John Cowan ga kaita:
>
> Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
>
> >
> > All other additions are either extensions to existing scripts
> > or represent symbols or symbol collections. (Braille is not
> > generally considered a script.)
>
> This last seems highly debatable. Why is Braille not a script?
> I realize that the 256 dot-patterns mean different things in different
> contexts, but isn't that equally true of other scripts?
>
That's not the issue. The point is that Braille is an artificially
constructed system of symbols that is then used (in arbitrary and
complex ways. granted) to represent languages. I suppose, as Michael
Everson pointed out, that technically this could then be considered
a "script":
script. A set of graphic characters used for the written form of one or
more languages (ISO/IEC 10646-1 clause 4.34).
But then, since languages are also written with arbitrary numeric
ciphers, I suppose we should also claim that 0..9 constitute a
script. Or since languages are written with arbitrary collections of
humorous dingbats in rebuses, that collections of dingbats constitute
a script.
Sheesh, what a bunch of nit-pickers. ;-) So frankly, I don't care.
If you want to count Braille as a script rather than as a symbol
system, be my guest.
So the answer is either 36, 37, or 42.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT