From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 16:09:30 CDT
Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:
>> It is, however, the case, that all of the characters from WOLEAI
>> SYLLABLE YA to WOLEAI SYLLABLE U were derived from the Latin
>> alphabet. And yes, RI was derived from R. But it isn't R any more.
>> And although it ALSO has the glyph variants to prove it (reversed R,
>> turned R, flipped R) those are not necessary to "prove" its
>> difference. The syllabic nature of the Type 2 Woleai script
>> (116D0-116E2) is sufficient.
> Such things can be trivially unified if one has abstract characters
> representing scripts.
Writing systems just aren't like that. Sorry.
And abstract characters don't "represent" scripts, in the sense of
distinguishing Latin A from Greek Alpha. Scripts *contain* abstract
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 16:24:58 CDT