bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#55869: [PATCH] Add support for the Lepcha script


From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
Subject: bug#55869: [PATCH] Add support for the Lepcha script
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 16:04:43 +0530

I am sorry, I do not understand the question, I have not used a transliterated name for the Lepcha script.

If you are asking whether to use ᰛᰩᰵ (Róng) or ᰛᰩᰵᰛᰧᰵᰶ (Róng-ríng), I think both are fine.

Looking around for videos of native speakers I found these:
1. https://youtu.be/syNb4rXDRjI?t=26 Here at 26 sec, Mr. PT Lepcha uses "Rong Mingjot" for "Rong Alphabet" (atleast AFAICT, because I could not find "Mingjot" in a dictionary (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Dictionary_of_the_Lepcha-language_%28IA_cu31924023194198%29.pdf))

2. https://youtu.be/fHlvOhyN7Tg?t=22 Here again at 22 sec, "Rong Mingjot" is used.

3. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ERmC9G1FlNk Here Eliyas uses both Róng (in native script) and Róng-ríng (in lepcha script).

The omniglot website also describes other name for this script:
The Lepcha script is known as ᰀᰂ (kakha - the first two letters), ᰇᰨᰕᰧᰵᰶ (chomíng - "written letters") or ᰕᰧᰵᰶᰙᰳ (míngzât - "treasure of letters").

शनि, 11 जून 2022, 3:30 pm को Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> ने लिखा:
> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:01:44 +0530
> Cc: 55869-done@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> >Can you tell where did you take this name of the script (or is it >the language)?  Both Wikipedia and the
> Omniglot pages show >names that look differently and are written with different >codepoints.
>
> I copied the name from the infobox in the Wikipedia page for the Lepcha script
> (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepcha_script) it says "Rong" which is one of the native name of the script,
> one other name is "Rong Ring"  which is written in the image of the Wikipedia infobox and also in the
> omniglot website (https://omniglot.com/writing/lepcha.htm) both are correct.
> (Atleast according to these websites)

The question is: what should we use?  Maybe using what is actually
shown (as opposed to transliterated) is better?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]