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/




Reply via email to