Ar 15:55 -0700 1999-10-22, scríobh Ashley Yakeley:
>At 1999-10-22 11:45, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> -- and if they are not
>>just bizarre glyph variants of the Tibetan Script (as Enochian and Theban
>>might be considered to be with regard to English).
>
>Stop that, will you?
I don't get it.
>Theban, like the Alphabet of the Magi, Secret Etruscan, Noachite, Vehmic,
>the Inquisatorial alphabet, the Templar alphabet, the various versions of
>the Rose Cross cipher, and Pig-Pen, is a cipher for Latin.
Yes; there are more too (cf. Derolez Runica Manuscripta which shows some of
them).
>Should such things be encoded in Unicode or the ConScript Registry?
>Arguably they are, as you say, merely glyph variants and are best
>handled at the font level.
As I said, if these an alphabet is just a one-to-one cipher for another
alphabet (whether it's Daikini squiggles < Tibetan or Noachite < Latin)
then it's proper to think of it as a font variant, not a new script. Even
though the ConScript Registry is for fun, it shouldn't really be used for
that, but for "real" scripts. :-)
>Enochian, on the other hand, is a script for a language. I've never seen
>any English transliterated into Enochian. One might as well consider that
>Sir John Dee constructed the language and associated script in
>Elizabethan times, although he claimed that it was in fact the language
>angels use.
Proof? I'm not against it, I just want to see some evidence.
-- Michael Everson * Everson Gunn Teoranta * http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Guthán: +353 1 478 2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT