From: Curtis Clark (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 14:36:04 EST
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 http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ Mockingbird Font Works http://www.mockfont.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 15:15:55 EST