* Jarkko Hietaniemi
|
| You may consider trying to classify the artificial scripts a bit
| more. For example I *think* (I'm a bit rusty on my Elvish) that for
| Tengwar would be either Abjad (like Hebrew), or maybe Featural (like
| Hangul), and Cirth would be Alphabet (like Runic).
* DougEwell2@cs.com
|
| Alternatively, you may consider moving the "artificial"
| classification to a subcategory inside the main categories
| (alphabet, abjad, syllabary, etc.),
That would mean mixing things up, actually. The categories are defined
by the descendant relationships of the scripts, and how they came into
being. For this reason the semitic category, for example, mixes
together alphabets, abjads, and abugidas, because they have a common
ancestry.
The distinction between alphabets, abjads, and so on is a typology,
and therefore based on the features of each script with no regard to
their historical background.
To mix the "artificial" category in with the different types of
scripts would thus break the ontology by making it inconsistent. All
the "artificial" scripts have their types already, and artificiality
is not a type.
| or even doing away with the distinction altogether.
That might of course being a possibility, but it is not to be denied
that there is a commonality between Cirth, Deseret, Geyinzi, Jindaj
Moji, Shavian, Tengwar, and Utopian. This commonality is not captured
by the name of the category (as I've already admitted), but I can
think of no better alternative.
I feel that it is useful to have a single category for the scripts
that have never come into full use, and to keep them separate from the
scripts that have.
To put it another way: wouldn't it look strange to see Shavian
included in the Greek script family? Shavian has no relationship with
the Greek alphabet or the other scripts in that family. It is far more
like a shorthand than an alphabet.
| *All* scripts are man-made and thus "artificial" in a sense. [...]
I'm well aware of this (as I've already stated), but that is not the
criterion by which these scripts are distinguished. In fact, the page
on artificial scripts states the intent fairly clearly:
"Artificial scripts are scripts created for artificial or fictional
languages, or which have never seen use as the primary script for a
language community."
If you can think of a better name for this category I'd be very happy
to hear it.
| Cyrillic was created as [...]
|
| Even Tengwar and Cirth, [...]
You are clearly right about both of these things, but what that means
is not nearly as clear. If you want to argue that the category
artificial script is more artificial than the scripts contained in it
you are of course right in that, but all the categories are to some
extent artificial.
Look at "SE Asian scripts" and "Insular scripts of SE-Asia", for
example. How "real" is that categorization? Similarly, how "real" is
the "Aramaic script family"? To the best of my knowledge, all of these
were created by me.
In fact, the category system is one of the things I'd most like
feedback on. Do these categories make sense? Are there better ways of
arranging these scripts? And what about the scripts which have no
categories? Can any be assigned to existing categories? Should new
categories be created for some of them? If so, which?
--Lars M.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 11 2001 - 12:18:31 EDT