Re: mixed-script writing systems

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 16:05:26 EST

  • Next message: Jim Allan: "Re: mixed-script writing systems" wrote at 11:17 AM on Friday, November 15, 2002:

    >So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
    >completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
    >single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
    >but not across scripts -- to imply that we need to encode new characters,
    >Latin delta, Latin theta and Latin yeru? Or, do we say that this writing
    >system is only *mostly* Latin-based, and that it mixes in a few characters
    >from other scripts?

    To look at the question another way:

    What if groups A and B have exactly the same lowercase graphemic
    inventory, let's say {a, c, m, e}, but exhibit the following disparate

    Group A writes the logically ordered graphemic sequence *acme* as "acme";
    group B as "emca".

    Group A pronounces the graphemic sequence "acme" as /acme/; group B as /stoi/.

    Group A uppercases the graphemic sequence "acme" as "ACME"; group B as
    "acme" (i.e., no uppercase).

    Group A ligates the sequence "acme" as "a" + "cme"; group B as "ac" + "me".

    Should these be two separate encodings? Why or why not? What are the
    MINIMAL triggers for separateness of encoding?

    The answers to these questions bear directly on your question.

    [I too have my own ideas about this, but will also be coy while awaiting
    responses. This is a test :-) ]


    Dean A. Snyder
    Scholarly Technology Specialist
    Center For Scholarly Resources, Sheridan Libraries
    Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
    The Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850 mobile: 410 245-7168 fax: 410-516-6229
    Digital Hammurabi:
    Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 16:42:01 EST