On 04/05/2004 10:16, Dominikus Scherkl (MGW) wrote:
How do you distinguish those scripts that are rejected as 'ciphers'
of other scripts from those which you want to encode, if 1:1 correspondence
is not sufficient grounds for unification but visual dissimilarity
is grounds for disunification?
As far as I can follow Michaels arguments he says the following:
Disunification for scipts with 1:1 correspondence requires
- having distinct glyphs
- beeing a relevant script (e.g. historical important, because
other scipts do also derive from it, not only the one with the 1:1
correspondence).
The later isn't true especialy for Klingon, but it's also not true
for e.g. fraktur, because fraktur is the derived script, not latin.
Well, because Latin was encoded first, Fraktur was not separately
encoded as derived from Latin. But if, by some historical accident,
Fraktur had been encoded first, would it have been necessary to encode
Latin separately, or could they have been unified? I guess there are
many scripts for which the derived form is the one already encoded but
which have rather different archaic forms. For example, Arabic: some old
forms of Arabic script look rather different from the current script,
and are not derived from it but vice versa. Is this a good argument for
encoding them separately?
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
