> 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.
That can be easily disproven as a definition of a cipher by creating a cipher which doesn't match those two criteria.
