Writing systems Template‑class | |||||||
|
Really, we should keep languages apart from scripts. e.g. "Russian" sho9ulds note "Cyrillic" somehow logically. - DePiep ( talk) 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
(free examples:)
Cyrillic letter | Russian Br | Servian Br |
Б | ⠒ | ⠷ |
- DePiep ( talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
all? What I say is: if there is a systematic overlap (whereever from), we should use that. - DePiep ( talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
b=⠒
(this definition is only defined in English, or maybe more western alphabets). I think we are talking about: English braille or Latin braille? Russian braille or Cyrillic braille? etc. Now I cannot believe that all 1000's of languages have their own separate braille system. And also: I presume braille is based on the (local) written language. Hence my stress for "Cyrillic", not "Russian". But surely I can be wrong in this. -
DePiep (
talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
2800..28FF ; Braille # So [256] BRAILLE PATTERN BLANK..BRAILLE PATTERN DOTS-12345678
. Actually, all of the Latin script languages use the same braille assignments. There was also an effort starting in the 1880s to base other international braille systems on the French and English sounds. This unified international braille is why Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Macedonian braille are easily confused as being related to each other - they were all adapted from French/English phonology as part of the unified international braille system. Bharati braille and many Arabic script language brailles are also unified. In fact, Korean and Japanese (and to some extent, the Chinese brailles) are the only WP braille articles that aren't based on unified braille.
Van
Isaac
WS
contribs 03:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Brai
) in Unicode, but Unicode also states (correctly imo) that the "⠃=b" idea is not prescribed. (so: for Unicode Braille is not a writing system. it needs a translating scheme. That scheme differs between languages & even scripts). I say. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)b=⠃
because 2=⠃
and b=2
, which in general is only true in the Latin script (specifically in the French alphabet). So that is one Braille script, an alphabetic script, and it includes the English, French, Greek, Hebrew, and Russian alphabets. Korean Braille is a separate script, as is Japanese. Bharati, Chinese, and Cantonese, however, are part of the Latin Braille family, though they've been extended with additional letters, and in the case of Chinese and Cantonese, have changed in form to a semi-syllabary: graphically descended from Latin Braille, but conceptually descended from zhuyin and traditional Chinese phonology.As for classifying braille alphabets depending on which linear script they encode, consider Bharati, where one braille script encodes various Indian scripts as well as Latin, and Serbian Cyrillic, which encodes Gaj's Latin—or does Gaj's encode Cyrillic? To me, classifying braille alphabets based on which linear script they encode is like classifying Serbian Cyrillic apart from other Cyrillic alphabets because it encodes Latin (or, equivalently, classifying Gaj's apart from Latin because it encodes Cyrillic). — kwami ( talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Alphabetic, syllabic, or some weird hybrid? How do we indicate it? Should we indicate it? Stick your opinions below mine.
Korean Braille is an alphabet which marks syllable boundaries. Many traditions of romanized Chinese separate all syllables with hyphens, yet we don't argue that the Latin alphabet is a syllabary when used that way, nor some weird hybrid. Similarly with many North American languages: Osage, for example, where periods are placed between syllables despite it being otherwise a 'true' alphabet. Now, Chinese Braille–that's a hybrid, partially alphabetic and partially syllabic. — kwami ( talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The {{ Braille Cell}} template has a new upgrade. You can now indicate multiple-cell braille patterns with a single call of {{Braille Cell|cell 1|cell 2|cell 3...}}, up to 20 cells. It still takes the exact same named parameters, ie type=, size=, alt=, text=, which are applied to all cells. I may enable cell specific parameters if anybody wants them. Please post any comments at the template talk page, but I thought the people watching this page would want to know about it as well. Van Isaac WS contribs 06:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So, I got ahold of Braille without borders, and they sent me a map of the Tibetan braille script. Although it doesn't have any dependent vowel marks, or subjoined consonant indications, it gives a basic overview. I'll be putting it up as an article some time in the next couple of days, but from what I can see, it has some correspondence to other braille systems, but does not appear to assign codes in the systematic manner of Unified international braille systems. It seems to