Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!bionet!parc!daniels
From: daniels@parc.xerox.com (Andy Daniels)
Newsgroups: comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: Navajo?  (was: universality of Latin-1)
Message-ID: <1991May1.020450.17546@parc.xerox.com>
Date: 1 May 91 02:04:50 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.123302.17817@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Apr24.181121.6212@parc.xerox.com> <22694@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@parc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox PARC
Lines: 18

In article <22694@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>
>Could you be more specific?  The Navajo never had their own writing
>(the only indian tribe that did are the Cheyenne).  To be sure, the
>linguists have special symbols for phonemes of indian languages, but
>they have that for all languages and I doubt there's any advantage
>trying to include them all in a character set.  For the most part,
>all Navajo I've seen written was in the ordinary Latin alphabet.
>

As someone else has already pointed out, Navajo uses Latin with
diacritics. One combination used for Navajo that I can't find in 10646
is i-ognek-acute (or is it i-acute-ognek). Of course, I may not be
looking hard enough -- to answer my own question, Thai is on page 98 :-)
I'd expect to find Lao somewhere near by, but it's nowhere to be found. 
Has it been unified with Thai?

		-- Andy. --