[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)


>>>>> 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)

reply via email to

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