be along the lines of the Chinese brailles - some effort was made at international standardization, but it was created with some other goals in mind. It departs significantly from Bharati. Van Isaac WS contribs 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If digraphs are not included in Unified Braille, then Tibetan is not a problem, because ng etc. are digraphs in romanization. Also, Chinese is not an exception, because the rimes are not single letters in romanization either. (Chinese is an exception because it is not alphabetic, but it's still part of the UB family.) The 1954 doc quotes an early conference as defining universal braille as French braille, and also saying that "full European uniformity in uncontracted Braille was achieved in due course" (p. 26). Full uniformity was *not* achieved; the only uniformity was in the original 25 or 26 letters of the alphabet. That is, in the basic Latin alphabet. Assignments beyond that would seem to not be part of UB. Unless we have a pub that actually defines UB as more than those 26, and lists what they are, so we can check whether an assignment is UB or not? — kwami ( talk) 03:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. But let's see. Looking at each braille letter and comparing its value with the one assigned to Unified Braille:
So Tibetan is about as regular as Hindi or French, and not as far off as Sinhalese. (BTW, Tibetan ng is not a fail, because 2356 does not have an assigned value in Unified Braille, and so cannot be a mismatch. Unless you want to include punctuation, but then the counts for the others will go up too.)
My litmus is: does the alphabet follow the French pattern? For Tibetan, the answer is obviously yes. — kwami ( talk) 04:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a comparison with French Braille:
a-(a) b-p(*b) k-kʰ d-t(*d) g-k(*g) zero-h ʒ-j (same as German, Hebrew) k-k l-l m-m n-n p-p q-tʃ(*dʒ) (same as Russian, close to Chinese, Hindi) r-r s-s(*z) t-t ks-tʰ for x (French, English, Russian, Hindi also fail) j-tʃʰ (unique to Tibetan) z-tsʰ (close to German, Chinese) s-pʰ (unique to Tibetan) ɛ-s for th (better than French: s ~ th) y-tʰ for 2nd T (Tibetan matches, French fails) i-ʃ for sh (Tibetan matches, French fails) o-ts for th (better than French) y-ʃ for 2nd H (same as Russian, Hebrew, better than English, French, or Hindi) e-h for 2nd D (Russian, Hebrew also fail) w-w poetry-ɲ for 2nd A (Greek, Hebrew also fail)
I'm tired of fighting this thing, and you just reverted it again so I'm calling for a third opinion rather than edit warring over it.
Our problem is that the most recent source we have that explicitly lists unified braille systems is the '54 Unesco document ( http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000711/071103eb.pdf), and it has only French, English, Greek, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian brailles in the World Braille chart. Any other braille system listed as unified braille is WP:OR, whether it is controversial ( Tibetan braille), or not ( Yugoslav braille). I offered a geographic-based compromise by which we could put the dispute behind us, and it was rejected without an offer for moving forward. It just got reverted again, so I'm asking for help. Van Isaac WS contribs 03:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
If you don't have a reliable source that says Tibetan braille is in the unified braille system, then you are right that putting it there would be OR and you should not do it. Navigational templates are still a part of Wikipedia and must adhere to policy, including the policy against including original research. They are not merely organization tools in which editors can choose how to organize articles exempt from the requirement to have reliable sourcing. On the contrary, the policy on nav boxes is clear: "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles - If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." Following this policy, using a "geographical-based" system to organize the braille variants would not be acceptable either unless such organization is established that way by reliable sources in the articles. My opinion would be to classify any braille variant that doesn't have a category established clearly from a reliable source in a neutral category, such as "other". Coastside ( talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
I think the major aspects that are non-unified are: Tibetan ca/cha/ja/nya are unified th/y/q/a2, Tibetan pha/tsa/tsha/dza are s2/x/z/dh2, and Tibetan za/'a are unified sa/d2 [emphasis added].Because this is your own personal interpretation, it is OR and should not be used to classify Tibetan braille. You need to find a third party source that says how to classify Tibetan braille and use that in the nav box. If you don't have such a source, then you don't have a NPOV way to do it. Debating amongst yourselves without a reliable third party source isn't going to change that. Coastside ( talk) 13:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How about this as an option?
