Re: What to call it (was: Re: Boustrophedon

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Fri Nov 07 2008 - 14:06:51 CST

  • Next message: "Re: Bassa Script"

    On Nov 7, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > The design of the naming in Unicode seems to be that the name is
    > either a plural, or could stand when the word "script" is added (at
    > some point, not necessarily at the end, e.g. block names with
    > "Supplement" etc.). "Deseret Script" works well, even if Deseret is
    > a toponym.
    > More generally, just because a word is derived from a specific
    > context or linguistic background doesn't prevent it from taking on a
    > broader meaning over time. I would see nothing wrong with the term
    > "rune" being applied to symbols that are (or were) scratched into
    > wood, bone and stone and that bear a passing similarity to the
    > Nordic runes.

    Oh, I know why we did it and I agree that it was the right thing to
    do. And if words couldn't take on new meanings over time, languages
    wouldn't be nearly as flexible or useful as they are. It just always
    sounds odd to me to say "Deseret" meaning the script and not the
    place. (Or the bookstore, or the bank, or the newspaper, or the
    thrift shop/welfare program.)

    John H. Jenkins

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 07 2008 - 14:10:10 CST