Clarification, please, was Re: Berber/Tifinagh

From: Curtis Clark (
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 14:36:04 EST

  • Next message: Tex Texin: "LAST Call for Papers- Unicode IUC25-March 2004- Washington, D.C., USA"

    on 2003-11-09 10:41 Michael Everson wrote:

    > I am appalled. I thought you understood something about Unicode, Philippe.

    At this point, I'm a bit puzzled about the circumstances in which an
    alphabet is a cipher of another, and when it isn't. In an offlist
    conversation, you, I, and others seemed to arrive at the consensus that
    the Theban "magickal script" was a cipher of Latin. And many years ago,
    you raised the question of whether Etruscan was a ciper of either Latin
    or Greek (as we both know now, it isn't). I assumed that the criteria
    were (1) the scripts can be used interchangeably to write a single
    language, and (2) there is a one-to-one correspondence between their glyphs.

    If Philippe were correct about the one-to-one correspondence, wouldn't
    the Latin glyphs be a cipher of the Tifinagh? And thus a glyph choice
    rather than a script choice?

    Let's say that the Klingons prevailed, and pIqaD were encoded. There is
    a one-to-one correspondence between the letters of pIqaD and single or
    groups of Latin letters (supposedly). Could one not make a pIqaD font in
    which the glyphs looked like the Latin letters or groups?

    I'm assuming I'm missing something here, and would like to know what it is.

    Curtis Clark        
    Mockingbird Font Works        

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 15:15:55 EST