It gets rid of the POV/OR on whether a particular system is unified or not, and is probably more useful for navigational purposes anyway. Van Isaac WS contribs 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Per DePiep's objections (here and elsewhere), I removed the typological classification (alphabet, abugida, semi-syllabary), and integrated English as just another language. Currently then we list three classes: ABC-ordered braille, re-ordered braille (only found today in Algerian, AFAIK), and non-numerically ordered systems (Japanese & Korean). — kwami ( talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I can understand how "French-based" may not be the best way to convey "ABC order", since many are not directly based on French. That's just the best that I was able to do: I've repeatedly said that I'm open to suggestions for better wording. How's "International order"? Or "French-order-based scripts"? — kwami ( talk) 03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Unesco here calls the first section the "International Braille" method, the second the "Concurrent Sequences" method (formerly used in the US with w; also in old Greek, 4 of the Arabic brailles, and in th Uniform Indian Braille of 1944), and the third "Scientific Rearrangement of the Signs [...]" (American, old German, Hebrew < 1938, Sinhalese < 1940, plus four in India, also China, Korea, Japan). Thus, if there are still objections to the wording "French-ordered", we have a RS here to call them "International Braille". — kwami ( talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
We need modern confirmation for all braille articles based on the Unesco doc. Current Greek braille, for example, has several diffs, not counting the typos that we've found. Just a heads-up that we probly shouldn't consider the articles reliably sourced until we can confirm the Unesco description. — kwami ( talk) 08:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot confirm Cantonese or Armenian Braille. Or the Nigerian alphabets or Motu either, for that matter, but they are so little different from English Braille that I'm not too worried. Of the other langs on WP-fr, we don't have Galician (didn't bother, it's so similar to Spanish and Portuguese) or Faroese (a rather odd alphabet). It would be nice to get Georgian, and we need to confirm how Urdu braille is used in Pakistan. — kwami ( talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Turns out that part of the problem of the Unesco docs is that they are only recommendations. In at least some cases the alphabets shown were never implemented. Maltese, for example. — kwami ( talk) 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
UNESCO (2013) World Braille Usage, 3rd edition. (thanks, VanIsaac)
Country entries: Armenian 1990, Azeri 1990, Bangla (cf. Indian Bangla), Belarus 1990, Bhutan: Dzongkha; Bosnian 1990, Bulgarian, Cambodian, Croatian, Czech, Den: Faroese, Greenlandic; Estonian, Eth: Amharic; Finnish, Georgian 1990, Ghana: Twi, Ga, Dagaare; Icelandic, India: Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Kannada, Punjabi, Assamese, Malayalam, Nepali, Oriya, Telugu, Urdu; Indonesian, Iran: Farsi; Israel: Hebrew; Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy 1990, Maltese [error], Mongol, Myanmar: Burmese; Nepali (cf. India: Nepali), NZ: Maori; Nig: Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo; Norwegian, North Sami; Pakistan: Urdu (cf. India: Urdu); PNG 1990: Dobuan, Huli, Kuanua, Motu, Pidgin; Par: Guarani; Phil: Tagalog, Ilocano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Bicol; Polish, Samoan 1990, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, SA: Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, Venda, Swati; SK: Korean; Spain: Galician, Basque; Sri: Sinhala, Tamil (cf. India: Tamil); Tajik 1990, Thai 1990, Tibetan, Togo 1990: Bassa, Kabiye, Konkomba, Moba, Tem; Turkmen 1990, Ug: Ganda; Ukranian 1990, UK: Welsh; US: Hawaiian, Iñupiaq; Uzbek 1990, Viet, Zambia: Lozi, Bemba, Nyanja, Kaonde, Lunda, Vale, Tonga; Zimb: Shona
Albanian, Arabic, Cantonese, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Ewe, French, German, Greek 1990, Greco-, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Kiswahili, Malay, Mandarin, Ndebele, Portuguese, Romanian 1990, Russian 1990, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish 1990
It seems that the 2013 edition sometimes retains data from the 1990 edition without acknowledgement. It's more reliable than 1990, but contradicts RS's in several cases, such as Maltese and Dutch, and so still needs to be confirmed with additional sources. — kwami ( talk) 07:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just curious: the titlebar now has ⠃ ⠗ ⠇ for "braille". Is this the more common writing? The Braille infobox shows the seven letters transposed, and for me (a layman) this looks better as an illustration (more to the point, so to say). - DePiep ( talk) 17:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I added this template to the article for Braigo, but wasn't sure if I should add that link here. I did add it as a "see also" article at Braille embosser, which is in the technology section of this template. B7T ( talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fairly safe to propose a 'Cyrillic subfamily' within the French lineage of Braille systems. Almost every nations using Cyrillic as their national script, namely Bulgaria, Soviet Union (and its member SSRs) and Mongolia, modeled their Braille system on the imperial Russian Braille - except Yugoslavia, which preferred the interchangeability between Roman and Cyrillic writing systems just like in their printed books, but the usage of Cyrillic in Yugoslavia is relatively limited than the usage of Roman (used only in North Macedonia and (partly) Serbia).
