Re: New contribution

From: John Hudson (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 15:25:15 EDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: New contribution"

    Rick McGowan wrote:

    >>More than once during this discussion, I've thought that something
    >>approaching a general
    >>principle might be stated as 'related dead scripts should be unified;
    >>their living
    >>descendants may be separately encoded'.
    > Personally I don't accept that as a general principle for several reasons.
    > One example: nobody has yet quite demonstrated that all the dead Brahmi
    > relatives, even excluding obvious near-modern scripts like Modi, are
    > actually completely unifiable in a way that would be implementable and
    > meaningful from rendering to sorting, etc, etc, and would satisfy all the
    > relevant scholars. However, there is a current in Brahmi scholarship that
    > obviously would like to unify as least *some* of the dead relatives. As
    > usual one question is which are to be unified, etc.

    I didn't think I needed to clarify the principle to state that un-unifiable things should
    not be unified. Disparate rendering behaviour is grounds for disunification, whatever
    general principles might be applied in considering related scripts that might be unified.
    The principle I suggests -- only as a possible guide to thinking about the issue -- would
    be applied *after* one had determined whether there were any practical impediments to

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants
       to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win.
    And I succeed sometimes
    In making him win.
                  - Charles Peguy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 16:16:51 EDT