Word splitting & hyphenation conventions in roman transliteration

[Narayan S. Raja]

On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, U Hayavadana wrote:

> At 10:46 12.02.99 -1000, Raja wrote:
> >
> >Perhaps you could explain why literacy
> >is easier to achieve using the Roman script
> >rather than any other script?
>
> because there are only 26 letters in the roman alphabet

No, there are 52 letters in the
rOman AElfabet.  Do you see any
fisikal similarity between, say,
"G" and "g"?

Another point: wen thuh rOman
AElfabet haes bIn mawdifaid to
akomodaet awl indiyan fOnIms,
it wil involv a lawt mOr thaen
jast 52 leters.  Luk aet a paej
awf ViyetnAmIs taekst to sI wawt
ai mIn.


> and there are no
> ligatures (samyuktakshara's). because printing technology in a linear
> script (one letter next to another) is much more simply implemented and
> we can use the technology that is already developed for western
> languages (like standardised computer and printing equipment), and so
> producing printed materials becomes easier. this is an important
> advantage if we want to spread literacy among many millions of people.

Gud nyUs:  printing technology for
Indian scripts already exists.
People in India aren't illiterate
because of inability to print books
in Indian script.  So this is not
an issue.


> and once a person has learned one written indian language, s/he can
> quickly learn a lot of others (become literate in other languages too)
> on the basis of the large number of sanskrit words in all the languages
> that can be immediately recognised because there is no script barrier.

This would be equally true if
Indian languages standardized
on any other common script.  It
is not a singular advantage of
the rOman skript alone.


> >You might also help us by explaining the
> >discrepancies in the following tables of
> >literacy rates,
> >[...deleted...]
>
> did i say that script is the only factor in successfully spreading
> literacy? no.

It certainly sounded like it.
Glad we now agree that it isn't.


Regards,


Raja.