RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 05:37:15 CDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts (was: Phoenician)"

    At 11:54 +0200 2004-05-13, Kent Karlsson wrote:

    >The burden of proof here is on who claims, not who disputes. WHY
    >would interleaving Thai and Lao make sense? Do all Thai read Lao,
    >and vice versa?

    Good questions.

    >Because the Lao letters derive from the Thai letters, AND both are
    >basically ordered the same way.

    What? The same can be said for Latin and Greek and Etruscan and
    Gothic and Coptic.

    >(Sorry for taking that as being generally known.)

    Thais and Laos are NOT universally literate in each other's scripts.
    A telephone book interfiling the two scripts would be a hopeless and
    illegible mess.

    It astonishes me that simple things like this are missed by some of
    you people, who are far too clever for your own good. ;-)

    >NOT interfiling them is a bit like not interfiling, e.g., all the
    >math A-Z with the ASCII A-Z. (Ok, that may be pushing the parallel a
    >bit far.)

    Not at all. It's pure and utter nonsense, that's all.

    >(The Thai letters in turn derive from the Khmer letters...

    That's not correct.

    >Though the apparent distance is a bit larger, so interfiling that
    >one too would not be a good idea.)

    They all derive from Brahmi, which derives from Aramaic, so why don't
    we just interfile all of them?


    >I'm saying that the interfiling does not matter for those that use only
    >one of the scripts. For those that use multiple very closely related
    >(both in letter set and internal ordering) scripts, interfiling makes sense.

    I disagree 100%. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 05:40:59 CDT