[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: indian.el
From: |
KAWABATA, Taichi |
Subject: |
Re: indian.el |
Date: |
27 Nov 2001 01:18:33 +0900 |
User-agent: |
T-gnus/6.15.3 (based on Oort Gnus v0.03) (revision 06) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) SLIM/1.14.7 (酒井彩名) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
Hello,
>>>>> In <address@hidden>,
>>>>> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
Werner> I think `indian.el' is the wrong name. Shouldn't it be
Werner> `indic.el'? It has nothing to do with American's indians...
Yes, but as far as I traveled the india, many people say they are
"Indian languages", but rarely "Indic (languages)".... When used as
noun, surely `Indic' only means Asian Indian languages and `Indian'
means both American and Asian Indians. So there would be less
confusion by using "Indic", but from my perspection, `Indic' is more
formal and uncommon.
As you know, there is well-known sites such as
`http://www.indianlanguages.com', and Apple sells their own "Indian
Language Kit", etc.. so I thought "Indian" seems more natural, but I
also admit that "Indic" is more precise description for Asian Indian
languages. Thus, if many people agrees, I have no problem changing
everything from `indian' to `indic'. But before that, I would like to
ask for a comment for Mr. Muthukrishnan, about which of "indian" and
"indic" is better to describe Asian Indian languages.
--
----------------------------------------
KAWABATA, Taichi (address@hidden)
----------------------------------------