RE: New contribution

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:50:06 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"

    > > 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
    > > 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