On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:54 AM Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote:
> Again: The source of 1855 EW and OI uses *different* letters than the 1859 > EW and OI do. This wasn’t accidental. It’s not hard to puzzle out or to > see. This isn’t random or even systematic natural development of > handwriting styles. It was a principled revision done on the basis of > phonetic analysis. English diphthongs EW and OI were first represented by > ligatures representing [ɪuː] and [ɒɪ], and then later by ligatures > representing [ɪʊ] and [ɔːɪ]. > Sutterlin was created by Ludwig Sütterlin in 1915. There's lots of principled revision going on all the time in the world's scripts that doesn't get recorded by Unicode, and this goes double for young constructed scripts, where people are playing around with them. > Indeed I would say to John Jenkins and Ken Beesley that the richness of > the history of the Deseret alphabet would be impoverished by treating the > 1859 letters as identical to the 1855 letters. > And yet the richness of the history of the Latin alphabet is not impoverished by treating https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I_littera_in_manuscripto.jpg (a monocase Latin cursive) as identical to part of the modern Latin-script alphabet, which besides casing, has split the i/j and u/v on the basis of phonetic analysis?
