John Cowan ga kaita:
> Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> > All other additions are either extensions to existing scripts
> > or represent symbols or symbol collections. (Braille is not
> > generally considered a script.)
> This last seems highly debatable. Why is Braille not a script?
> I realize that the 256 dot-patterns mean different things in different
> contexts, but isn't that equally true of other scripts?
That's not the issue. The point is that Braille is an artificially
constructed system of symbols that is then used (in arbitrary and
complex ways. granted) to represent languages. I suppose, as Michael
Everson pointed out, that technically this could then be considered
script. A set of graphic characters used for the written form of one or
more languages (ISO/IEC 10646-1 clause 4.34).
But then, since languages are also written with arbitrary numeric
ciphers, I suppose we should also claim that 0..9 constitute a
script. Or since languages are written with arbitrary collections of
humorous dingbats in rebuses, that collections of dingbats constitute
Sheesh, what a bunch of nit-pickers. ;-) So frankly, I don't care.
If you want to count Braille as a script rather than as a symbol
system, be my guest.
So the answer is either 36, 37, or 42.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT