From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 14:11:05 CDT
John H. Jenkins wrote:
> On May 20, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Andrew West wrote:
>> This document was created a few years ago, prior to acceptance of
>> Deseret into Unicode, so it is not actually encoded in Unicode, but it
>> is a text document. It would be nice if John could produce HTML
>> versions of these texts encoded in Unicode.
> Yes, I really should do that one of these days. *sigh*
> BTW, I think where we're running aground is on the use of the term
> "fantasy script." I'd define that as a writing system developed
> initially (if not primarily) for use in a fictional universe. This
> would include Tengwar and Klingon, but it would leave Deseret and
> Shavian out of the running, because they were intended for a real use
> in our largely non-fictional universe.
That does seem to be the distinction being drawn, but why should it be
drawn at all? Who cares why the script was *originally* invented? What
matters is how it has been used. The phoenician alphabet was probably
originally invented for pictographic purposes, does that mean we have to
consider Latin letters as pictograms? What bearing does original intent
have on the utility and usability of a script?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 14:11:58 CDT