In contrast, I doubt such subfamily could be proposed for, e.g. Arabic script - Persian, Arabic, and (old) Urdu Braille are developed separately, not elaborating the 'intra-scriptal uniformity' but rather following the phonological and pragmatic principles. Same goes for the Tibetan and Dzonkha - even though they use the same Tibetan script in printed books, which in turn a part of Indic script family, their Braille are developed separately and are shockingly different.
Despite that, I believe a section named 'other non-Roman mediated Brailles' within the French-based Braille lineage can be helpful (even though a bit misleading) for purely navigation convenience.
HighVoltage 06:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit: The above description about Perso-Arabic related Braille systems was based on a misunderstanding. Hence, I propose another subfamily, namely Perso-Arabic. I located it between the Russian-based Cyrillic systems and the Bharati Braille, according to the chronological order.
In conclusion, I propose the below:
HighVoltage 07:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Writing systems Template‑class | |||||||
|
Really, we should keep languages apart from scripts. e.g. "Russian" sho9ulds note "Cyrillic" somehow logically. - DePiep ( talk) 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
(free examples:)
Cyrillic letter | Russian Br | Servian Br |
Б | ⠒ | ⠷ |
- DePiep ( talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
all? What I say is: if there is a systematic overlap (whereever from), we should use that. - DePiep ( talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
b=⠒
(this definition is only defined in English, or maybe more western alphabets). I think we are talking about: English braille or Latin braille? Russian braille or Cyrillic braille? etc. Now I cannot believe that all 1000's of languages have their own separate braille system. And also: I presume braille is based on the (local) written language. Hence my stress for "Cyrillic", not "Russian". But surely I can be wrong in this. -
DePiep (
talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
2800..28FF ; Braille # So [256] BRAILLE PATTERN BLANK..BRAILLE PATTERN DOTS-12345678
. Actually, all of the Latin script languages use the same braille assignments. There was also an effort starting in the 1880s to base other international braille systems on the French and English sounds. This unified international braille is why Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Macedonian braille are easily confused as being related to each other - they were all adapted from French/English phonology as part of the unified international braille system. Bharati braille and many Arabic script language brailles are also unified. In fact, Korean and Japanese (and to some extent, the Chinese brailles) are the only WP braille articles that aren't based on unified braille.
