Re: New contribution

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 09:30:15 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: New contribution"

    At 11:11 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:

    >Peter, using a systematic transliteration
    >between two structurally identical scripts is
    >not comparable to hack encodings.

    Vide Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. Come on, gents.
    Don't try to tell me that I don't know the
    difference between a unifiable and a
    non-unifiable script. We did a pretty good
    roundup on what should be subsumed under
    Phoenician script, and NO it is NOT just a 1:1
    relationship of structurally identical scripts.
    You can't shoebox everything into a couple of
    mindless rules.

    The place the scripts have in history, their
    relevant descendants and antecedants, their
    letterforms, all of that has a bearing in
    identifying what is a unique script and what is

    It is reasonable to set a German restaurant menu
    with "Bratwurst mit Senf" written in Fraktur, or
    an Irish restaurant menu with "Bagún agus
    cabáiste" written in Gaelic type, and expect
    people to be able to read it. (Sütterlin is a
    hard style of Fraktur, with which people under 50
    are mostly unfamiliar, but it is not a different
    script, and its ductus isn't even all that
    bizarre if you know about Fraktur.

    It is not reasonable to set a Georgian restaurant menu in Nuskhuri script.
    It is not reasonable to set a Hebrew restaurant menu in Phoenician script.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 15:02:11 EDT