Return-Path: Received: from video.uic.vsu.ru ([62.76.169.38] verified) by vsu.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3.1) with ESMTP id 1844804 for CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru; Fri, 01 Sep 2000 10:14:50 +0400 Sender: vvv@video.uic.vsu.ru From: Laurent Siebenmann To: CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru Subject: Choices and Alternatives Date: 01 Sep 2000 10:14:37 +0400 Message-ID: Lines: 64 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii *** "Choices and Alternatives *** Dear All, In my last post, the line "h" ==> "x" was meant to be the line: "h"="x"="{h}" ===> "x" I take sides with the Library of Congress encoding. My grounds are that both x in Russian and x in English come from the Greek letter chi. This has been disputed, but Unabridged Webster lends me substantial support: <> It would seem that the Russian x and the Greek chi have much the same phonetic value -- one that is absent from English (and French). My choice of h and q for soft and hard signs of Russian is what one might call a "least worst" option. (They are soft and hard and nearly opposite in shape by 180 degree rotation.) The choice: "sh"="{sh}" ===> "w" "sch"="shch"="{sch}" ===> "'w" (last quote " was missing) is based on shape and opportunism. I have used all 26 English letters with some plausible argument to support each choice. My scheme allows for alternative representations of several Russian letters: x='x='k y='y='i 'h=h q='q j='j c='c w='s 'z='g my basic requirement being the use of just the one accent character ' -- and of course consistency. It would be easy to add/subtract alternatives if there are good reasons. Suggestions? Cheers Laurent S