Van
Isaac
WS
contribs 03:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Brai
) in Unicode, but Unicode also states (correctly imo) that the "⠃=b" idea is not prescribed. (so: for Unicode Braille is not a writing system. it needs a translating scheme. That scheme differs between languages & even scripts). I say. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)b=⠃
because 2=⠃
and b=2
, which in general is only true in the Latin script (specifically in the French alphabet). So that is one Braille script, an alphabetic script, and it includes the English, French, Greek, Hebrew, and Russian alphabets. Korean Braille is a separate script, as is Japanese. Bharati, Chinese, and Cantonese, however, are part of the Latin Braille family, though they've been extended with additional letters, and in the case of Chinese and Cantonese, have changed in form to a semi-syllabary: graphically descended from Latin Braille, but conceptually descended from zhuyin and traditional Chinese phonology.As for classifying braille alphabets depending on which linear script they encode, consider Bharati, where one braille script encodes various Indian scripts as well as Latin, and Serbian Cyrillic, which encodes Gaj's Latin—or does Gaj's encode Cyrillic? To me, classifying braille alphabets based on which linear script they encode is like classifying Serbian Cyrillic apart from other Cyrillic alphabets because it encodes Latin (or, equivalently, classifying Gaj's apart from Latin because it encodes Cyrillic). — kwami ( talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Alphabetic, syllabic, or some weird hybrid? How do we indicate it? Should we indicate it? Stick your opinions below mine.
Korean Braille is an alphabet which marks syllable boundaries. Many traditions of romanized Chinese separate all syllables with hyphens, yet we don't argue that the Latin alphabet is a syllabary when used that way, nor some weird hybrid. Similarly with many North American languages: Osage, for example, where periods are placed between syllables despite it being otherwise a 'true' alphabet. Now, Chinese Braille–that's a hybrid, partially alphabetic and partially syllabic. — kwami ( talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The {{ Braille Cell}} template has a new upgrade. You can now indicate multiple-cell braille patterns with a single call of {{Braille Cell|cell 1|cell 2|cell 3...}}, up to 20 cells. It still takes the exact same named parameters, ie type=, size=, alt=, text=, which are applied to all cells. I may enable cell specific parameters if anybody wants them. Please post any comments at the template talk page, but I thought the people watching this page would want to know about it as well. Van Isaac WS contribs 06:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So, I got ahold of Braille without borders, and they sent me a map of the Tibetan braille script. Although it doesn't have any dependent vowel marks, or subjoined consonant indications, it gives a basic overview. I'll be putting it up as an article some time in the next couple of days, but from what I can see, it has some correspondence to other braille systems, but does not appear to assign codes in the systematic manner of Unified international braille systems. It seems to be along the lines of the Chinese brailles - some effort was made at international standardization, but it was created with some other goals in mind. It departs significantly from Bharati. Van Isaac WS contribs 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If digraphs are not included in Unified Braille, then Tibetan is not a problem, because ng etc. are digraphs in romanization. Also, Chinese is not an exception, because the rimes are not single letters in romanization either. (Chinese is an exception because it is not alphabetic, but it's still part of the UB family.) The 1954 doc quotes an early conference as defining universal braille as French braille, and also saying that "full European uniformity in uncontracted Braille was achieved in due course" (p. 26). Full uniformity was *not* achieved; the only uniformity was in the original 25 or 26 letters of the alphabet. That is, in the basic Latin alphabet. Assignments beyond that would seem to not be part of UB. Unless we have a pub that actually defines UB as more than those 26, and lists what they are, so we can check whether an assignment is UB or not? — kwami ( talk) 03:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. But let's see. Looking at each braille letter and comparing its value with the one assigned to Unified Braille:
So Tibetan is about as regular as Hindi or French, and not as far off as Sinhalese. (BTW, Tibetan ng is not a fail, because 2356 does not have an assigned value in Unified Braille, and so cannot be a mismatch. Unless you want to include punctuation, but then the counts for the others will go up too.)
My litmus is: does the alphabet follow the French pattern? For Tibetan, the answer is obviously yes. — kwami ( talk) 04:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's a comparison with French Braille:
a-(a) b-p(*b) k-kʰ d-t(*d) g-k(*g) zero-h ʒ-j (same as German, Hebrew) k-k l-l m-m n-n p-p q-tʃ(*dʒ) (same as Russian, close to Chinese, Hindi) r-r s-s(*z) t-t ks-tʰ for x (French, English, Russian, Hindi also fail) j-tʃʰ (unique to Tibetan) z-tsʰ (close to German, Chinese) s-pʰ (unique to Tibetan) ɛ-s for th (better than French: s ~ th) y-tʰ for 2nd T (Tibetan matches, French fails) i-ʃ for sh (Tibetan matches, French fails) o-ts for th (better than French) y-ʃ for 2nd H (same as Russian, Hebrew, better than English, French, or Hindi) e-h for 2nd D (Russian, Hebrew also fail) w-w poetry-ɲ for 2nd A (Greek, Hebrew also fail)
I'm tired of fighting this thing, and you just reverted it again so I'm calling for a third opinion rather than edit warring over it.
