Clarification, please, was Re: Berber/Tifinagh

From: Curtis Clark (jcclark@mockfont.com)
Date: Sun Nov 09 2003 - 14:36:04 EST

  • Next message: Tex Texin: "LAST Call for Papers- Unicode IUC25-March 2004- Washington, D.C., USA"

    on 2003-11-09 10:41 Michael Everson wrote:

    > I am appalled. I thought you understood something about Unicode, Philippe.

    At this point, I'm a bit puzzled about the circumstances in which an
    alphabet is a cipher of another, and when it isn't. In an offlist
    conversation, you, I, and others seemed to arrive at the consensus that
    the Theban "magickal script" was a cipher of Latin. And many years ago,
    you raised the question of whether Etruscan was a ciper of either Latin
    or Greek (as we both know now, it isn't). I assumed that the criteria
    were (1) the scripts can be used interchangeably to write a single
    language, and (2) there is a one-to-one correspondence between their glyphs.

    If Philippe were correct about the one-to-one correspondence, wouldn't
    the Latin glyphs be a cipher of the Tifinagh? And thus a glyph choice
    rather than a script choice?

    Let's say that the Klingons prevailed, and pIqaD were encoded. There is
    a one-to-one correspondence between the letters of pIqaD and single or
    groups of Latin letters (supposedly). Could one not make a pIqaD font in
    which the glyphs looked like the Latin letters or groups?

    I'm assuming I'm missing something here, and would like to know what it is.

    -- 
    Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
    Mockingbird Font Works                  http://www.mockfont.com/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 09 2003 - 15:15:55 EST