From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:17:14 EST
On 10/11/2003 14:53, John Hudson wrote:
> At 01:57 PM 11/10/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> Define "cypher", or "cipher", and I will either provide evidence that
>> the Theban script is not one or accept that, on your definition, it
>> is one. In the absence of a definition this discussion is
>> meaningless. Similarly if the definition is simply a whim as you
>> implied, so a personal subjective choice against which there can be
>> no evidence. Was it a whim that Theban and Klingon were rejected?
> There is a lot of philosophical ground between a 'whim' and something
> that is so clearly defined that it engenders no debate. I think a
> definition of cipher that focuses on a deliberate representation of a
> language with a set of signs that is different from that which is the
> conventional representation of the language by the vast majority of
> its users is sufficient. ...
OK, let's use this as a tentative working definition. But first we need
to clarify: how vast is a vast majority? As a hypothetical (I think)
example, suppose that a community of 100 Chinese-speaking Jews is found
which writes Chinese in Hebrew script, mainly for liturgical and
religious purposes. Quite a tiny majority of the users of Chinese. Is
this using Hebrew script as a cipher (obviously not one-to-one!) for
Chinese? Or is it a recognised use of a different script? Then, how is
the use of Theban script different?
> ... A working definition doesn't need to eliminate all grey areas: it
> is useful enough if it identifies what the grey areas are. ...
OK. But there is no grey area between being in Unicode and not being in
it, except I suppose being roadmapped for possible future inclusion.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 21:04:57 EST