Our problem is that the most recent source we have that explicitly lists unified braille systems is the '54 Unesco document ( http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000711/071103eb.pdf), and it has only French, English, Greek, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian brailles in the World Braille chart. Any other braille system listed as unified braille is WP:OR, whether it is controversial ( Tibetan braille), or not ( Yugoslav braille). I offered a geographic-based compromise by which we could put the dispute behind us, and it was rejected without an offer for moving forward. It just got reverted again, so I'm asking for help. Van Isaac WS contribs 03:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
If you don't have a reliable source that says Tibetan braille is in the unified braille system, then you are right that putting it there would be OR and you should not do it. Navigational templates are still a part of Wikipedia and must adhere to policy, including the policy against including original research. They are not merely organization tools in which editors can choose how to organize articles exempt from the requirement to have reliable sourcing. On the contrary, the policy on nav boxes is clear: "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles - If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." Following this policy, using a "geographical-based" system to organize the braille variants would not be acceptable either unless such organization is established that way by reliable sources in the articles. My opinion would be to classify any braille variant that doesn't have a category established clearly from a reliable source in a neutral category, such as "other". Coastside ( talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
I think the major aspects that are non-unified are: Tibetan ca/cha/ja/nya are unified th/y/q/a2, Tibetan pha/tsa/tsha/dza are s2/x/z/dh2, and Tibetan za/'a are unified sa/d2 [emphasis added].Because this is your own personal interpretation, it is OR and should not be used to classify Tibetan braille. You need to find a third party source that says how to classify Tibetan braille and use that in the nav box. If you don't have such a source, then you don't have a NPOV way to do it. Debating amongst yourselves without a reliable third party source isn't going to change that. Coastside ( talk) 13:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How about this as an option?
It gets rid of the POV/OR on whether a particular system is unified or not, and is probably more useful for navigational purposes anyway. Van Isaac WS contribs 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Per DePiep's objections (here and elsewhere), I removed the typological classification (alphabet, abugida, semi-syllabary), and integrated English as just another language. Currently then we list three classes: ABC-ordered braille, re-ordered braille (only found today in Algerian, AFAIK), and non-numerically ordered systems (Japanese & Korean). — kwami ( talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I can understand how "French-based" may not be the best way to convey "ABC order", since many are not directly based on French. That's just the best that I was able to do: I've repeatedly said that I'm open to suggestions for better wording. How's "International order"? Or "French-order-based scripts"? — kwami ( talk) 03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Unesco here calls the first section the "International Braille" method, the second the "Concurrent Sequences" method (formerly used in the US with w; also in old Greek, 4 of the Arabic brailles, and in th Uniform Indian Braille of 1944), and the third "Scientific Rearrangement of the Signs [...]" (American, old German, Hebrew < 1938, Sinhalese < 1940, plus four in India, also China, Korea, Japan). Thus, if there are still objections to the wording "French-ordered", we have a RS here to call them "International Braille". — kwami ( talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
We need modern confirmation for all braille articles based on the Unesco doc. Current Greek braille, for example, has several diffs, not counting the typos that we've found. Just a heads-up that we probly shouldn't consider the articles reliably sourced until we can confirm the Unesco description. — kwami ( talk) 08:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot confirm Cantonese or Armenian Braille. Or the Nigerian alphabets or Motu either, for that matter, but they are so little different from English Braille that I'm not too worried. Of the other langs on WP-fr, we don't have Galician (didn't bother, it's so similar to Spanish and Portuguese) or Faroese (a rather odd alphabet). It would be nice to get Georgian, and we need to confirm how Urdu braille is used in Pakistan. — kwami ( talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Turns out that part of the problem of the Unesco docs is that they are only recommendations. In at least some cases the alphabets shown were never implemented. Maltese, for example. — kwami ( talk) 21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
