Doug Ewell recently said:
> The closest I can come is something like "a script that was invented,
> generally by one person and in a relatively short period of time, rather
> than evolving from existing scripts in a gradual and progressive
> manner."
>
> But right away that definition includes not only Shavian, Tengwar,
> Cirth, Klingon, and most of the contents of ConScript, but also
> Ethiopic, Cherokee, Canadian Syllabics, Gothic, Deseret, and maybe Yi
> Syllabics, all of which are already encoded in Unicode.
[snip]
> I still believe that separating writing systems into a "natural" or
> "real" category and an "artificial" or "fictional" or "synthetic"
> category is much less straightforward than those labels imply.
If I went to a community whose language doesn't have a written form and
convinced them that Tengwar would be an ideal way of recording their
culture, would that make Tengwar more legitimate? Or cause people to regard
it as a higher priority?
Tim
-- Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Mar 18 2002 - 17:50:41 EST