Re: Clarification, please, was Re: Berber/Tifinagh

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 07:21:18 EST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Berber/Tifinagh"

    On 10/11/2003 03:38, wrote:

    >>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.
    >That can be easily disproven as a definition of a cipher by creating a cipher
    >which doesn't match those two criteria.
    And by pointing to an example where these criteria are met but one
    script is not a cipher of the other. See the example of Azerbaijani
    which I just posted. The same may well be true of many languages written
    in Hebrew script only by Jewish sub-communities, unless these are to be
    treated as ciphers.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 07:57:26 EST