Eastern Magar language (mgp) is written in two
>> scripts: Devanagari and "Akkha".
>>
>> But the "Akkha" script does not seem to have any ISO 15924 code.
>>
>> The Ethnologue currently assigns a private use code (Qabl) for this
>> script.
>>
>> Was the addition delayed due to lack of evidence (even if this language
>> is official in Nepal and India) ?
>>
>> Did the editors of Ethnologue submit an addition request for that script
>> (e.g. for the code "Akkh" or "Akha" ?)
>>
>> Or is it considered unified with another script that could explain why it
>> is not coded ? If this is a variant it could have its own code (like
>> Nastaliq in Arabic). Or may be this is just a subset of another
>> (Sino-Tibetan) script ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190723/e1836d03/attachment.html>


More information about the Unicode mailing list