bug#55694: [PATCH] Add support for the Batak scripts

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh
>  <lumarzeli30@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 06:21:33 +0530
> 
> This time the Batak scripts are added to Emacs.
> Since the Batak scripts are actually a collection of five scripts:
> Toba, Karo, Pakpak, Mandailing, and Simalungun.

I think the above are _languages_, not scripts.  They all used in the
past to use the Batak script for writing, but they aren't scripts.

> I have provided 5 different language environments and input-methods for them.
> 
> Please review the patch.
> --- a/etc/HELLO
> +++ b/etc/HELLO
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ Amharic (አማርኛ)      ሠላም
>  Arabic (العربيّة)    السّلام عليكم
>  Armenian (հայերեն)   Բարև ձեզ
>  Balinese (ᬅᬓ᭄ᬱᬭᬩᬮᬶ)  ᬒᬁᬲ᭄ᬯᬲ᭄ᬢ᭄ᬬᬲ᭄ᬢᬸ
> +Batak (ᯘᯮᯒᯗ᯲ᯅᯗᯂ᯲)    ᯂᯬᯒᯘ᯲

Is this greeting common to all the languages using the Batak script?
I don't think so.  So perhaps we should have several greetings, one
for each language?

> --- a/etc/NEWS
> +++ b/etc/NEWS
> @@ -826,6 +826,11 @@ corresponding language environments are:
>  **** Balinese script and language environment
>  **** Javanese script and language environment
>  **** Sundanese script and language environment
> +**** Batak Karo script and language environment
> +**** Batak Toba script and language environment
> +**** Batak Pakpak script and language environment
> +**** Batak Mandailing script and language environment
> +**** Batak Simalungun script and language environment

See above: this should distinguish between the script name and the
language names.  Something like

  **** Karo language using the Batak script and its language environment

> +(set-language-info-alist
> + "Batak Karo" '((charset unicode)
> +                (coding-system utf-8)
> +                (coding-priority utf-8)
> +                (input-method . "batak-karo")
> +                (sample-text . "Batak Karo (ᯘᯬᯒᯗ᯳ᯆᯗᯂ᯳)    ᯔᯧᯐᯬᯀᯱᯐᯬᯀᯱ")
> +                (documentation . "\
> +Batak Karo language and its script are supported in this language 
> environment.")))

Likewise here.  The doc string should say something like

  Karo language using the Batak script is supported in this language
  environment.

> +
> +(set-language-info-alist
> + "Batak Toba" '((charset unicode)
> +                (coding-system utf-8)
> +                (coding-priority utf-8)
> +                (input-method . "batak-toba")
> +                (sample-text . "Batak Toba (ᯘᯮᯮᯒᯖ᯲ᯅᯖᯂ᯲)    ᯂᯬᯒᯘ᯲")
> +                (documentation . "\
> +Batak Toba language and its script are supported in this language 
> environment.")))
> +
> +(set-language-info-alist
> + "Batak Pakpak" '((charset unicode)
> +                  (coding-system utf-8)
> +                  (coding-priority utf-8)
> +                  (input-method . "batak-pakpak")
> +                  (sample-text . "Batak Pakpak (ᯘᯮᯒᯗ᯲ᯅᯗᯂ᯲)    ᯂᯬᯒᯘ᯲")
> +                  (documentation . "\
> +Batak Pakpak language and its script are supported in this language 
> environment.")))
> +
> +(set-language-info-alist
> + "Batak Mandailing" '((charset unicode)
> +                      (coding-system utf-8)
> +                      (coding-priority utf-8)
> +                      (input-method . "batak-mandailing")
> +                      (sample-text . "Batak Mandailing (ᯚᯮᯒᯖ᯲ᯅᯖᯄᯱ᯲)    
> ᯄᯬᯒᯚ᯲")
> +                      (documentation . "\
> +Batak Mandailing language and its script are supported in this language 
> environment.")))
> +
> +(set-language-info-alist
> + "Batak Simalungun" '((charset unicode)
> +                      (coding-system utf-8)
> +                      (coding-priority utf-8)
> +                      (input-method . "batak-simalungun")
> +                      (sample-text . "Batak Simalungun (ᯙᯮᯮᯓᯖ᯳ᯅᯖᯃ᯳)    
> ᯃᯬᯓᯙ᯲")
> +                      (documentation . "\
> +Batak Simalungun language and its script are supported in this language 
> environment.")))
> +

Btw, according to this article:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batak_languages

there are 2 more languages that used Batak; why aren't they included?

> +(quail-define-package
> + "batak-karo" "Batak Karo" "ᯂᯒᯭ" nil "Batak Karo phonetic input method."
> + nil t t t t nil nil nil nil nil t)
> +
> +(quail-define-rules

The input methods look almost identical, with a few minor deviations.
Are the differences real or are they mistakes?  If they are mistakes,
we can have just one input method for all the languages using Batak.
And if the differences are real, can we still have only one input
method, where the different variants of the same ASCII letter are
selected by the user at typing time?  It seems un-economical to have
so many input methods that are almost identical.

Thanks.