UNESCO (2013) World Braille Usage, 3rd edition. (thanks, VanIsaac)
Country entries: Armenian 1990, Azeri 1990, Bangla (cf. Indian Bangla), Belarus 1990, Bhutan: Dzongkha; Bosnian 1990, Bulgarian, Cambodian, Croatian, Czech, Den: Faroese, Greenlandic; Estonian, Eth: Amharic; Finnish, Georgian 1990, Ghana: Twi, Ga, Dagaare; Icelandic, India: Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Kannada, Punjabi, Assamese, Malayalam, Nepali, Oriya, Telugu, Urdu; Indonesian, Iran: Farsi; Israel: Hebrew; Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy 1990, Maltese [error], Mongol, Myanmar: Burmese; Nepali (cf. India: Nepali), NZ: Maori; Nig: Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo; Norwegian, North Sami; Pakistan: Urdu (cf. India: Urdu); PNG 1990: Dobuan, Huli, Kuanua, Motu, Pidgin; Par: Guarani; Phil: Tagalog, Ilocano, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Bicol; Polish, Samoan 1990, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, SA: Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, Venda, Swati; SK: Korean; Spain: Galician, Basque; Sri: Sinhala, Tamil (cf. India: Tamil); Tajik 1990, Thai 1990, Tibetan, Togo 1990: Bassa, Kabiye, Konkomba, Moba, Tem; Turkmen 1990, Ug: Ganda; Ukranian 1990, UK: Welsh; US: Hawaiian, Iñupiaq; Uzbek 1990, Viet, Zambia: Lozi, Bemba, Nyanja, Kaonde, Lunda, Vale, Tonga; Zimb: Shona
Albanian, Arabic, Cantonese, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Ewe, French, German, Greek 1990, Greco-, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Kiswahili, Malay, Mandarin, Ndebele, Portuguese, Romanian 1990, Russian 1990, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish 1990
It seems that the 2013 edition sometimes retains data from the 1990 edition without acknowledgement. It's more reliable than 1990, but contradicts RS's in several cases, such as Maltese and Dutch, and so still needs to be confirmed with additional sources. — kwami ( talk) 07:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just curious: the titlebar now has ⠃ ⠗ ⠇ for "braille". Is this the more common writing? The Braille infobox shows the seven letters transposed, and for me (a layman) this looks better as an illustration (more to the point, so to say). - DePiep ( talk) 17:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I added this template to the article for Braigo, but wasn't sure if I should add that link here. I did add it as a "see also" article at Braille embosser, which is in the technology section of this template. B7T ( talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fairly safe to propose a 'Cyrillic subfamily' within the French lineage of Braille systems. Almost every nations using Cyrillic as their national script, namely Bulgaria, Soviet Union (and its member SSRs) and Mongolia, modeled their Braille system on the imperial Russian Braille - except Yugoslavia, which preferred the interchangeability between Roman and Cyrillic writing systems just like in their printed books, but the usage of Cyrillic in Yugoslavia is relatively limited than the usage of Roman (used only in North Macedonia and (partly) Serbia).
In contrast, I doubt such subfamily could be proposed for, e.g. Arabic script - Persian, Arabic, and (old) Urdu Braille are developed separately, not elaborating the 'intra-scriptal uniformity' but rather following the phonological and pragmatic principles. Same goes for the Tibetan and Dzonkha - even though they use the same Tibetan script in printed books, which in turn a part of Indic script family, their Braille are developed separately and are shockingly different.
Despite that, I believe a section named 'other non-Roman mediated Brailles' within the French-based Braille lineage can be helpful (even though a bit misleading) for purely navigation convenience.
HighVoltage 06:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit: The above description about Perso-Arabic related Braille systems was based on a misunderstanding. Hence, I propose another subfamily, namely Perso-Arabic. I located it between the Russian-based Cyrillic systems and the Bharati Braille, according to the chronological order.
In conclusion, I propose the below:
HighVoltage 07:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)