From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:50:06 EDT
> > Where it is not true to historical origins, I would not reckon
> > something as a cipher. We may come up with other reasons to decide
to
> > unify, but I do not think we should reach that decision because we
> > consider it a cipher.
>
> I assume you mean in the specific Phoenician case, not in the general
> case.
In any case where it does not correspond to historical origins, such as
the Phoenician case. If something was invented as a cipher, it should be
reckoned as a cipher. A principle exists (on the merits of which I have
no opinion) that it should not be encoded as a distinct script because
it is a cipher. If two "scriptoids" arose from a common origin by
independent threads of orthographic usage with no specific engineering
of one to be a cipher of the other, it should not be reckoned as a
cipher. They may or may not be unified, but unification should not be
based on one being considered a cipher of the other.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 12:29:08 EDT