From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 19:26:58 EST
At 13:57 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
>>So far we have not seen evidence that the Theban script is other
>>than a cypher for the Latin script..
>
>Define "cypher", or "cipher", and I will either provide evidence
>that the Theban script is not one or accept that, on your
>definition, it is one.
This has been done. Peter. It is a way of faking the glyphs of an
alphabet with hard-to-recognize glyphs. Substitution cypher, for
instance. Theban has a one-to-one relation with Latin, and is used as
such
Deseret at least has the decency to spell English phonetically.
>In the absence of a definition this discussion is meaningless.
Pointless perhaps.
>Similarly if the definition is simply a whim as you implied
I stated it. I didn't imply it.
>so a personal subjective choice against which there can be no evidence.
What, you want me to give you a loophole? Look, it took YEARS to get
Nuskhuri disunified from Mkhedruli, and Coptic from Greek. It was
troublesome to get YOGH disunified from EZH. I'm still working on
Cyrillic KU and WE. You think I'm bothered about Theban? ESR's
proposal shows it displayed *carved on objects*. You think that
convinces me of a plain-text need for it, disunified from Latin?
Think again.
>Was it a whim that Theban and Klingon were rejected?
Absolutely. Oh, certainly. Mm hmm. Yup.
>Because the Theban letters will necessarily appear incorrectly in
>LTR order, as they are encoded in Unicode as Latin letters with
>strong LTR properties.
No different from Old Italic.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 20:10:22 EST