Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!hood.cc.rochester.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Languages written without diacritics
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E1wC1q.ME8@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <574oqq$a2m@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de> <E1uJ9w.69H@midway.uchicago.edu> <581tpv$dqa@dove.nist.gov> <32A56F8B.7D22@innet.be>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:51:26 GMT
Lines: 38

In article <32A56F8B.7D22@innet.be>, Herman De Wael  <hermandw@innet.be> wrote:
>An answer to all posters :
>
>This question can be read in two ways :

*At least* two ways, but not *only* two ways, as the variance in responses
shows.
>
>- how many languages use only 'normal' letters :
>
>answer 1 :
>
>only English, as only the letters used in the English language are
>'normal letters'

	Plus those languages which use a subset of the letters used to
write English.  This, it appears to me, is the jist of the original
poster's question (although neither he, nor any other contributor AFAICT,
has used the term "normal letters"). 

>answer 2 :
>
>any and all languages, as the letters used in any language are 'normal
>letters' in that language.
>
>So stop the discussion.

	So come down here and make me!  It's still an interesting
discussion, as far as I'm concerned.  We're not compelled to stop
posting just because you think the original poster's question has
already been answered.  If you're not interested in debating the
whether the definition of "diacritical" is language-specific or not, then 
there's a "k" on your keyboard that I suggest you make use of, mate.

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
